# Gay marriage is not a constitutional right



## IndependantAce

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.


----------



## Moonglow

Not true, as many people that are married or become married do not have kids, can't have kids or will never have kids...


----------



## Kosh

IndependantAce said:


> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.



Marriage is not a right..

However since marriage licenses were born from racism, why do we still have them?


----------



## Dale Smith

Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.


----------



## ScienceRocks

explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Dale Smith said:


> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.



So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?

Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?

If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

IndependantAce said:


> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.


The right to marry is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

That gay Americans are entitled to due process and equal protection of the law is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in predicated solely on who they are violates their right to due process and equal protection of the law, rendering any such measure invalid and un-Constitutional.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence, of which _Obergefell_ is the progeny, is well over 100 years old, prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation.

If you’re going to ‘amend’ the Constitution to allow the states to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law, you’ll need to pass an ‘amendment’ repealing the 14th Amendment.

Good luck with that.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Kosh said:


> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is not a right..
> 
> However since marriage licenses were born from racism, why do we still have them?
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Marriage is in fact a right.


----------



## Kosh

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> The right to marry is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.
> 
> That gay Americans are entitled to due process and equal protection of the law is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.
> 
> To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in predicated solely on who they are violates their right to due process and equal protection of the law, rendering any such measure invalid and un-Constitutional.
> 
> The 14th Amendment jurisprudence, of which _Obergefell_ is the progeny, is well over 100 years old, prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation.
> 
> If you’re going to ‘amend’ the Constitution to allow the states to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law, you’ll need to pass an ‘amendment’ repealing the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Good luck with that.
Click to expand...


Proof that the far left supports racism!

Marriage licenses were born out of racism, to prevent whites and blacks from being married..

Now the same racist license is embraced by those that claim they are not racists..

Silly far left drones!


----------



## Kosh

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is not a right..
> 
> However since marriage licenses were born from racism, why do we still have them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Marriage is in fact a right.
Click to expand...


No it is not a right! Never has been a right!

Marriage licenses were used in racism, which you support!

A right is something that can not be taken away, and your right to be married to your significant other can be taken away, by your significant other. So they violated your "right" to be married.


----------



## Dale Smith

ABikerSailor said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?
> 
> Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?
> 
> If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.
Click to expand...




ABikerSailor said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?
> 
> Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?
> 
> If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.
Click to expand...


Be "hindu"....knock yourself out..... but Christianity does not condone homosexuality as it is offensive to God, the father and His son Jesus Christ.


----------



## Dale Smith

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> The right to marry is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.
> 
> That gay Americans are entitled to due process and equal protection of the law is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.
> 
> To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in predicated solely on who they are violates their right to due process and equal protection of the law, rendering any such measure invalid and un-Constitutional.
> 
> The 14th Amendment jurisprudence, of which _Obergefell_ is the progeny, is well over 100 years old, prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation.
> 
> If you’re going to ‘amend’ the Constitution to allow the states to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law, you’ll need to pass an ‘amendment’ repealing the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Good luck with that.[/QUO
> 
> We are not a nation of laws but rather one that follows the UCC of acts, statutes and codes which is what your beloved corporate "gubermint" passes by the thousands each and every year all designed to bring in revenue for the corporate shareholders. You don't have a fucking clue....seriously.
Click to expand...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Dale Smith said:


> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.


More ridiculous ignorance from the right.

Marriage is civil contract law, written by the states and administered by state courts.

Only civil contract law is subject to 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Marriage in the context of religious doctrine and dogma is not subject to 14th Amendment jurisprudence, where religious entities cannot be compelled by the state to accommodate same-sex couples.

If a couple – same- or opposite-sex – wishes to benefit from the contract law that is marriage, then they’ll need to marry in accordance with the contract law of their state of residence, including obtaining a marriage license.

And the states must allow all couples eligible to participate in a marriage contract to indeed do so, same- or opposite sex.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

'Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".'

Wrong.

In order for this ‘reasoning’ to be consistent, the states must also prohibit infertile opposite-sex couples from marrying as well.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Dale Smith said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?
> 
> Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?
> 
> If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?
> 
> Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?
> 
> If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be "hindu"....knock yourself out..... but Christianity does not condone homosexuality as it is offensive to God, the father and His son Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...


Got news for you, but Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality.  Matter of fact, when He was asked what the greatest commandment is, He said "Love God above all else, and love one another as you love God".  

Gender wasn't specified.

And.....................I also challenge you to show me in the Bible where it says that homosexuality is a sin.  Got news for you, you can't. 

However....................you CAN find a place in the Bible (namely the Old Testament, which is a Jewish not a Christian book), where it states that if one man lies with another it's an abomination.  Got news for you, that is from the book that talks about the rules for JEWISH priests, not anything to do with Christianity.  Leviticus is actually a manual for those who are Jewish priests, not Christians.

And by the way.................if a man lies with a woman on the same Naval command, she gets pregnant, and they decide to get married, that is also considered an "abomination" to the U.S. Navy, and one of those who are in the union have to be transferred to another command.  You can't have a married couple serving in the same command in the Navy.


----------



## Dragonlady

IndependantAce said:


> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.



If marriage is just for procreation, why do elderly people get married?  Shouldn't they be barred from marriage too since the woman is past the age of procreation?

Marriage is about far more than children, it's about loving and caring for another person, and wanting to share your life with them. 

From a legal standpoint, it allows one partner to make decisions on another partner's behalf when a partner is incapacitated or cannot make decisions for themselves and ensures that other family members cannot bar the partner from their bedside.


----------



## Dragonlady

Dale Smith said:


> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.



Real churches marry gay people all of the time.


----------



## Dale Smith

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> More ridiculous ignorance from the right.
> 
> Marriage is civil contract law, written by the states and administered by state courts.
> 
> Only civil contract law is subject to 14th Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> Marriage in the context of religious doctrine and dogma is not subject to 14th Amendment jurisprudence, where religious entities cannot be compelled by the state to accommodate same-sex couples.
> 
> If a couple – same- or opposite-sex – wishes to benefit from the contract law that is marriage, then they’ll need to marry in accordance with the contract law of their state of residence, including obtaining a marriage license.
> 
> And the states must allow all couples eligible to participate in a marriage contract to indeed do so, same- or opposite sex.
Click to expand...



You have no understanding of the 14th amendment and how it applies to state citizens as opposed to "federal gubermint" citizens....your knowledge of these very simple differences is obvious.


----------



## Dale Smith

Dragonlady said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Real churches marry gay people all of the time.
Click to expand...


Not Bible believing churches....501C3 churches do..... so they can maintain their tax free status....consider yourself "schooled".....


----------



## ABikerSailor

Yanno, there are several instances of churches marrying gays. 

Not only that, but there are several instances of them allowing gay clergy.

If the church can adapt, then why can't their followers?


----------



## Dragonlady

Dale Smith said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Real churches marry gay people all of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not Bible believing churches....501C3 churches do..... so they can maintain their tax free status....consider yourself "schooled".....
Click to expand...


Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and other denominations, allow individual congregations to decide. 

These are large world-wide mainstream churches.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Dragonlady said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Real churches marry gay people all of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not Bible believing churches....501C3 churches do..... so they can maintain their tax free status....consider yourself "schooled".....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and other denominations, allow individual congregations to decide.
> 
> These are large world-wide mainstream churches.
Click to expand...


Yanno, there are those that say that Sunni's and Shia's should be allowed to decide their way as well. 

Tribalism at it's best.   Allow the individual tribes to decide what is best for the faith overall.


----------



## IndependantAce

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> The right to marry is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.
> 
> That gay Americans are entitled to due process and equal protection of the law is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.
> 
> To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in predicated solely on who they are violates their right to due process and equal protection of the law, rendering any such measure invalid and un-Constitutional.
> 
> The 14th Amendment jurisprudence, of which _Obergefell_ is the progeny, is well over 100 years old, prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation.
> 
> If you’re going to ‘amend’ the Constitution to allow the states to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law, you’ll need to pass an ‘amendment’ repealing the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Good luck
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is not a right..
> 
> However since marriage licenses were born from racism, why do we still have them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Marriage is in fact a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> with that.
Click to expand...




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> The right to marry is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.
> 
> That gay Americans are entitled to due process and equal protection of the law is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.
> 
> To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in predicated solely on who they are violates their right to due process and equal protection of the law, rendering any such measure invalid and un-Constitutional.
> 
> The 14th Amendment jurisprudence, of which _Obergefell_ is the progeny, is well over 100 years old, prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation.
> 
> If you’re going to ‘amend’ the Constitution to allow the states to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law, you’ll need to pass an ‘amendment’ repealing the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Should be to hard; just repeal the 14th Amendment and draft a new one reinstating the parts which are worthy, but clearly define marriage as between opposite sex partners only.

Plus in doing so we could also get rid of abortion, killing 2 birds with one stone.

If Trump wins maybe we can work toward repealing the 14th Amendment..


----------



## Syriusly

IndependantAce said:


> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.



Hello 2015 calling.

Did you just wake up out of a coma and find out the Supreme Court ruled on this in 2015?


----------



## Syriusly

IndependantAce said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> The right to marry is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.
> 
> That gay Americans are entitled to due process and equal protection of the law is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.
> 
> To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in predicated solely on who they are violates their right to due process and equal protection of the law, rendering any such measure invalid and un-Constitutional.
> 
> The 14th Amendment jurisprudence, of which _Obergefell_ is the progeny, is well over 100 years old, prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation.
> 
> If you’re going to ‘amend’ the Constitution to allow the states to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law, you’ll need to pass an ‘amendment’ repealing the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Good luck
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is not a right..
> 
> However since marriage licenses were born from racism, why do we still have them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Marriage is in fact a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to marry is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.
> 
> That gay Americans are entitled to due process and equal protection of the law is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.
> 
> To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in predicated solely on who they are violates their right to due process and equal protection of the law, rendering any such measure invalid and un-Constitutional.
> 
> The 14th Amendment jurisprudence, of which _Obergefell_ is the progeny, is well over 100 years old, prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation.
> 
> If you’re going to ‘amend’ the Constitution to allow the states to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law, you’ll need to pass an ‘amendment’ repealing the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should be to hard; just repeal the 14th Amendment and draft a new one reinstating the parts which are worthy, but clearly define marriage as between opposite sex partners only.
> 
> Plus in doing so we could also get rid of abortion, killing 2 birds with one stone.
> 
> If Trump wins maybe we can work toward repealing the 14th Amendment..
Click to expand...


I am sure you will pursue that along with repealing the 13th Amendment.


----------



## MaryL

IndependantAce said:


> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.


I agree totally, but people are hammering away to indulge homosexuals on this, almost a tsunami FOR homosexual marriage.  I DO NOT  understand nor do I agree with the logic supporting gay marriage,  I just don't understand it. Much like the support for Donald Trump. He is damned  popular in the much the same vein, and that goes to the  easily manipulated fickle and inexplicable nature of the American voter. PT Barnum said : YOU can fool  most of the people some of the time, you cant can't fool all the people all the time.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You know, if you want to see what happens when religion hooks up with the state, check out the Vice Channel and watch Vice Essentials, the episode about being gay in Putin's Russia. 

It's pretty scary when the religious leaders hook up with the government to enforce morality on the people.

Over in Russia, gays aren't just talked bad about, they have to worry about actual torture squads running around, beating and torturing them and posting the video on the 'net.  And.............because they have State support for their actions, none of the aggressors are ever held accountable for their actions.


----------



## IndependantAce

ABikerSailor said:


> You know, if you want to see what happens when religion hooks up with the state, check out the Vice Channel and watch Vice Essentials, the episode about being gay in Putin's Russia.
> 
> It's pretty scary when the religious leaders hook up with the government to enforce morality on the people.
> 
> Over in Russia, gays aren't just talked bad about, they have to worry about actual torture squads running around, beating and torturing them and posting the video on the 'net.  And.............because they have State support for their actions, none of the aggressors are ever held accountable for their actions.


I'm sure if they kept it in the bedroom they wouldn't have anything to worry about.

If someone is publicly flaunting their homosexuality then I see no purpose in that other than to attract attention, and since many cultures historically have frowned on homosexuality, I'd say it's a pretty bad idea.

Problem is the "LGBT" movement is just about forcing acceptance on others; when sodomy laws were overturned homos already had the legal right to engage in relations without the state's intrusion, but they weren't content with that. Their goal was to make the state publicly give its stamp of approval to their lifestyle in the form of a "marriage license".


----------



## ABikerSailor

IndependantAce said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, if you want to see what happens when religion hooks up with the state, check out the Vice Channel and watch Vice Essentials, the episode about being gay in Putin's Russia.
> 
> It's pretty scary when the religious leaders hook up with the government to enforce morality on the people.
> 
> Over in Russia, gays aren't just talked bad about, they have to worry about actual torture squads running around, beating and torturing them and posting the video on the 'net.  And.............because they have State support for their actions, none of the aggressors are ever held accountable for their actions.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure if they kept it in the bedroom they wouldn't have anything to worry about.
> 
> If someone is publicly flaunting their homosexuality then I see no purpose in that other than to attract attention, and since many cultures historically have frowned on homosexuality, I'd say it's a pretty bad idea.
> 
> Problem is the "LGBT" movement is just about forcing acceptance on others; when sodomy laws were overturned homos already had the legal right to engage in relations without the state's intrusion, but they weren't content with that. Their goal was to make the state publicly give its stamp of approval to their lifestyle in the form of a "marriage license".
Click to expand...


If they kept it in the bedroom they wouldn't have to worry?

Wrong.  

One of the main tactics of a group called "Occupy Pedophilia" is to sign on to gay social sites, act like a gay person looking for another gay person, then they lure them to a secluded spot, surround them with 5 to 10 other guys, and then beat and torture them, in some cases they torture them to death. 

And by the way, acceptance means that you are willing to live with something, even if you disapprove of it.  Acceptance DOES NOT mean approval.


----------



## MaryL

Normal marriage is two people of the opposite sex having children and giving them shelter and  place to grow until they are old enough to strike out on their own. Gays only have babies under manufactured mechanical circumstances. Thing is nobody CARES who screws WHO. Just don't make homosexually a broken form of sexuality, in need of parity with heterosexuality. Nice try, kids, but I am not buying it. Neither should you if you have common sense.


----------



## mdk

IndependantAce said:


> I'm sure if they kept it in the bedroom they wouldn't have anything to worry about.
> 
> If someone is publicly flaunting their homosexuality then I see no purpose in that other than to attract attention, and since many cultures historically have frowned on homosexuality, I'd say it's a pretty bad idea.
> 
> Problem is the "LGBT" movement is just about forcing acceptance on others; when sodomy laws were overturned homos already had the legal right to engage in relations without the state's intrusion, but they weren't content with that. Their goal was to make the state publicly give its stamp of approval to their lifestyle in the form of a "marriage license".



And yet here you are complaining about gays and gay marriage. It doesn't appear _you_ are forced to accept or approve of anything.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Sexuality isn't a choice, it's hard wired into the brain's structure.  Doctors in Sweden have shown that the structure of gay female brains is the same of what it is in straight males, and the structure of gay male brains is the same as what straight females have. 

Homosexuality in the Brain | Brain Blogger

So, the only way to "cure" someone of being gay, is to basically go in, restructure the brain, and they will be straight. 

Only problem is, we don't have anywhere near the technology to do that, and even if we did, who would pay for something that might potentially erase you and replace you with another version?


----------



## IndependantAce

ABikerSailor said:


> Sexuality isn't a choice, it's hard wired into the brain's structure.  Doctors in Sweden have shown that the structure of gay female brains is the same of what it is in straight males, and the structure of gay male brains is the same as what straight females have.
> 
> Homosexuality in the Brain | Brain Blogger
> 
> So, the only way to "cure" someone of being gay, is to basically go in, restructure the brain, and they will be straight.
> 
> Only problem is, we don't have anywhere near the technology to do that, and even if we did, who would pay for something that might potentially erase you and replace you with another version?


Actually the brain has been shown to be neuroplastic and can change on its own. If anything "makes" people gay or transgender it's likely testosterone or estrogen imbalances which can be correct through natural means.


----------



## ABikerSailor

IndependantAce said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sexuality isn't a choice, it's hard wired into the brain's structure.  Doctors in Sweden have shown that the structure of gay female brains is the same of what it is in straight males, and the structure of gay male brains is the same as what straight females have.
> 
> Homosexuality in the Brain | Brain Blogger
> 
> So, the only way to "cure" someone of being gay, is to basically go in, restructure the brain, and they will be straight.
> 
> Only problem is, we don't have anywhere near the technology to do that, and even if we did, who would pay for something that might potentially erase you and replace you with another version?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the brain has been shown to be neuroplastic and can change on its own. If anything "makes" people gay or transgender it's likely testosterone or estrogen imbalances which can be correct through natural means.
Click to expand...


Yanno.....................I posted the scientific research link that can support my claim.

Question is....................can you?  Do you have a link to prove that it is because of imbalances in the brain (which was already formed)?

I posted links, can you?


----------



## WinterBorn

IndependantAce said:


> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.



Gay marriage itself is not a constitutional right.  But the SCOTUS ruled that the equal protection clause applies.

There is no legitimate reason for any state issued marriage license.   But to claim marriage is all about procreation is inaccurate.  Otherwise the state would not allow birth control for married couples.  It would also not allow the infertile or the old to marry.


----------



## DGS49

"Marriage," in the legal context, is an institution created by the State in order to promote and foster tangible social objectives which the State deems important.  Those objectives are mainly, the protection of the interests of children, and the protection of the interests of the non-working wife.

In the case of homosexuals, neither of these social objectives is applicable.  Homosexuals cannot reproduce, so there will be no offspring (absent extraordinary intervention), and any decision to designate one of the partners as a non-working "wife" or spouse would be entirely voluntary, thus protection by the state is unnecessary.

It is possible, however, for any State to deem it important to promote monogamy among homosexuals, especially male homosexuals, in light of the AIDS pandemic - and possibly other factors.  So there is no constitutional or logical reason why any given state could not expand its definition of "marriage" to  include same-sex couples, or for that matter, related-by-blood couples, parent-child couples, or multiples (polygamy).  This can only be done according to the Constitutions and laws of the various states.

And such a decision by a state would not diminish or effect the decision of any "church" to recognize only traditional marriages within its own membership.  (Although the USSC under President Clinton will surely disagree).

But the "Constitutional" argument for forcing States to accept gay "marriages" is preposterous and obviously flawed.  There is no right of "privacy" in the Constitution, and there are no "group" rights other than the right to "peaceably assemble" under the First Amendment.  The very idea that a "couple" has "Constitutional" rights is ridiculous and totally unprecedented.


----------



## Syriusly

IndependantAce said:


> [Q
> Problem is the "LGBT" movement is just about forcing acceptance on others; when sodomy laws were overturned homos already had the legal right to engage in relations without the state's intrusion, but they weren't content with that. Their goal was to make the state publicly give its stamp of approval to their lifestyle in the form of a "marriage license".



So to answer your original OP- Americans have a constitutional right to marriage- including gay Americans and straight Americans.

And what do you know of what the 'goal' of American gays are? From the beginning what they have fought for is to be treated legally equally before the law. 

Remember- people like you didn't repeal discriminatory anti-gay sodomy laws- the Supreme Court had to force you to accept that change. States still have those laws on the books. 

I have gay friends who have gotten married- and they wanted only one thing- to be treated equally in marriage- and now they are treated exactly equally with my wife and I- and that is how it should be.


----------



## Syriusly

WinterBorn said:


> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage itself is not a constitutional right.  But the SCOTUS ruled that the equal protection clause applies.
> 
> There is no legitimate reason for any state issued marriage license.   But to claim marriage is all about procreation is inaccurate.  Otherwise the state would not allow birth control for married couples.  It would also not allow the infertile or the old to marry.
Click to expand...


Marriage is a constitutional right- and the Supreme Court has ruled that the equal protection clause applies to all Americans- regardless of gender or sexual preference.

I think that there is a legitimate reason for state issued marriage licenses- but you are correct- as court repeatedly pointed out during the arguments, States don't care about procreation and marriage- except for when they are trying to deny marriage to gay couples. 

My 80 year old uncle recently married- exactly as legal a marriage as that of two fertile twenty year olds who planned on getting married.


----------



## Syriusly

DGS49 said:


> "Marriage," in the legal context, is an institution created by the State in order to promote and foster tangible social objectives which the State deems important.  Those objectives are mainly, the protection of the interests of children, and the protection of the interests of the non-working wife.
> 
> In the case of homosexuals, neither of these social objectives is applicable.  Homosexuals cannot reproduce, so there will be no offspring (absent extraordinary intervention), and any decision to designate one of the partners as a non-working "wife" or spouse would be entirely voluntary, thus protection by the state is unnecessary.



Sorry- that argument just doesn't fly. The evidence doesn't support your claim. 

"protection of the interests of children"- there are multiple examples of how the state doesn't relate marriage to this. 

Divorce- virtually every state now offers 'no fault' divorce- which does not consider the 'protection of the interests of children' in deciding whether or not parents can divorce. If 'protection of the interests of the children' were a priority, then that would be at least one of the primary factors in determining whether or not to grant a divorce- it isn't even mentioned.
First Cousins- several states such as Wisconsin(which forbid gay marriage) allow the marriage of First Cousins- BUT only if they can prove to the state that they cannot have children together.
Infertile couples- States don't care whether couples can- or want to have children when it comes to marriage. The state happily married my 80 year old uncle to his 70 year old bride and there is no chance they will have any children together. If it was about the 'potential for procreation' the State would treat an infertile couple the same as a gay couple.
Homosexual couples do have children- as noted by Justice Kennedy :_“There is an immediate legal injury and that’s the voice of these children,” he said. “There’s some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think?”_
And _"protection of the non-working wife"? _Really? Marriage law has been gender neutral in regards to marital support for a couple of decades now- so a non-working husband has just as much protection as a non-working wife- and the non-working spouse in a marriage that happens to be between two persons of the same gender. 

More importantly, spouses are treated as partners before the law- regardless of whether 1 spouse works or not.  This was of course the issue of the case regarding DOMA. Two women- legally married, but the Federal Government charged inheritance tax on the surviving spouse- simply because they were the same gender. 

Worth remembering their case- because I challenge you to tell me that these women were not married:
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer: 'A love affair that just kept on and on and on'

_Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were together for 40 years before they married in 2007. When Spyer died in 2009 Windsor, in the midst of her grief, was ordered to pay $363,000 in estate taxes as the federal government did not recognise the pair's marriage._

_The couple moved into an apartment near Washington Square in Manhattan, where Windsor still lives, and bought a house together in Southampton, Long Island. Windsor rose to the highest technical position within IBM, and Spyer saw patients in their apartment. In the years following the Stonewall riots they both marched and demonstrated for equal rights.

In 1977, aged 45, Spyer was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. They could still dance, Windsor told Buzzfeed, with Spyer ditching her crutches at the dance floor and leading with her good leg.

As Spyer's health deteriorated, Windsor eventually became her full-time care giver. Getting ready for bed could take an hour, preparing to leave the house in the morning three or four, she said in an interview with the NYU alumni magazine.

In 2007, Spyer's doctors told her she had one year left to live.

"Having gotten the bad prognosis she woke up the next morning and said: 'Do you still want to get married?'," Windsor said. "And I said 'Yes'. And she said: 'So do I'."

The pair flew to Canada that year with six friends and were married in Toronto. Windsor wore white, Thea was in all black. The ceremony was officiated by Canada's first openly gay judge, justice Harvey Brownstone.

"Many people ask me why get married," Windsor said in remarks on the steps of the supreme court in March, the day the court heard arguments in her case against Doma.

"I was 77, Thea was 75, and maybe we were older than that at that point, but the fact is that everybody treated it as different. It turns out marriage is different.

"I've asked a number of long-range couples, gay couples who they've got married, I've asked them: 'Was it different the next morning and the answer is always: 'Yes'.' It's a huge difference."

_


----------



## Syriusly

MaryL said:


> Normal marriage is two people of the opposite sex having children and giving them shelter and  place to grow until they are old enough to strike out on their own. .



Wow- so let me review some of the people I know who you say don't have a 'normal marriage'


My 80 year old uncle recently married his 70 year old bride- both have grown children- to you- 'not normal'
A good friend has been married for 40 years- she had to have her ovaries removed shortly after they married- they never had any children- to you- their marriage is 'not normal'
George Washington married Martha Washington- they never had any children- to you their marriage was 'not normal'
Rather than you going around and judging persons marriages- maybe just focus on making your own marriage a good one.


----------



## Syriusly

IndependantAce said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sexuality isn't a choice, it's hard wired into the brain's structure.  Doctors in Sweden have shown that the structure of gay female brains is the same of what it is in straight males, and the structure of gay male brains is the same as what straight females have.
> 
> Homosexuality in the Brain | Brain Blogger
> 
> So, the only way to "cure" someone of being gay, is to basically go in, restructure the brain, and they will be straight.
> 
> Only problem is, we don't have anywhere near the technology to do that, and even if we did, who would pay for something that might potentially erase you and replace you with another version?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the brain has been shown to be neuroplastic and can change on its own. If anything "makes" people gay or transgender it's likely testosterone or estrogen imbalances which can be correct through natural means.
Click to expand...


There is absolutely no evidence that can be done. But you are welcome to believe whatever you want, despite the lack of evidence.


----------



## Syriusly

DGS49 said:


> But the "Constitutional" argument for forcing States to accept gay "marriages" is preposterous and obviously flawed.  There is no right of "privacy" in the Constitution, and there are no "group" rights other than the right to "peaceably assemble" under the First Amendment.  The very idea that a "couple" has "Constitutional" rights is ridiculous and totally unprecedented.



Couples don't have Constitutional rights- persons do- you frankly don't understand the ruling.

And certainly not 'unprecidented'- this is the fourth time the Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws or regulations for being unconstitutional.


----------



## playtime

IndependantAce said:


> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.



infertile hetero couples cannot procreate either, so should they be denied the right to marry?

before gay marriage was legal, same sex couples could have been denied the right to make legal decisions on behalf of their partner... been banned from visiting them in the hospital if that was the wishes of their blood relatives, nor could not enter into certain contracts only allowed for married couples. 
anyhoo,  that is not the basis for the 'institute of marriage'.  try to learn true facts before posting something that is basically just your emotional opinion & personal religious hang ups.

*History of Marriage: 13 Surprising Facts*
By Tia Ghose, Senior Writer | June 26, 2013

"..."What marriage had in common was that it really was not about the relationship between the man and the woman," said Stephanie Coontz, the author of "Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage," (Penguin Books, 2006). "It was a way of getting in-laws, of making alliances and expanding the family labor force."

But as family plots of land gave way to market economies and Kings ceded power to democracies, the notion of marriage transformed. Now, most Americans see marriage as a bond between equals that's all about love and companionship. [I Don't: 5 Myths About Marriage] That changing definition has paved the way for same-sex marriage and Wednesday's (June 26) Supreme Court rulings, which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and dismissed a case concerning Proposition 8. From polygamy to same-sex marriage, here are 13 milestones in the history of marriage.

*1. Arranged alliances*
[...]
*2. Family ties*
[...]
*3. Polygamy preferred*
[...]
*4. Babies optional*
[...]
*5. Monogamy established*
[...]
*6. Monogamy lite*
[...]
* 7. State or church?*
[...]
*8. Civil marriage* 
[...]
*9. Love matches*
[...]
*10. Market economics*
[...]
*11. Different spheres* 
[...]
*12. Partnership of equals*
[...]
*13. Gay marriage gains ground*
[...]
13 Facts on the History of Marriage


----------



## playtime

ABikerSailor said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?
> 
> Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?
> 
> If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?
> 
> Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?
> 
> If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be "hindu"....knock yourself out..... but Christianity does not condone homosexuality as it is offensive to God, the father and His son Jesus Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got news for you, but Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality.  Matter of fact, when He was asked what the greatest commandment is, He said "Love God above all else, and love one another as you love God".
> 
> Gender wasn't specified.
> 
> And.....................I also challenge you to show me in the Bible where it says that homosexuality is a sin.  Got news for you, you can't.
> 
> However....................you CAN find a place in the Bible (namely the Old Testament, which is a Jewish not a Christian book), where it states that if one man lies with another it's an abomination.  Got news for you, that is from the book that talks about the rules for JEWISH priests, not anything to do with Christianity.  Leviticus is actually a manual for those who are Jewish priests, not Christians.
> 
> And by the way.................if a man lies with a woman on the same Naval command, she gets pregnant, and they decide to get married, that is also considered an "abomination" to the U.S. Navy, and one of those who are in the union have to be transferred to another command.  You can't have a married couple serving in the same command in the Navy.
Click to expand...


don't forget in the OT, the story of Sodom & Gomorrah- where a lot of zealots like to reference to 'prove' that homosexuality is sinful because the Bible 'says so'... usually tend to leave out the fact that the story also says Lot had sex with his 2 daughters.  ummmm, does anybody find THAT sinful?

 sex between 2 consenting unrelated same gender adults... bad.
sex between blood relatives... not?


----------



## rightwinger

IndependantAce said:


> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.



Marriage is in the hands of the states. It is the states who issue marriage licenses

The federal government is concerned with equal treatment under the law...just like when states said that blacks and whites could not marry


----------



## playtime

MaryL said:


> Normal marriage is two people of the opposite sex having children and giving them shelter and  place to grow until they are old enough to strike out on their own. Gays only have babies under manufactured mechanical circumstances. Thing is nobody CARES who screws WHO. Just don't make homosexually a broken form of sexuality, in need of parity with heterosexuality. Nice try, kids, but I am not buying it. Neither should you if you have common sense.



you do realize that any sexual acts between homosexuals is identical to heterosexuals.  the only difference may be a matter of preference.  nor does every sex act end in pregnancy.


----------



## bodecea

IndependantAce said:


> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.


Good luck with that.


----------



## JoeMoma

playtime said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Normal marriage is two people of the opposite sex having children and giving them shelter and  place to grow until they are old enough to strike out on their own. Gays only have babies under manufactured mechanical circumstances. Thing is nobody CARES who screws WHO. Just don't make homosexually a broken form of sexuality, in need of parity with heterosexuality. Nice try, kids, but I am not buying it. Neither should you if you have common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you do realize that any sexual acts between homosexuals is identical to heterosexuals.  the only difference may be a matter of preference.  nor does every sex act end in pregnancy.
Click to expand...

No!  A man has a penis that mates up perfectly with a woman's vagina.

Have you ever tried to plug the two male ends of two electrical cords together or the two female ends together?  They just don't seem to mate up right.


----------



## JoeMoma

playtime said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?
> 
> Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?
> 
> If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?
> 
> Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?
> 
> If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be "hindu"....knock yourself out..... but Christianity does not condone homosexuality as it is offensive to God, the father and His son Jesus Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got news for you, but Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality.  Matter of fact, when He was asked what the greatest commandment is, He said "Love God above all else, and love one another as you love God".
> 
> Gender wasn't specified.
> 
> And.....................I also challenge you to show me in the Bible where it says that homosexuality is a sin.  Got news for you, you can't.
> 
> However....................you CAN find a place in the Bible (namely the Old Testament, which is a Jewish not a Christian book), where it states that if one man lies with another it's an abomination.  Got news for you, that is from the book that talks about the rules for JEWISH priests, not anything to do with Christianity.  Leviticus is actually a manual for those who are Jewish priests, not Christians.
> 
> And by the way.................if a man lies with a woman on the same Naval command, she gets pregnant, and they decide to get married, that is also considered an "abomination" to the U.S. Navy, and one of those who are in the union have to be transferred to another command.  You can't have a married couple serving in the same command in the Navy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> don't forget in the OT, the story of Sodom & Gomorrah- where a lot of zealots like to reference to 'prove' that homosexuality is sinful because the Bible 'says so'... usually tend to leave out the fact that the story also says Lot had sex with his 2 daughters.  ummmm, does anybody find THAT sinful?
> 
> sex between 2 consenting unrelated same gender adults... bad.
> sex between blood relatives... not?
Click to expand...

And that was also a sinful act, just as David's adulterous relationship with Basheaba was sinful.  Nowhere in the Bible is Lot having sex with his daughter's portrayed as being acceptable.


----------



## playtime

JoeMoma said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Normal marriage is two people of the opposite sex having children and giving them shelter and  place to grow until they are old enough to strike out on their own. Gays only have babies under manufactured mechanical circumstances. Thing is nobody CARES who screws WHO. Just don't make homosexually a broken form of sexuality, in need of parity with heterosexuality. Nice try, kids, but I am not buying it. Neither should you if you have common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you do realize that any sexual acts between homosexuals is identical to heterosexuals.  the only difference may be a matter of preference.  nor does every sex act end in pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No!  A man has a penis that mates up perfectly with a woman's vagina.
> 
> Have you ever tried to plug the two male ends of two electrical cords together or the two female ends together?  They just don't seem to mate up right.
Click to expand...


what a man (or woman) does with another man (or woman)  can physically be done between a man & woman.


----------



## playtime

JoeMoma said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?
> 
> Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?
> 
> If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?
> 
> Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?
> 
> If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be "hindu"....knock yourself out..... but Christianity does not condone homosexuality as it is offensive to God, the father and His son Jesus Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got news for you, but Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality.  Matter of fact, when He was asked what the greatest commandment is, He said "Love God above all else, and love one another as you love God".
> 
> Gender wasn't specified.
> 
> And.....................I also challenge you to show me in the Bible where it says that homosexuality is a sin.  Got news for you, you can't.
> 
> However....................you CAN find a place in the Bible (namely the Old Testament, which is a Jewish not a Christian book), where it states that if one man lies with another it's an abomination.  Got news for you, that is from the book that talks about the rules for JEWISH priests, not anything to do with Christianity.  Leviticus is actually a manual for those who are Jewish priests, not Christians.
> 
> And by the way.................if a man lies with a woman on the same Naval command, she gets pregnant, and they decide to get married, that is also considered an "abomination" to the U.S. Navy, and one of those who are in the union have to be transferred to another command.  You can't have a married couple serving in the same command in the Navy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> don't forget in the OT, the story of Sodom & Gomorrah- where a lot of zealots like to reference to 'prove' that homosexuality is sinful because the Bible 'says so'... usually tend to leave out the fact that the story also says Lot had sex with his 2 daughters.  ummmm, does anybody find THAT sinful?
> 
> sex between 2 consenting unrelated same gender adults... bad.
> sex between blood relatives... not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that was also a sinful act, just as David's adulterous relationship with Basheaba was sinful.  Nowhere in the Bible is Lot having sex with his daughter's portrayed as being acceptable.
Click to expand...


it's called sarcasm.  btw, not everyone has a religious hang up about  sex, so to try & regulate it,  as in what is 'morally' acceptable between consenting adults- is futile.


----------



## JoeMoma

JoeMoma said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?
> 
> Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?
> 
> If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?
> 
> Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?
> 
> If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be "hindu"....knock yourself out..... but Christianity does not condone homosexuality as it is offensive to God, the father and His son Jesus Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got news for you, but Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality.  Matter of fact, when He was asked what the greatest commandment is, He said "Love God above all else, and love one another as you love God".
> 
> Gender wasn't specified.
> 
> And.....................I also challenge you to show me in the Bible where it says that homosexuality is a sin.  Got news for you, you can't.
> 
> However....................you CAN find a place in the Bible (namely the Old Testament, which is a Jewish not a Christian book), where it states that if one man lies with another it's an abomination.  Got news for you, that is from the book that talks about the rules for JEWISH priests, not anything to do with Christianity.  Leviticus is actually a manual for those who are Jewish priests, not Christians.
> 
> And by the way.................if a man lies with a woman on the same Naval command, she gets pregnant, and they decide to get married, that is also considered an "abomination" to the U.S. Navy, and one of those who are in the union have to be transferred to another command.  You can't have a married couple serving in the same command in the Navy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> don't forget in the OT, the story of Sodom & Gomorrah- where a lot of zealots like to reference to 'prove' that homosexuality is sinful because the Bible 'says so'... usually tend to leave out the fact that the story also says Lot had sex with his 2 daughters.  ummmm, does anybody find THAT sinful?
> 
> sex between 2 consenting unrelated same gender adults... bad.
> sex between blood relatives... not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that was also a sinful act, just as David's adulterous relationship with Basheaba was sinful.  Nowhere in the Bible is Lot having sex with his daughter's portrayed as being acceptable.
Click to expand...




playtime said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Normal marriage is two people of the opposite sex having children and giving them shelter and  place to grow until they are old enough to strike out on their own. Gays only have babies under manufactured mechanical circumstances. Thing is nobody CARES who screws WHO. Just don't make homosexually a broken form of sexuality, in need of parity with heterosexuality. Nice try, kids, but I am not buying it. Neither should you if you have common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you do realize that any sexual acts between homosexuals is identical to heterosexuals.  the only difference may be a matter of preference.  nor does every sex act end in pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No!  A man has a penis that mates up perfectly with a woman's vagina.
> 
> Have you ever tried to plug the two male ends of two electrical cords together or the two female ends together?  They just don't seem to mate up right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what a man (or woman) does with another man (or woman)  can physically be done between a man & woman.
Click to expand...

Not unless one of the men has a vagina.  An ass hole is not a vagina.


----------



## playtime

JoeMoma said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?
> 
> Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?
> 
> If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?
> 
> Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?
> 
> If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be "hindu"....knock yourself out..... but Christianity does not condone homosexuality as it is offensive to God, the father and His son Jesus Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got news for you, but Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality.  Matter of fact, when He was asked what the greatest commandment is, He said "Love God above all else, and love one another as you love God".
> 
> Gender wasn't specified.
> 
> And.....................I also challenge you to show me in the Bible where it says that homosexuality is a sin.  Got news for you, you can't.
> 
> However....................you CAN find a place in the Bible (namely the Old Testament, which is a Jewish not a Christian book), where it states that if one man lies with another it's an abomination.  Got news for you, that is from the book that talks about the rules for JEWISH priests, not anything to do with Christianity.  Leviticus is actually a manual for those who are Jewish priests, not Christians.
> 
> And by the way.................if a man lies with a woman on the same Naval command, she gets pregnant, and they decide to get married, that is also considered an "abomination" to the U.S. Navy, and one of those who are in the union have to be transferred to another command.  You can't have a married couple serving in the same command in the Navy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> don't forget in the OT, the story of Sodom & Gomorrah- where a lot of zealots like to reference to 'prove' that homosexuality is sinful because the Bible 'says so'... usually tend to leave out the fact that the story also says Lot had sex with his 2 daughters.  ummmm, does anybody find THAT sinful?
> 
> sex between 2 consenting unrelated same gender adults... bad.
> sex between blood relatives... not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that was also a sinful act, just as David's adulterous relationship with Basheaba was sinful.  Nowhere in the Bible is Lot having sex with his daughter's portrayed as being acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Normal marriage is two people of the opposite sex having children and giving them shelter and  place to grow until they are old enough to strike out on their own. Gays only have babies under manufactured mechanical circumstances. Thing is nobody CARES who screws WHO. Just don't make homosexually a broken form of sexuality, in need of parity with heterosexuality. Nice try, kids, but I am not buying it. Neither should you if you have common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you do realize that any sexual acts between homosexuals is identical to heterosexuals.  the only difference may be a matter of preference.  nor does every sex act end in pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No!  A man has a penis that mates up perfectly with a woman's vagina.
> 
> Have you ever tried to plug the two male ends of two electrical cords together or the two female ends together?  They just don't seem to mate up right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what a man (or woman) does with another man (or woman)  can physically be done between a man & woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not unless one of the men has a vagina.  An ass hole is not a vagina.
Click to expand...


so that particular sex act is never performed between a man & a woman?  NEVER?    NEVER EVER? 

lol.


----------



## rightwinger

JoeMoma said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?
> 
> Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?
> 
> If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?
> 
> Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?
> 
> If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be "hindu"....knock yourself out..... but Christianity does not condone homosexuality as it is offensive to God, the father and His son Jesus Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got news for you, but Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality.  Matter of fact, when He was asked what the greatest commandment is, He said "Love God above all else, and love one another as you love God".
> 
> Gender wasn't specified.
> 
> And.....................I also challenge you to show me in the Bible where it says that homosexuality is a sin.  Got news for you, you can't.
> 
> However....................you CAN find a place in the Bible (namely the Old Testament, which is a Jewish not a Christian book), where it states that if one man lies with another it's an abomination.  Got news for you, that is from the book that talks about the rules for JEWISH priests, not anything to do with Christianity.  Leviticus is actually a manual for those who are Jewish priests, not Christians.
> 
> And by the way.................if a man lies with a woman on the same Naval command, she gets pregnant, and they decide to get married, that is also considered an "abomination" to the U.S. Navy, and one of those who are in the union have to be transferred to another command.  You can't have a married couple serving in the same command in the Navy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> don't forget in the OT, the story of Sodom & Gomorrah- where a lot of zealots like to reference to 'prove' that homosexuality is sinful because the Bible 'says so'... usually tend to leave out the fact that the story also says Lot had sex with his 2 daughters.  ummmm, does anybody find THAT sinful?
> 
> sex between 2 consenting unrelated same gender adults... bad.
> sex between blood relatives... not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that was also a sinful act, just as David's adulterous relationship with Basheaba was sinful.  Nowhere in the Bible is Lot having sex with his daughter's portrayed as being acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Normal marriage is two people of the opposite sex having children and giving them shelter and  place to grow until they are old enough to strike out on their own. Gays only have babies under manufactured mechanical circumstances. Thing is nobody CARES who screws WHO. Just don't make homosexually a broken form of sexuality, in need of parity with heterosexuality. Nice try, kids, but I am not buying it. Neither should you if you have common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you do realize that any sexual acts between homosexuals is identical to heterosexuals.  the only difference may be a matter of preference.  nor does every sex act end in pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No!  A man has a penis that mates up perfectly with a woman's vagina.
> 
> Have you ever tried to plug the two male ends of two electrical cords together or the two female ends together?  They just don't seem to mate up right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what a man (or woman) does with another man (or woman)  can physically be done between a man & woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not unless one of the men has a vagina.  An ass hole is not a vagina.
Click to expand...

You are not a vagina....but still an asshole


----------



## JoeMoma

rightwinger said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be "hindu"....knock yourself out..... but Christianity does not condone homosexuality as it is offensive to God, the father and His son Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got news for you, but Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality.  Matter of fact, when He was asked what the greatest commandment is, He said "Love God above all else, and love one another as you love God".
> 
> Gender wasn't specified.
> 
> And.....................I also challenge you to show me in the Bible where it says that homosexuality is a sin.  Got news for you, you can't.
> 
> However....................you CAN find a place in the Bible (namely the Old Testament, which is a Jewish not a Christian book), where it states that if one man lies with another it's an abomination.  Got news for you, that is from the book that talks about the rules for JEWISH priests, not anything to do with Christianity.  Leviticus is actually a manual for those who are Jewish priests, not Christians.
> 
> And by the way.................if a man lies with a woman on the same Naval command, she gets pregnant, and they decide to get married, that is also considered an "abomination" to the U.S. Navy, and one of those who are in the union have to be transferred to another command.  You can't have a married couple serving in the same command in the Navy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> don't forget in the OT, the story of Sodom & Gomorrah- where a lot of zealots like to reference to 'prove' that homosexuality is sinful because the Bible 'says so'... usually tend to leave out the fact that the story also says Lot had sex with his 2 daughters.  ummmm, does anybody find THAT sinful?
> 
> sex between 2 consenting unrelated same gender adults... bad.
> sex between blood relatives... not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that was also a sinful act, just as David's adulterous relationship with Basheaba was sinful.  Nowhere in the Bible is Lot having sex with his daughter's portrayed as being acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Normal marriage is two people of the opposite sex having children and giving them shelter and  place to grow until they are old enough to strike out on their own. Gays only have babies under manufactured mechanical circumstances. Thing is nobody CARES who screws WHO. Just don't make homosexually a broken form of sexuality, in need of parity with heterosexuality. Nice try, kids, but I am not buying it. Neither should you if you have common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you do realize that any sexual acts between homosexuals is identical to heterosexuals.  the only difference may be a matter of preference.  nor does every sex act end in pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No!  A man has a penis that mates up perfectly with a woman's vagina.
> 
> Have you ever tried to plug the two male ends of two electrical cords together or the two female ends together?  They just don't seem to mate up right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what a man (or woman) does with another man (or woman)  can physically be done between a man & woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not unless one of the men has a vagina.  An ass hole is not a vagina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not a vagina....but still an asshole
Click to expand...

Coming from you that's a complement.


----------



## Dale Smith

rightwinger said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be "hindu"....knock yourself out..... but Christianity does not condone homosexuality as it is offensive to God, the father and His son Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got news for you, but Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality.  Matter of fact, when He was asked what the greatest commandment is, He said "Love God above all else, and love one another as you love God".
> 
> Gender wasn't specified.
> 
> And.....................I also challenge you to show me in the Bible where it says that homosexuality is a sin.  Got news for you, you can't.
> 
> However....................you CAN find a place in the Bible (namely the Old Testament, which is a Jewish not a Christian book), where it states that if one man lies with another it's an abomination.  Got news for you, that is from the book that talks about the rules for JEWISH priests, not anything to do with Christianity.  Leviticus is actually a manual for those who are Jewish priests, not Christians.
> 
> And by the way.................if a man lies with a woman on the same Naval command, she gets pregnant, and they decide to get married, that is also considered an "abomination" to the U.S. Navy, and one of those who are in the union have to be transferred to another command.  You can't have a married couple serving in the same command in the Navy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> don't forget in the OT, the story of Sodom & Gomorrah- where a lot of zealots like to reference to 'prove' that homosexuality is sinful because the Bible 'says so'... usually tend to leave out the fact that the story also says Lot had sex with his 2 daughters.  ummmm, does anybody find THAT sinful?
> 
> sex between 2 consenting unrelated same gender adults... bad.
> sex between blood relatives... not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that was also a sinful act, just as David's adulterous relationship with Basheaba was sinful.  Nowhere in the Bible is Lot having sex with his daughter's portrayed as being acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Normal marriage is two people of the opposite sex having children and giving them shelter and  place to grow until they are old enough to strike out on their own. Gays only have babies under manufactured mechanical circumstances. Thing is nobody CARES who screws WHO. Just don't make homosexually a broken form of sexuality, in need of parity with heterosexuality. Nice try, kids, but I am not buying it. Neither should you if you have common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you do realize that any sexual acts between homosexuals is identical to heterosexuals.  the only difference may be a matter of preference.  nor does every sex act end in pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No!  A man has a penis that mates up perfectly with a woman's vagina.
> 
> Have you ever tried to plug the two male ends of two electrical cords together or the two female ends together?  They just don't seem to mate up right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what a man (or woman) does with another man (or woman)  can physically be done between a man & woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not unless one of the men has a vagina.  An ass hole is not a vagina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not a vagina....but still an asshole
Click to expand...


Using GLSEN, an offshoot of the LGBT, they are preaching the merits of faggotry to kids in grade school. Under Common Core, teachers are being encouraged to use queer couples as examples in teaching. Liberals really are sick motherfuckers. They will be jumping on the "Normalizing Of Adults Attracted To Children" bandwagon next...that move has already been played. Salon.Com has given a pedophile a platform from which to speak......


----------



## JoeMoma

playtime said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be "hindu"....knock yourself out..... but Christianity does not condone homosexuality as it is offensive to God, the father and His son Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got news for you, but Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality.  Matter of fact, when He was asked what the greatest commandment is, He said "Love God above all else, and love one another as you love God".
> 
> Gender wasn't specified.
> 
> And.....................I also challenge you to show me in the Bible where it says that homosexuality is a sin.  Got news for you, you can't.
> 
> However....................you CAN find a place in the Bible (namely the Old Testament, which is a Jewish not a Christian book), where it states that if one man lies with another it's an abomination.  Got news for you, that is from the book that talks about the rules for JEWISH priests, not anything to do with Christianity.  Leviticus is actually a manual for those who are Jewish priests, not Christians.
> 
> And by the way.................if a man lies with a woman on the same Naval command, she gets pregnant, and they decide to get married, that is also considered an "abomination" to the U.S. Navy, and one of those who are in the union have to be transferred to another command.  You can't have a married couple serving in the same command in the Navy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> don't forget in the OT, the story of Sodom & Gomorrah- where a lot of zealots like to reference to 'prove' that homosexuality is sinful because the Bible 'says so'... usually tend to leave out the fact that the story also says Lot had sex with his 2 daughters.  ummmm, does anybody find THAT sinful?
> 
> sex between 2 consenting unrelated same gender adults... bad.
> sex between blood relatives... not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that was also a sinful act, just as David's adulterous relationship with Basheaba was sinful.  Nowhere in the Bible is Lot having sex with his daughter's portrayed as being acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Normal marriage is two people of the opposite sex having children and giving them shelter and  place to grow until they are old enough to strike out on their own. Gays only have babies under manufactured mechanical circumstances. Thing is nobody CARES who screws WHO. Just don't make homosexually a broken form of sexuality, in need of parity with heterosexuality. Nice try, kids, but I am not buying it. Neither should you if you have common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you do realize that any sexual acts between homosexuals is identical to heterosexuals.  the only difference may be a matter of preference.  nor does every sex act end in pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No!  A man has a penis that mates up perfectly with a woman's vagina.
> 
> Have you ever tried to plug the two male ends of two electrical cords together or the two female ends together?  They just don't seem to mate up right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what a man (or woman) does with another man (or woman)  can physically be done between a man & woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not unless one of the men has a vagina.  An ass hole is not a vagina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so that particular sex act is never performed between a man & a woman?  NEVER?    NEVER EVER?
> 
> lol.
Click to expand...

We have not yet discussed that PARTICULAR sex act.  That being said, some sex acts between a man and a woman can not be performed by a man and a man because there is a different combination of body parts.    If you don't understand this, I'm sorry, but I am not going to be crude enough to describe the details.


----------



## MaryL

Someone somewhere is  going to be offended that they can't marry as a sign of acceptance into popular culture. What's next, cannibal head hunting midgets are a new found minority that can't practice their form of lifestyle and need civil rights  because they are being discriminated against? Think that's extreme? Satanist polygamist that practice human sacrifice? Absurd and extreme?   Well, so is the need for gay marriage, extreme, unnecessary and inane. This is another example of political correctness gone awry.


----------



## playtime

JoeMoma said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got news for you, but Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality.  Matter of fact, when He was asked what the greatest commandment is, He said "Love God above all else, and love one another as you love God".
> 
> Gender wasn't specified.
> 
> And.....................I also challenge you to show me in the Bible where it says that homosexuality is a sin.  Got news for you, you can't.
> 
> However....................you CAN find a place in the Bible (namely the Old Testament, which is a Jewish not a Christian book), where it states that if one man lies with another it's an abomination.  Got news for you, that is from the book that talks about the rules for JEWISH priests, not anything to do with Christianity.  Leviticus is actually a manual for those who are Jewish priests, not Christians.
> 
> And by the way.................if a man lies with a woman on the same Naval command, she gets pregnant, and they decide to get married, that is also considered an "abomination" to the U.S. Navy, and one of those who are in the union have to be transferred to another command.  You can't have a married couple serving in the same command in the Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> don't forget in the OT, the story of Sodom & Gomorrah- where a lot of zealots like to reference to 'prove' that homosexuality is sinful because the Bible 'says so'... usually tend to leave out the fact that the story also says Lot had sex with his 2 daughters.  ummmm, does anybody find THAT sinful?
> 
> sex between 2 consenting unrelated same gender adults... bad.
> sex between blood relatives... not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that was also a sinful act, just as David's adulterous relationship with Basheaba was sinful.  Nowhere in the Bible is Lot having sex with his daughter's portrayed as being acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> you do realize that any sexual acts between homosexuals is identical to heterosexuals.  the only difference may be a matter of preference.  nor does every sex act end in pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No!  A man has a penis that mates up perfectly with a woman's vagina.
> 
> Have you ever tried to plug the two male ends of two electrical cords together or the two female ends together?  They just don't seem to mate up right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what a man (or woman) does with another man (or woman)  can physically be done between a man & woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not unless one of the men has a vagina.  An ass hole is not a vagina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so that particular sex act is never performed between a man & a woman?  NEVER?    NEVER EVER?
> 
> lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have not yet discussed that PARTICULAR sex act.  That being said, some sex acts between a man and a woman can not be performed by a man and a man because there is a different combination of body parts.    If you don't understand this, I'm sorry, but I am not going to be crude enough to describe the details.
Click to expand...


oh lordy.  I am talking about sex with body parts that are the same regardless of gender....  but I think you knew that & are intentionally being  ignorant.  either way it matters not.  know why?

same sex marriage legalized nationwide - Google Search

THAT'S why.  And there ain't nuthin' you can do about it, so  get over it already.


----------



## playtime

MaryL said:


> Someone somewhere is  going to be offended that they can't marry as a sign of acceptance into popular culture. What's next, cannibal head hunting midgets are a new found minority that can't practice their form of lifestyle and need civil rights  because they are being discriminated against? Think that's extreme? Satanist polygamist that practice human sacrifice? Absurd and extreme?   Well, so is the need for gay marriage, extreme, unnecessary and inane. This is another example of political correctness gone awry.



wow.  that was one of the best examples of an insane diatribe I have seen on this board.  & that says a lot.  kudos for you!


----------



## JoeMoma

playtime said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't forget in the OT, the story of Sodom & Gomorrah- where a lot of zealots like to reference to 'prove' that homosexuality is sinful because the Bible 'says so'... usually tend to leave out the fact that the story also says Lot had sex with his 2 daughters.  ummmm, does anybody find THAT sinful?
> 
> sex between 2 consenting unrelated same gender adults... bad.
> sex between blood relatives... not?
> 
> 
> 
> And that was also a sinful act, just as David's adulterous relationship with Basheaba was sinful.  Nowhere in the Bible is Lot having sex with his daughter's portrayed as being acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!  A man has a penis that mates up perfectly with a woman's vagina.
> 
> Have you ever tried to plug the two male ends of two electrical cords together or the two female ends together?  They just don't seem to mate up right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what a man (or woman) does with another man (or woman)  can physically be done between a man & woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not unless one of the men has a vagina.  An ass hole is not a vagina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so that particular sex act is never performed between a man & a woman?  NEVER?    NEVER EVER?
> 
> lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have not yet discussed that PARTICULAR sex act.  That being said, some sex acts between a man and a woman can not be performed by a man and a man because there is a different combination of body parts.    If you don't understand this, I'm sorry, but I am not going to be crude enough to describe the details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh lordy.  I am talking about sex with body parts that are the same regardless of gender....  but I think you knew that & are intentionally being  ignorant.  either way it matters not.  know why?
> 
> same sex marriage legalized nationwide - Google Search
> 
> THAT'S why.  And there ain't nuthin' you can do about it, so  get over it already.
Click to expand...

The body parts are not the same.  So you are ignoring reality.  And at the moment  I'm  not arguing for or against same sex marriage.  If you want have gay sex, well then go at it.


----------



## playtime

JoeMoma said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that was also a sinful act, just as David's adulterous relationship with Basheaba was sinful.  Nowhere in the Bible is Lot having sex with his daughter's portrayed as being acceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> what a man (or woman) does with another man (or woman)  can physically be done between a man & woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not unless one of the men has a vagina.  An ass hole is not a vagina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so that particular sex act is never performed between a man & a woman?  NEVER?    NEVER EVER?
> 
> lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have not yet discussed that PARTICULAR sex act.  That being said, some sex acts between a man and a woman can not be performed by a man and a man because there is a different combination of body parts.    If you don't understand this, I'm sorry, but I am not going to be crude enough to describe the details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh lordy.  I am talking about sex with body parts that are the same regardless of gender....  but I think you knew that & are intentionally being  ignorant.  either way it matters not.  know why?
> 
> same sex marriage legalized nationwide - Google Search
> 
> THAT'S why.  And there ain't nuthin' you can do about it, so  get over it already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The body parts are not the same.  So you are ignoring reality.  And at the moment  I'm  not arguing for or against same sex marriage.  If you want have gay sex, well then go at it.
Click to expand...


ummm  actually *some *of those body parts ARE the same, silly boy... which is what I meant.   you are ignoring biology.  perhaps you are among those that think only penis/vagina missionary 'style' is the only religiously sanctioned acceptable way?   poor you.

&  I don't want gay sex, nor do I  care who does what with whom as long as it is between consenting adults.

I am a heterosexual woman... married 30 years to a heterosexual man.  my state was one of the first to proudly legalize same sex marriage & guess what?   it hasn't threatened my  'traditional'  marriage one iota.

but, like I said...  too bad, so sad for you & yours that are so hung up about other peoples' happiness, but you lost this one.  awwwwww --- boo hoo 4 u.


----------



## JoeMoma

playtime said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not unless one of the men has a vagina.  An ass hole is not a vagina.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so that particular sex act is never performed between a man & a woman?  NEVER?    NEVER EVER?
> 
> lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have not yet discussed that PARTICULAR sex act.  That being said, some sex acts between a man and a woman can not be performed by a man and a man because there is a different combination of body parts.    If you don't understand this, I'm sorry, but I am not going to be crude enough to describe the details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh lordy.  I am talking about sex with body parts that are the same regardless of gender....  but I think you knew that & are intentionally being  ignorant.  either way it matters not.  know why?
> 
> same sex marriage legalized nationwide - Google Search
> 
> THAT'S why.  And there ain't nuthin' you can do about it, so  get over it already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The body parts are not the same.  So you are ignoring reality.  And at the moment  I'm  not arguing for or against same sex marriage.  If you want have gay sex, well then go at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ummm  actually *some *of those body parts ARE the same, silly boy... which is what I meant.   you are ignoring biology.  perhaps you are among those that think only penis/vagina missionary 'style' is the only religiously sanctioned acceptable way?   poor you.
> 
> &  I don't want gay sex, nor do I  care who does what with whom as long as it is between consenting adults.
> 
> I am a heterosexual woman... married 30 years to a heterosexual man.  my state was one of the first to proudly legalize same sex marriage & guess what?   it hasn't threatened my  'tradional'  marriage one iota.
> 
> but, like I said...  too bad, so sad for you & yours.
Click to expand...

I entered this thread responding to this statement that you made

"you do realize that any sexual acts between homosexuals is identical to heterosexuals. the only difference may be a matter of preference. nor does every sex act end in pregnancy." 

It can't be identical because men and women have different body parts.  I would never want to have sex with a partner that has no vagina.  
It seems to me that you have moved the goal posts far from the statement I originally responded to.


----------



## playtime

JoeMoma said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> so that particular sex act is never performed between a man & a woman?  NEVER?    NEVER EVER?
> 
> lol.
> 
> 
> 
> We have not yet discussed that PARTICULAR sex act.  That being said, some sex acts between a man and a woman can not be performed by a man and a man because there is a different combination of body parts.    If you don't understand this, I'm sorry, but I am not going to be crude enough to describe the details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh lordy.  I am talking about sex with body parts that are the same regardless of gender....  but I think you knew that & are intentionally being  ignorant.  either way it matters not.  know why?
> 
> same sex marriage legalized nationwide - Google Search
> 
> THAT'S why.  And there ain't nuthin' you can do about it, so  get over it already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The body parts are not the same.  So you are ignoring reality.  And at the moment  I'm  not arguing for or against same sex marriage.  If you want have gay sex, well then go at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ummm  actually *some *of those body parts ARE the same, silly boy... which is what I meant.   you are ignoring biology.  perhaps you are among those that think only penis/vagina missionary 'style' is the only religiously sanctioned acceptable way?   poor you.
> 
> &  I don't want gay sex, nor do I  care who does what with whom as long as it is between consenting adults.
> 
> I am a heterosexual woman... married 30 years to a heterosexual man.  my state was one of the first to proudly legalize same sex marriage & guess what?   it hasn't threatened my  'tradional'  marriage one iota.
> 
> but, like I said...  too bad, so sad for you & yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I entered this thread responding to this statement that you made
> 
> "you do realize that any sexual acts between homosexuals is identical to heterosexuals. the only difference may be a matter of preference. nor does every sex act end in pregnancy."
> 
> It can't be identical because men and women have different body parts.  I would never want to have sex with a partner that has no vagina.
> It seems to me that you have moved the goal posts far from the statement I originally responded to.
Click to expand...


I moved nothing.  my original reply (that you say you responded to) was in the context of the thread topic.  you are the one that actually 'moved the goalpost' to solely concentrate on the sexual part.

do you really think I believe a male has a vagina & a female has a penis?  or could it be you want to argue semantics & think you'll win?

there are more body parts that are IDENTICAL to both genders than not.  & that doesn't even include the same 'toys'  that  heterosexual couples can enjoy as equally as gays.  apparently I gave you more credit than you deserve.


----------



## rightwinger

JoeMoma said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that was also a sinful act, just as David's adulterous relationship with Basheaba was sinful.  Nowhere in the Bible is Lot having sex with his daughter's portrayed as being acceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> what a man (or woman) does with another man (or woman)  can physically be done between a man & woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not unless one of the men has a vagina.  An ass hole is not a vagina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so that particular sex act is never performed between a man & a woman?  NEVER?    NEVER EVER?
> 
> lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have not yet discussed that PARTICULAR sex act.  That being said, some sex acts between a man and a woman can not be performed by a man and a man because there is a different combination of body parts.    If you don't understand this, I'm sorry, but I am not going to be crude enough to describe the details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh lordy.  I am talking about sex with body parts that are the same regardless of gender....  but I think you knew that & are intentionally being  ignorant.  either way it matters not.  know why?
> 
> same sex marriage legalized nationwide - Google Search
> 
> THAT'S why.  And there ain't nuthin' you can do about it, so  get over it already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The body parts are not the same.  So you are ignoring reality.  And at the moment  I'm  not arguing for or against same sex marriage.  If you want have gay sex, well then go at it.
Click to expand...


Why so much drama about the mechanics of gay sex?

Gay marriage is about two people who love each other being able to marry


----------



## JoeMoma

playtime said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have not yet discussed that PARTICULAR sex act.  That being said, some sex acts between a man and a woman can not be performed by a man and a man because there is a different combination of body parts.    If you don't understand this, I'm sorry, but I am not going to be crude enough to describe the details.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh lordy.  I am talking about sex with body parts that are the same regardless of gender....  but I think you knew that & are intentionally being  ignorant.  either way it matters not.  know why?
> 
> same sex marriage legalized nationwide - Google Search
> 
> THAT'S why.  And there ain't nuthin' you can do about it, so  get over it already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The body parts are not the same.  So you are ignoring reality.  And at the moment  I'm  not arguing for or against same sex marriage.  If you want have gay sex, well then go at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ummm  actually *some *of those body parts ARE the same, silly boy... which is what I meant.   you are ignoring biology.  perhaps you are among those that think only penis/vagina missionary 'style' is the only religiously sanctioned acceptable way?   poor you.
> 
> &  I don't want gay sex, nor do I  care who does what with whom as long as it is between consenting adults.
> 
> I am a heterosexual woman... married 30 years to a heterosexual man.  my state was one of the first to proudly legalize same sex marriage & guess what?   it hasn't threatened my  'tradional'  marriage one iota.
> 
> but, like I said...  too bad, so sad for you & yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I entered this thread responding to this statement that you made
> 
> "you do realize that any sexual acts between homosexuals is identical to heterosexuals. the only difference may be a matter of preference. nor does every sex act end in pregnancy."
> 
> It can't be identical because men and women have different body parts.  I would never want to have sex with a partner that has no vagina.
> It seems to me that you have moved the goal posts far from the statement I originally responded to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I moved nothing.
> 
> do you really think I believe a male has a vagina & a female has a penis?  or could it be you want to argue semantics & think you'll win?
> 
> there are more body parts that are IDENTICAL to both genders than not.  & that doesn't even include the same 'toys'  that  heterosexual couples can enjoy as equally as gays.  apparently I gave you more credit than you deserve.
Click to expand...

Yet the main body parts used for sex are the body parts that are different.  A man giving oral sex to a woman is going to put his mouth on a pussy, not a dick.  He can't do that giving oral sex to a man.  Slam dunk, no net, gay sex acts and straight sex acts are not exactly the same.  I rest my case.

That point being made, it is irrelevant to whether gay marriage is a constitutional right or not.  The courts have spoken.....it's now a right.


----------



## JoeMoma

rightwinger said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not unless one of the men has a vagina.  An ass hole is not a vagina.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so that particular sex act is never performed between a man & a woman?  NEVER?    NEVER EVER?
> 
> lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have not yet discussed that PARTICULAR sex act.  That being said, some sex acts between a man and a woman can not be performed by a man and a man because there is a different combination of body parts.    If you don't understand this, I'm sorry, but I am not going to be crude enough to describe the details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh lordy.  I am talking about sex with body parts that are the same regardless of gender....  but I think you knew that & are intentionally being  ignorant.  either way it matters not.  know why?
> 
> same sex marriage legalized nationwide - Google Search
> 
> THAT'S why.  And there ain't nuthin' you can do about it, so  get over it already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The body parts are not the same.  So you are ignoring reality.  And at the moment  I'm  not arguing for or against same sex marriage.  If you want have gay sex, well then go at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why so much drama about the mechanics of gay sex?
> 
> Gay marriage is about two people who love each other being able to marry
Click to expand...

Sometimes I will argue with a road sign when I know it to be incorrect.  That's all.


----------



## Papageorgio

Matthew said:


> explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?



Ask the brother and sister that want to marry or the mom who wants to marry the son.


----------



## Papageorgio

rightwinger said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not unless one of the men has a vagina.  An ass hole is not a vagina.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so that particular sex act is never performed between a man & a woman?  NEVER?    NEVER EVER?
> 
> lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have not yet discussed that PARTICULAR sex act.  That being said, some sex acts between a man and a woman can not be performed by a man and a man because there is a different combination of body parts.    If you don't understand this, I'm sorry, but I am not going to be crude enough to describe the details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh lordy.  I am talking about sex with body parts that are the same regardless of gender....  but I think you knew that & are intentionally being  ignorant.  either way it matters not.  know why?
> 
> same sex marriage legalized nationwide - Google Search
> 
> THAT'S why.  And there ain't nuthin' you can do about it, so  get over it already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The body parts are not the same.  So you are ignoring reality.  And at the moment  I'm  not arguing for or against same sex marriage.  If you want have gay sex, well then go at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why so much drama about the mechanics of gay sex?
> 
> Gay marriage is about two people who love each other being able to marry
Click to expand...


Then why can't we have polygamy? If they all love each other, that's what counts, right? What about a father and daughter marrying, he'll they love each other. How about a brother and sister, why isn't that legal? They love each other.


----------



## JoeMoma

Papageorgio said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the brother and sister that want to marry or the mom who wants to marry the son.
Click to expand...

Based on the logic behind the same sex marriage ruling, they should have the right to marry.  Equal protection.  
Brother-brother, and sister-sister marriage should also be a right.


----------



## rightwinger

Papageorgio said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> so that particular sex act is never performed between a man & a woman?  NEVER?    NEVER EVER?
> 
> lol.
> 
> 
> 
> We have not yet discussed that PARTICULAR sex act.  That being said, some sex acts between a man and a woman can not be performed by a man and a man because there is a different combination of body parts.    If you don't understand this, I'm sorry, but I am not going to be crude enough to describe the details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh lordy.  I am talking about sex with body parts that are the same regardless of gender....  but I think you knew that & are intentionally being  ignorant.  either way it matters not.  know why?
> 
> same sex marriage legalized nationwide - Google Search
> 
> THAT'S why.  And there ain't nuthin' you can do about it, so  get over it already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The body parts are not the same.  So you are ignoring reality.  And at the moment  I'm  not arguing for or against same sex marriage.  If you want have gay sex, well then go at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why so much drama about the mechanics of gay sex?
> 
> Gay marriage is about two people who love each other being able to marry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why can't we have polygamy? If they all love each other, that's what counts, right? What about a father and daughter marrying, he'll they love each other. How about a brother and sister, why isn't that legal? They love each other.
Click to expand...


Why can't we have polygamy?
The only reason right now is that there are laws against it

We have laws against incest because of potential deformities in offspring. Society has established an identifiable objection to those unions...they were unable to do so with gay marriage


----------



## frigidweirdo

IndependantAce said:


> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.



Is it the government's job to get people fucking? Does the government really need to incentivize fucking? 

The right "claim" the govt should stay out of things, then support the govt incentivizing straight people doing it. Hmmmmmm,..... get out of my bedroom.


----------



## JoeMoma

rightwinger said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have not yet discussed that PARTICULAR sex act.  That being said, some sex acts between a man and a woman can not be performed by a man and a man because there is a different combination of body parts.    If you don't understand this, I'm sorry, but I am not going to be crude enough to describe the details.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh lordy.  I am talking about sex with body parts that are the same regardless of gender....  but I think you knew that & are intentionally being  ignorant.  either way it matters not.  know why?
> 
> same sex marriage legalized nationwide - Google Search
> 
> THAT'S why.  And there ain't nuthin' you can do about it, so  get over it already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The body parts are not the same.  So you are ignoring reality.  And at the moment  I'm  not arguing for or against same sex marriage.  If you want have gay sex, well then go at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why so much drama about the mechanics of gay sex?
> 
> Gay marriage is about two people who love each other being able to marry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why can't we have polygamy? If they all love each other, that's what counts, right? What about a father and daughter marrying, he'll they love each other. How about a brother and sister, why isn't that legal? They love each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't we have polygamy?
> The only reason right now is that there are laws against it
> 
> We have laws against incest because of potential deformities in offspring. Society has established an identifiable objection to those unions...they were unable to do so with gay marriage
Click to expand...

The reason you suggest we have laws against incest do not apply to gay incestuous marriage.  Also, is it illegal for adult siblings to have sex?  If not, what right do we have to say that they cannot marry even if they are brother and sister.  Marriage, after all, is about two adults loving each other.


----------



## Papageorgio

rightwinger said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have not yet discussed that PARTICULAR sex act.  That being said, some sex acts between a man and a woman can not be performed by a man and a man because there is a different combination of body parts.    If you don't understand this, I'm sorry, but I am not going to be crude enough to describe the details.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh lordy.  I am talking about sex with body parts that are the same regardless of gender....  but I think you knew that & are intentionally being  ignorant.  either way it matters not.  know why?
> 
> same sex marriage legalized nationwide - Google Search
> 
> THAT'S why.  And there ain't nuthin' you can do about it, so  get over it already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The body parts are not the same.  So you are ignoring reality.  And at the moment  I'm  not arguing for or against same sex marriage.  If you want have gay sex, well then go at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why so much drama about the mechanics of gay sex?
> 
> Gay marriage is about two people who love each other being able to marry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why can't we have polygamy? If they all love each other, that's what counts, right? What about a father and daughter marrying, he'll they love each other. How about a brother and sister, why isn't that legal? They love each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't we have polygamy?
> The only reason right now is that there are laws against it
> 
> We have laws against incest because of potential deformities in offspring. Society has established an identifiable objection to those unions...they were unable to do so with gay marriage
Click to expand...


But you said love is the qualifier, not having offspring. Offspring is a non issue. So a brother could marry a bother and that's okay but a brother can't marry a sister? Sounds like discrimination.


----------



## JoeMoma

Disney's next rimdition of the parent trap will have two identical twin sisters that have been raised separately meeting at camp.  Instead of devising a plan to get their parents back together the sisters simply marry each other.


----------



## playtime

JoeMoma said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh lordy.  I am talking about sex with body parts that are the same regardless of gender....  but I think you knew that & are intentionally being  ignorant.  either way it matters not.  know why?
> 
> same sex marriage legalized nationwide - Google Search
> 
> THAT'S why.  And there ain't nuthin' you can do about it, so  get over it already.
> 
> 
> 
> The body parts are not the same.  So you are ignoring reality.  And at the moment  I'm  not arguing for or against same sex marriage.  If you want have gay sex, well then go at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ummm  actually *some *of those body parts ARE the same, silly boy... which is what I meant.   you are ignoring biology.  perhaps you are among those that think only penis/vagina missionary 'style' is the only religiously sanctioned acceptable way?   poor you.
> 
> &  I don't want gay sex, nor do I  care who does what with whom as long as it is between consenting adults.
> 
> I am a heterosexual woman... married 30 years to a heterosexual man.  my state was one of the first to proudly legalize same sex marriage & guess what?   it hasn't threatened my  'tradional'  marriage one iota.
> 
> but, like I said...  too bad, so sad for you & yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I entered this thread responding to this statement that you made
> 
> "you do realize that any sexual acts between homosexuals is identical to heterosexuals. the only difference may be a matter of preference. nor does every sex act end in pregnancy."
> 
> It can't be identical because men and women have different body parts.  I would never want to have sex with a partner that has no vagina.
> It seems to me that you have moved the goal posts far from the statement I originally responded to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I moved nothing.
> 
> do you really think I believe a male has a vagina & a female has a penis?  or could it be you want to argue semantics & think you'll win?
> 
> there are more body parts that are IDENTICAL to both genders than not.  & that doesn't even include the same 'toys'  that  heterosexual couples can enjoy as equally as gays.  apparently I gave you more credit than you deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet the main body parts used for sex are the body parts that are different.  A man giving oral sex to a woman is going to put his mouth on a pussy, not a dick.  He can't do that giving oral sex to a man.  Slam dunk, no net, gay sex acts and straight sex acts are not exactly the same.  I rest my case.
> 
> That point being made, it is irrelevant to whether gay marriage is a constitutional right or not.  The courts have spoken.....it's now a right.
Click to expand...


LOL.  you rest nothing.  you are arguing semantics.  why don't you start a thread with the profound subject matter you want to concentrate on?  it seems to have the utmost importance to you.  the people with the most hang ups tend to be the most repressed.  see the OP.

   on the other hand, I'll restate what I said & why I said it in the topical manner I said it b4. 

*  sex in a same sex marriage is identical to sex in a straight marriage. married couples do not have sex for the sole purpose of having offspring...nor is that the sole purpose of a marriage.   & is secondary to a successful marriage.... gay or straight. *


----------



## playtime

Papageorgio said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the brother and sister that want to marry or the mom who wants to marry the son.
Click to expand...


sorry, but equating blood relatives to the marriage of 2 legal age adults unrelated by blood is no equation.


----------



## JoeMoma

playtime said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the brother and sister that want to marry or the mom who wants to marry the son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry, but equating blood relatives to the marriage of 2 legal age adults unrelated by blood is no equation.
Click to expand...

Why!  Will it affect your marriage any if two adult brothers  or two adult sisters get married?  Who are you or I to deny them the right to get married?  Do you find that relationship icky or something?  It does equate.  People have the right to chose their own partners in marriage.


----------



## playtime

JoeMoma said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the brother and sister that want to marry or the mom who wants to marry the son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry, but equating blood relatives to the marriage of 2 legal age adults unrelated by blood is no equation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why!  Will it affect your marriage any if two adult brothers  or two adult sisters get married?  Who are you or I to deny them the right to get married?  Do you find that relationship icky or something?  It does equate.  People have the right to chose their own partners in marriage.
Click to expand...


Actually, the psychological implications of incest alone can cause harm to society on a much greater level.  What I believe & how I personally feel, has little impact.  But multiply that belief in the immense implications, which are  by & large the same as society as a whole,  is what dictates the notion of legality .

'homosexuality'  is found across all peoples on a much greater scale than incest, & that includes the animal kingdom as well.  the reason for the abhorrence is rooted in biology.  animals don't have a 'moral' code, but somehow they know how wrong it is.

lol.  silly silly you.


----------



## JoeMoma

playtime said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the brother and sister that want to marry or the mom who wants to marry the son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry, but equating blood relatives to the marriage of 2 legal age adults unrelated by blood is no equation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why!  Will it affect your marriage any if two adult brothers  or two adult sisters get married?  Who are you or I to deny them the right to get married?  Do you find that relationship icky or something?  It does equate.  People have the right to chose their own partners in marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the psychological implications of incest alone can cause harm to society on a much greater level.  What I believe & how I personally feel, has little impact.  But multiply that belief in the immense implications, which are  by & large the same as society as a whole,  is what dictates the notion of legality .
> 
> 'homosexuality'  is found across all peoples on a much greater scale than incest, & that includes the animal kingdom as well.  the reason for the abhorrence is rooted in biology.  animals don't have a 'moral' code, but somehow they know how wrong it is.
> 
> lol.  silly silly you.
Click to expand...

Wow, that is very similar to the same "bigoted" talk used against gays.  Exactly in what way will society be harmed if adult siblings are a allowed to marry?  Do you have anything other than procreation, because with gay marriage it has already been conceeded that there are many more reasons to marry than procreation.


----------



## Syriusly

Papageorgio said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> so that particular sex act is never performed between a man & a woman?  NEVER?    NEVER EVER?
> 
> lol.
> 
> 
> 
> We have not yet discussed that PARTICULAR sex act.  That being said, some sex acts between a man and a woman can not be performed by a man and a man because there is a different combination of body parts.    If you don't understand this, I'm sorry, but I am not going to be crude enough to describe the details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh lordy.  I am talking about sex with body parts that are the same regardless of gender....  but I think you knew that & are intentionally being  ignorant.  either way it matters not.  know why?
> 
> same sex marriage legalized nationwide - Google Search
> 
> THAT'S why.  And there ain't nuthin' you can do about it, so  get over it already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The body parts are not the same.  So you are ignoring reality.  And at the moment  I'm  not arguing for or against same sex marriage.  If you want have gay sex, well then go at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why so much drama about the mechanics of gay sex?
> 
> Gay marriage is about two people who love each other being able to marry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why can't we have polygamy? If they all love each other, that's what counts, right? What about a father and daughter marrying, he'll they love each other. How about a brother and sister, why isn't that legal? They love each other.
Click to expand...


You can have polygamy- if you can either get the legislature to change the law- or convince a court that you have the right to 5 wives.

IF you really believe that you have the right to have 5 wives, you have the right to pursue your dream of polygamy.

But just like in the cases of bans on mixed race marriages, and on the bans on gay marriage, you will have to show the court that bans on polygamy serve no functions.

So- do you think Polygamy should be legalized? If so- go for it. If not- if you dont' believe Polygamy should be legalized- then why are you arguing for it?


----------



## Syriusly

JoeMoma said:


> Disney's next rimdition of the parent trap will have two identical twin sisters that have been raised separately meeting at camp.  Instead of devising a plan to get their parents back together the sisters simply marry each other.



Sounds like you are busy writing a screen play about your fantasy.

So do you believe that two siblings should be able to marry?


----------



## JoeMoma

playtime said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the brother and sister that want to marry or the mom who wants to marry the son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry, but equating blood relatives to the marriage of 2 legal age adults unrelated by blood is no equation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why!  Will it affect your marriage any if two adult brothers  or two adult sisters get married?  Who are you or I to deny them the right to get married?  Do you find that relationship icky or something?  It does equate.  People have the right to chose their own partners in marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the psychological implications of incest alone can cause harm to society on a much greater level.  What I believe & how I personally feel, has little impact.  But multiply that belief in the immense implications, which are  by & large the same as society as a whole,  is what dictates the notion of legality .
> 
> 'homosexuality'  is found across all peoples on a much greater scale than incest, & that includes the animal kingdom as well.  the reason for the abhorrence is rooted in biology.  animals don't have a 'moral' code, but somehow they know how wrong it is.
> 
> lol.  silly silly you.
Click to expand...

Do animals really know "it" is wrong.  Siblings mate in the animal kindom.  Of course if a sparrow has the choice of mating with one of its 3 siblings or 1 of millions of non-siblings, it is simply math that it is unlikely to mate with a sibling.  That being said, most species of animals probably don't have a clue about family structure.


----------



## JoeMoma

Syriusly said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disney's next rimdition of the parent trap will have two identical twin sisters that have been raised separately meeting at camp.  Instead of devising a plan to get their parents back together the sisters simply marry each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you are busy writing a screen play about your fantasy.
> 
> So do you believe that two siblings should be able to marry?
Click to expand...

I believe the same logic holds for two adult siblings to have the right to marry as for gays to have the right to marry.  Marriage is either an individual right (the individuals agree to marry ) or it is not.

Edit:  Let me ask this way; how and why is gay marriage a constitutional right but marriage between adult gay siblings not a constitutional right?


----------



## Papageorgio

playtime said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the brother and sister that want to marry or the mom who wants to marry the son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry, but equating blood relatives to the marriage of 2 legal age adults unrelated by blood is no equation.
Click to expand...


Oh yes, rightwinger gave us the criteria, he said they must love each other. Talk with him.

What about two sisters?  Shouldn't they be able to marry?


----------



## Papageorgio

playtime said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the brother and sister that want to marry or the mom who wants to marry the son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry, but equating blood relatives to the marriage of 2 legal age adults unrelated by blood is no equation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why!  Will it affect your marriage any if two adult brothers  or two adult sisters get married?  Who are you or I to deny them the right to get married?  Do you find that relationship icky or something?  It does equate.  People have the right to chose their own partners in marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the psychological implications of incest alone can cause harm to society on a much greater level.  What I believe & how I personally feel, has little impact.  But multiply that belief in the immense implications, which are  by & large the same as society as a whole,  is what dictates the notion of legality .
> 
> 'homosexuality'  is found across all peoples on a much greater scale than incest, & that includes the animal kingdom as well.  the reason for the abhorrence is rooted in biology.  animals don't have a 'moral' code, but somehow they know how wrong it is.
> 
> lol.  silly silly you.
Click to expand...


In the animal world dogs are bred with close family members all the time. What is the harm to society? Way back when there were few humans in the evolutionary cycle, interbreeding was done often. Not seeing why there is bigotry toward family members marrying. rightwinger said  all that was needed was love. Also if two brothers or sisters marry then they get the tax breaks, why not?


----------



## Papageorgio

Syriusly said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have not yet discussed that PARTICULAR sex act.  That being said, some sex acts between a man and a woman can not be performed by a man and a man because there is a different combination of body parts.    If you don't understand this, I'm sorry, but I am not going to be crude enough to describe the details.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh lordy.  I am talking about sex with body parts that are the same regardless of gender....  but I think you knew that & are intentionally being  ignorant.  either way it matters not.  know why?
> 
> same sex marriage legalized nationwide - Google Search
> 
> THAT'S why.  And there ain't nuthin' you can do about it, so  get over it already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The body parts are not the same.  So you are ignoring reality.  And at the moment  I'm  not arguing for or against same sex marriage.  If you want have gay sex, well then go at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why so much drama about the mechanics of gay sex?
> 
> Gay marriage is about two people who love each other being able to marry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why can't we have polygamy? If they all love each other, that's what counts, right? What about a father and daughter marrying, he'll they love each other. How about a brother and sister, why isn't that legal? They love each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can have polygamy- if you can either get the legislature to change the law- or convince a court that you have the right to 5 wives.
> 
> IF you really believe that you have the right to have 5 wives, you have the right to pursue your dream of polygamy.
> 
> But just like in the cases of bans on mixed race marriages, and on the bans on gay marriage, you will have to show the court that bans on polygamy serve no functions.
> 
> So- do you think Polygamy should be legalized? If so- go for it. If not- if you don't believe Polygamy should be legalized- then why are you arguing for it?
Click to expand...


On rightwinger's basis of love. Are we to deny those that really love each other the right of marriage?


----------



## JoeMoma

Papageorgio said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the brother and sister that want to marry or the mom who wants to marry the son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry, but equating blood relatives to the marriage of 2 legal age adults unrelated by blood is no equation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why!  Will it affect your marriage any if two adult brothers  or two adult sisters get married?  Who are you or I to deny them the right to get married?  Do you find that relationship icky or something?  It does equate.  People have the right to chose their own partners in marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the psychological implications of incest alone can cause harm to society on a much greater level.  What I believe & how I personally feel, has little impact.  But multiply that belief in the immense implications, which are  by & large the same as society as a whole,  is what dictates the notion of legality .
> 
> 'homosexuality'  is found across all peoples on a much greater scale than incest, & that includes the animal kingdom as well.  the reason for the abhorrence is rooted in biology.  animals don't have a 'moral' code, but somehow they know how wrong it is.
> 
> lol.  silly silly you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the animal world dogs are bred with close family members all the time. What is the harm to society? Way back when there were few humans in the evolutionary cycle, interbreeding was done often. Not seeing why there is bigotry toward family members marrying. rightwinger said  all that was needed was love. Also if two brothers or sisters marry then they get the tax breaks, why not?
Click to expand...

In the jungle, the Grey back gorilla mates will all the best lady gorillas.  If the Grey back gorilla stays dominate long enough, he will mate with daughters and granddaughters.  Most species of animals have no concept of family or incess.  They simply breed when the opportunity arises.


----------



## JoeMoma

Like it or not, the decision on gay marriage will act as a precident for other court challenges such as marriage between close (adult) family members and poligamy. 
Since gay couples don't conceive children together, I see no major reason why the courts would deny gay marriage between brothers and sisters or heterosexual marriage between family members that are beyond the age to conceive.


----------



## Syriusly

JoeMoma said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disney's next rimdition of the parent trap will have two identical twin sisters that have been raised separately meeting at camp.  Instead of devising a plan to get their parents back together the sisters simply marry each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you are busy writing a screen play about your fantasy.
> 
> So do you believe that two siblings should be able to marry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe the same logic holds for two adult siblings to have the right to marry as for gays to have the right to marry.  Marriage is either an individual right (the individuals agree to marry ) or it is not.
> 
> Edit:  Let me ask this way; how and why is gay marriage a constitutional right but marriage between adult gay siblings not a constitutional right?
Click to expand...


I will be glad to answer it- after you answer my question.

Do you believe that two siblings should be able to marry?


----------



## Syriusly

JoeMoma said:


> Like it or not, the decision on gay marriage will act as a precident for other court challenges such as marriage between close (adult) family members and poligamy..



Like it or not- you are still wrong.

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws and regulations 4 times now- starting with Loving v. Virginia and up to Obergefell.

None of them are precedent for sibling marriage or polygamy. 

Sibling marriage is just as illegal today as it was before Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell. 

The question is- do you believe you have a right to marry your brother?

If not- why not?


----------



## Syriusly

Papageorgio said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh lordy.  I am talking about sex with body parts that are the same regardless of gender....  but I think you knew that & are intentionally being  ignorant.  either way it matters not.  know why?
> 
> same sex marriage legalized nationwide - Google Search
> 
> THAT'S why.  And there ain't nuthin' you can do about it, so  get over it already.
> 
> 
> 
> The body parts are not the same.  So you are ignoring reality.  And at the moment  I'm  not arguing for or against same sex marriage.  If you want have gay sex, well then go at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why so much drama about the mechanics of gay sex?
> 
> Gay marriage is about two people who love each other being able to marry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why can't we have polygamy? If they all love each other, that's what counts, right? What about a father and daughter marrying, he'll they love each other. How about a brother and sister, why isn't that legal? They love each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can have polygamy- if you can either get the legislature to change the law- or convince a court that you have the right to 5 wives.
> 
> IF you really believe that you have the right to have 5 wives, you have the right to pursue your dream of polygamy.
> 
> But just like in the cases of bans on mixed race marriages, and on the bans on gay marriage, you will have to show the court that bans on polygamy serve no functions.
> 
> So- do you think Polygamy should be legalized? If so- go for it. If not- if you don't believe Polygamy should be legalized- then why are you arguing for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On rightwinger's basis of love. Are we to deny those that really love each other the right of marriage?
Click to expand...


So you are in favor of polygamy- correct?


----------



## Syriusly

Papageorgio said:


> [
> What about two sisters?  Shouldn't they be able to marry?



What about two sisters? Do you think that they should be able to marry?

If you think that they do have that right- then you must have thought that they had that right before Obergefell- since nothing changed their legal status.


----------



## Papageorgio

Syriusly said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> What about two sisters?  Shouldn't they be able to marry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about two sisters? Do you think that they should be able to marry?
> 
> If you think that they do have that right- then you must have thought that they had that right before Obergefell- since nothing changed their legal status.
Click to expand...

According to rightwinger any couple that love each other should be able to marry, are you saying otherwise?


----------



## Papageorgio

Syriusly said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> The body parts are not the same.  So you are ignoring reality.  And at the moment  I'm  not arguing for or against same sex marriage.  If you want have gay sex, well then go at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why so much drama about the mechanics of gay sex?
> 
> Gay marriage is about two people who love each other being able to marry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why can't we have polygamy? If they all love each other, that's what counts, right? What about a father and daughter marrying, he'll they love each other. How about a brother and sister, why isn't that legal? They love each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can have polygamy- if you can either get the legislature to change the law- or convince a court that you have the right to 5 wives.
> 
> IF you really believe that you have the right to have 5 wives, you have the right to pursue your dream of polygamy.
> 
> But just like in the cases of bans on mixed race marriages, and on the bans on gay marriage, you will have to show the court that bans on polygamy serve no functions.
> 
> So- do you think Polygamy should be legalized? If so- go for it. If not- if you don't believe Polygamy should be legalized- then why are you arguing for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On rightwinger's basis of love. Are we to deny those that really love each other the right of marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of polygamy- correct?
Click to expand...


Never said that, I am applying the logic rightwinger's logic, going by love as the basis for marriage, then it would be wrong for us to be against it.


----------



## Syriusly

Papageorgio said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why so much drama about the mechanics of gay sex?
> 
> Gay marriage is about two people who love each other being able to marry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why can't we have polygamy? If they all love each other, that's what counts, right? What about a father and daughter marrying, he'll they love each other. How about a brother and sister, why isn't that legal? They love each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can have polygamy- if you can either get the legislature to change the law- or convince a court that you have the right to 5 wives.
> 
> IF you really believe that you have the right to have 5 wives, you have the right to pursue your dream of polygamy.
> 
> But just like in the cases of bans on mixed race marriages, and on the bans on gay marriage, you will have to show the court that bans on polygamy serve no functions.
> 
> So- do you think Polygamy should be legalized? If so- go for it. If not- if you don't believe Polygamy should be legalized- then why are you arguing for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On rightwinger's basis of love. Are we to deny those that really love each other the right of marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of polygamy- correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said that, I am applying the logic rightwinger's logic, going by love as the basis for marriage, then it would be wrong for us to be against it.
Click to expand...


So are you in favor of polygamy or not in favor of polygamy?

And if not- why aren't you in favor of polygamy?


----------



## Syriusly

Papageorgio said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> What about two sisters?  Shouldn't they be able to marry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about two sisters? Do you think that they should be able to marry?
> 
> If you think that they do have that right- then you must have thought that they had that right before Obergefell- since nothing changed their legal status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to rightwinger any couple that love each other should be able to marry, are you saying otherwise?
Click to expand...


I am asking you

What about two sisters? Do you think that they should be able to marry?


----------



## Papageorgio

Syriusly said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why can't we have polygamy? If they all love each other, that's what counts, right? What about a father and daughter marrying, he'll they love each other. How about a brother and sister, why isn't that legal? They love each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can have polygamy- if you can either get the legislature to change the law- or convince a court that you have the right to 5 wives.
> 
> IF you really believe that you have the right to have 5 wives, you have the right to pursue your dream of polygamy.
> 
> But just like in the cases of bans on mixed race marriages, and on the bans on gay marriage, you will have to show the court that bans on polygamy serve no functions.
> 
> So- do you think Polygamy should be legalized? If so- go for it. If not- if you don't believe Polygamy should be legalized- then why are you arguing for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On rightwinger's basis of love. Are we to deny those that really love each other the right of marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of polygamy- correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said that, I am applying the logic rightwinger's logic, going by love as the basis for marriage, then it would be wrong for us to be against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you in favor of polygamy or not in favor of polygamy?
> 
> And if not- why aren't you in favor of polygamy?
Click to expand...


Why is my stand on the issue of importance, I didn't make the standard for marriage, rightwinger did.  I am trying to figure out the criteria for getting marriage, is it love? If it is then should we not allow anyone to marry anyone out of love?


----------



## Papageorgio

Syriusly said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> What about two sisters?  Shouldn't they be able to marry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about two sisters? Do you think that they should be able to marry?
> 
> If you think that they do have that right- then you must have thought that they had that right before Obergefell- since nothing changed their legal status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to rightwinger any couple that love each other should be able to marry, are you saying otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am asking you
> 
> What about two sisters? Do you think that they should be able to marry?
Click to expand...


Do they fit rightwingers standard that he set out for us?


----------



## JoeMoma

Syriusly said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disney's next rimdition of the parent trap will have two identical twin sisters that have been raised separately meeting at camp.  Instead of devising a plan to get their parents back together the sisters simply marry each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you are busy writing a screen play about your fantasy.
> 
> So do you believe that two siblings should be able to marry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe the same logic holds for two adult siblings to have the right to marry as for gays to have the right to marry.  Marriage is either an individual right (the individuals agree to marry ) or it is not.
> 
> Edit:  Let me ask this way; how and why is gay marriage a constitutional right but marriage between adult gay siblings not a constitutional right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will be glad to answer it- after you answer my question.
> 
> Do you believe that two siblings should be able to marry?
Click to expand...

I believe that if gays have the constitutional right to marry, then adult gay siblings should also have that right.  I know of no reason why the equal protection clause would not apply with gay sibling marriage just as it does with non-sibling gay marriage.

My approval or disapproval of these types of marriages are irrelevant to the constitutionality of people's right to have them.


----------



## Chuz Life

Matthew said:


> explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?



Or three or five or seventeen!


----------



## JoeMoma

Syriusly said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the decision on gay marriage will act as a precident for other court challenges such as marriage between close (adult) family members and poligamy..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not- you are still wrong.
> 
> The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws and regulations 4 times now- starting with Loving v. Virginia and up to Obergefell.
> 
> None of them are precedent for sibling marriage or polygamy.
> 
> Sibling marriage is just as illegal today as it was before Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell.
> 
> The question is- do you believe you have a right to marry your brother?
> 
> If not- why not?
Click to expand...

Those cases set precedents that can be used in a future case to establish gay sibling marriage in that many of the arguments that could be used against gay sibling marriage have already played out in court and have been debunked.  

The biggest hurdle for marriage of siblings is probably the risk of problems with recessive traits and childbirth.  However, since gay couples don't conceive children together, that argument does not hold for gay sibling couples.   Thus, the gay marriage victory in court has paved the way for gay sibling marriage.  A court precedent does not have to be the exact same case, it can be a similar case.


----------



## emilynghiem

IndependantAce said:


> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.



Dear IndependantAce
Because beliefs about this are faith-based, these remain the choice of the people, and can neither be established nor prohibited by Govt.

The most fair way I can find for dealing with beliefs about marriage
is to treat these as CREEDS under the First and 14th Amendments.

Govt cannot be abused either to endorse deny or favor,
exclude or penalize one side's belief over another;
laws cannot contain such a bias as to discriminate for or against one belief or another;
but people affected must consent to the policies and process concerning beliefs
about marriage, about orientation and gender identity, and other faith-based matters.

If they don't agree because of conflicting religious or political beliefs,
not only about the content but also the process and how govt is used,
then their separate policies of choice cannot be imposed on others by force of law.

Because these matters involve personal and spiritual beliefs,
people must remain free to choose without fear of penalty by law
or other threat of discrimination, coercion or exclusion by govt.

Either the people agree and form a consensual neutral policy that doesn't
impose a contested bias one way or another; or else we should agree on
how to separate policies and benefits by state, by party or other means
to prevent from imposing on others through govt in ways 
that objectors do not consent to give up their beliefs or rights.

If people consent to compromise their beliefs, for sake of consensus,
that's fine; but it cannot be forced by govt against anyone's will.


----------



## heirtothewind

Dale Smith said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?
> 
> Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?
> 
> If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?
> 
> Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?
> 
> If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be "hindu"....knock yourself out..... but Christianity does not condone homosexuality as it is offensive to God, the father and His son Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...


Jesus ran around with 12 men.


----------



## emilynghiem

heirtothewind said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be "hindu"....knock yourself out..... but Christianity does not condone homosexuality as it is offensive to God, the father and His son Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus ran around with 12 men.
Click to expand...


Dear heirtothewind
Sure they were a "homosexual group".
I have a UU friend who jokes that football teams are all "homosexual."

Clearly just because Jesus ran around with prostitutes and tax collectors.
Doesn't mean it's okay to have sex with them.

(Unless you are a Democrat.
Then it's expected you'd be in bed with tax collectors.
After Republicans have booked up all the prostitutes.)


----------



## emilynghiem

JoeMoma said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the decision on gay marriage will act as a precident for other court challenges such as marriage between close (adult) family members and poligamy..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not- you are still wrong.
> 
> The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws and regulations 4 times now- starting with Loving v. Virginia and up to Obergefell.
> 
> None of them are precedent for sibling marriage or polygamy.
> 
> Sibling marriage is just as illegal today as it was before Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell.
> 
> The question is- do you believe you have a right to marry your brother?
> 
> If not- why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those cases set precedents that can be used in a future case to establish gay sibling marriage in that many of the arguments that could be used against gay sibling marriage have already played out in court and have been debunked.
> 
> The biggest hurdle for marriage of siblings is probably the risk of problems with recessive traits and childbirth.  However, since gay couples don't conceive children together, that argument does not hold for gay sibling couples.   Thus, the gay marriage victory in court has paved the way for gay sibling marriage.  A court precedent does not have to be the exact same case, it can be a similar case.
Click to expand...


Dear JoeMoma: Exactly
So this explains the argument to make the government institutions "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" only. And take "marriage completely out of govt." 

That way, ANYONE can set up a business type contract/partnership for
* household finances
* children's custody
* personal estates
* guardianship, rights, etc.

WITHOUT making any "social statements" at all, endorsing ANY type of "relationship" over another
THROUGH GOVT.

You can declare that on your own, without endorsement or identification by Govt.

Just like communions, baptisms, etc. that are personal dedications NOT endorsed by Govt.
Marriage is private and should be the same way.

All the benefits of "marriage" can be done as Social Contracts
that don't have to specify one relationship or another.

If you want to will and declare your best friend your guardian or co-partner over your estate,
you don't have to be "married" to do that as "husband and wife" or romantic partners.

So you wouldn't be "marrying" your sister, your uncle or son
and you could still have the same benefits as any other couple
permanent sharing a household and expenses as a team.


----------



## Dragonlady

Dale Smith said:


> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.



So what you're saying is that all of the churches listed here:

LGBT-affirming Christian denominations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

are not "real" churches, and that only YOUR beliefs are what God wants.

Give me a break.


----------



## WinterBorn

Dale Smith said:


> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.



I have never understood why we submit to gov't control of such a private institution.  Of course, if you want the benefits you jump thru the hoops.


----------



## Dragonlady

emilynghiem said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the decision on gay marriage will act as a precident for other court challenges such as marriage between close (adult) family members and poligamy..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not- you are still wrong.
> 
> The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws and regulations 4 times now- starting with Loving v. Virginia and up to Obergefell.
> 
> None of them are precedent for sibling marriage or polygamy.
> 
> Sibling marriage is just as illegal today as it was before Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell.
> 
> The question is- do you believe you have a right to marry your brother?
> 
> If not- why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those cases set precedents that can be used in a future case to establish gay sibling marriage in that many of the arguments that could be used against gay sibling marriage have already played out in court and have been debunked.
> 
> The biggest hurdle for marriage of siblings is probably the risk of problems with recessive traits and childbirth.  However, since gay couples don't conceive children together, that argument does not hold for gay sibling couples.   Thus, the gay marriage victory in court has paved the way for gay sibling marriage.  A court precedent does not have to be the exact same case, it can be a similar case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear JoeMoma: Exactly
> So this explains the argument to make the government institutions "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" only. And take "marriage completely out of govt."
> 
> That way, ANYONE can set up a business type contract/partnership for
> * household finances
> * children's custody
> * personal estates
> * guardianship, rights, etc.
> 
> WITHOUT making any "social statements" at all, endorsing ANY type of "relationship" over another
> THROUGH GOVT.
> 
> You can declare that on your own, without endorsement or identification by Govt.
> 
> Just like communions, baptisms, etc. that are personal dedications NOT endorsed by Govt.
> Marriage is private and should be the same way.
> 
> All the benefits of "marriage" can be done as Social Contracts
> that don't have to specify one relationship or another.
> 
> If you want to will and declare your best friend your guardian or co-partner over your estate,
> you don't have to be "married" to do that as "husband and wife" or romantic partners.
> 
> So you wouldn't be "marrying" your sister, your uncle or son
> and you could still have the same benefits as any other couple
> permanent sharing a household and expenses as a team.
Click to expand...


Unless you are legally married, you cannot have the tax breaks given to those who are married, or family benefits under your health care insurance, nor is your spouse considered "next of kin" in terms of hospital treatment or inheritance, but as you pointed out, in the case of the inheritance or personal care, you can legally appoint your spouse as executor or beneficiary, or power of attorney.

It is the tax breaks, and spousal benefits that are most important and why it is essential for gays to continue to have their unions recognized as legal.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dragonlady said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the decision on gay marriage will act as a precident for other court challenges such as marriage between close (adult) family members and poligamy..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not- you are still wrong.
> 
> The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws and regulations 4 times now- starting with Loving v. Virginia and up to Obergefell.
> 
> None of them are precedent for sibling marriage or polygamy.
> 
> Sibling marriage is just as illegal today as it was before Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell.
> 
> The question is- do you believe you have a right to marry your brother?
> 
> If not- why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those cases set precedents that can be used in a future case to establish gay sibling marriage in that many of the arguments that could be used against gay sibling marriage have already played out in court and have been debunked.
> 
> The biggest hurdle for marriage of siblings is probably the risk of problems with recessive traits and childbirth.  However, since gay couples don't conceive children together, that argument does not hold for gay sibling couples.   Thus, the gay marriage victory in court has paved the way for gay sibling marriage.  A court precedent does not have to be the exact same case, it can be a similar case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear JoeMoma: Exactly
> So this explains the argument to make the government institutions "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" only. And take "marriage completely out of govt."
> 
> That way, ANYONE can set up a business type contract/partnership for
> * household finances
> * children's custody
> * personal estates
> * guardianship, rights, etc.
> 
> WITHOUT making any "social statements" at all, endorsing ANY type of "relationship" over another
> THROUGH GOVT.
> 
> You can declare that on your own, without endorsement or identification by Govt.
> 
> Just like communions, baptisms, etc. that are personal dedications NOT endorsed by Govt.
> Marriage is private and should be the same way.
> 
> All the benefits of "marriage" can be done as Social Contracts
> that don't have to specify one relationship or another.
> 
> If you want to will and declare your best friend your guardian or co-partner over your estate,
> you don't have to be "married" to do that as "husband and wife" or romantic partners.
> 
> So you wouldn't be "marrying" your sister, your uncle or son
> and you could still have the same benefits as any other couple
> permanent sharing a household and expenses as a team.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you are legally married, you cannot have the tax breaks given to those who are married, or family benefits under your health care insurance, nor is your spouse considered "next of kin" in terms of hospital treatment or inheritance, but as you pointed out, in the case of the inheritance or personal care, you can legally appoint your spouse as executor or beneficiary, or power of attorney.
> 
> It is the tax breaks, and spousal benefits that are most important and why it is essential for gays to continue to have their unions recognized as legal.
Click to expand...


Right Dragonlady
And THAT'S ANOTHER REASON the "tax breaks"
should not be tied to marriage. Get marriage out of govt.

Agree that the "tax breaks" are for sharing expenses as a  unit like a household or guardianship for children, estates ,etc.

Businesses get tax breaks for expenditures as an entity.
And those partners in corporations DON'T have to be "married" to each other to get them!

EXACTLY Dragonlady
Make it SECULAR and CIVIL contracts only, just like business, and NO personal or social matters like "who you are in love with" or "who is your spiritual soul mate" need to be micromanaged or "declared" by govt.

If you are going to 'separate church and state' then SEPARATE it.
You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

If you don't want church and faith based opinions to be mixed in with 
govt policy, then don't drag them into govt in the first place. Keep it SECULAR.


----------



## WinterBorn

Dragonlady said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that all of the churches listed here:
> 
> LGBT-affirming Christian denominations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> are not "real" churches, and that only YOUR beliefs are what God wants.
> 
> Give me a break.
Click to expand...


There are churches that accept gays. There are religions which welcome them.   

But the actions of a church or religion has no bearing on our laws.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dragonlady said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that all of the churches listed here:
> 
> LGBT-affirming Christian denominations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> are not "real" churches, and that only YOUR beliefs are what God wants.
> 
> Give me a break.
Click to expand...

Yes and no, Dragonlady and Dale Smith 
1. for govt/legal reasons, it doesn't matter which churches which people consider real or not. That's internal. As long as you meet the legal requirements that's all that's required to be recognized legally. the religious and spiritual requirements are not the business of govt to regulate.
I'm sure there are JW and other denominations who will say the Christians are all false prophets, so none, zero of the Christian/Catholic churches would pass as real by their opinions.

2. As for the REAL church, by the time we have CONSENSUS on truth and justice, everyone on the planet is going to be called out on one thing or another. Nobody is perfect and nobody has claim to the universal truth and authority except where we ALL agree in unity.

And all errors and wrongs will be corrected. So it doesn't matter so much which people are wrong on which things, but what matters most is that we agree to receive one another, to forgive, accept and correct things for the sake of restoring good faith and healthy relationships for a sustainable society.  That will be the REAL church, the unity of all people coming together in the spirit of truth, justice and lasting peace for all humanity.

So all churches/groups WILL be counted and included in the process.

In that, we will all find out how we are equally right and equally wrong, it will come out pretty even.  Each person/group will be right on some things and miss the mark on others where someone else got that part right! 

So we help each other, as equal neighbors in Christ, to remove the beams and splinters from each other's eyes without judging one another, just correcting things together.

So in this way, we collectively make ourselves "whole" or "perfect" even as our "heavenly father is perfect."

It will take all of us to cover for the shortcomings of the other person, and together we will get it right. As best can be expected of imperfect human beings anyway!


----------



## Skylar

IndependantAce said:


> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.



Then show us one state law that requires that a married couple procreate....or be able to procreate in order to married.


----------



## emilynghiem

Skylar said:


> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then show us one state law that requires that a married couple procreate....or be able to procreate in order to married.
Click to expand...

Dear Skylar:
IndependantAce is NOT talking about "civil union" marriage,
but talking about the SACRAMENT of marriage as a SOCIAL/SPIRITUAL institution.

You are talking about LEGAL definition, which is DIFFERENT.

For example,
by LEGAL definitions a "Corporation is a PERSON" but not a Baby in the womb not viable yet.

Is a CORPORATION the "same as a human being" ?

NO, not even close. 
Personhood means legally only. But doesn't make them the SAME.

That's close to what IndependantAce is saying.
Just because a couple has LEGAL status does NOT make it "the SAME" as marriage in the context that IndependantAce is talking about.

So that "legal status" that YOU are talking about,
is NOT what IndependantAce means.


----------



## Skylar

emilynghiem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then show us one state law that requires that a married couple procreate....or be able to procreate in order to married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Skylar:
> @IndependentAce is NOT talking about "civil union" marriage,
> but talking about the SACRAMENT of marriage as a SOCIAL/SPIRITUAL institution.
> 
> You are talking about LEGAL definition, which is DIFFERENT.
> 
> For example,
> by LEGAL definitions a "Corporation is a PERSON" but not a Baby in the womb not viable yet.
> 
> Is a CORPORATION the 'same as a human being"
> 
> NO. Personhood means legally only.
> 
> So that "legal status" is NOT what @IndependentAce is talking about.
Click to expand...


Ace is talking about legal definitions. Specifically, he's proposing that the State decide if gays and lesbians can be married. 

....Unless you're arguing that a State government should be allowed to define spiritual definitions.


----------



## emilynghiem

Skylar said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then show us one state law that requires that a married couple procreate....or be able to procreate in order to married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Skylar:
> @IndependentAce is NOT talking about "civil union" marriage,
> but talking about the SACRAMENT of marriage as a SOCIAL/SPIRITUAL institution.
> 
> You are talking about LEGAL definition, which is DIFFERENT.
> 
> For example,
> by LEGAL definitions a "Corporation is a PERSON" but not a Baby in the womb not viable yet.
> 
> Is a CORPORATION the 'same as a human being"
> 
> NO. Personhood means legally only.
> 
> So that "legal status" is NOT what @IndependentAce is talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ace is talking about legal definitions. Specifically, he's proposing that the State decide if gays and lesbians can be married.
> 
> ....Unless you're arguing that a State government should be allowed to define spiritual definitions.
Click to expand...


Skylar Then you and IndependantAce need to specify and agree WHICH context you are talking about.

If Marriage were kept in private institutions likes churches or whatever social group the members affiliate with, then ANYONE can practice your "right to marriage" there just like in religious free exercise that govt cannot dictate.

Then we should all agree to keep the SECULAR part in govt only for the CIVIL laws, unions, partnerships, contracts, etc.

So where IndependantAce is wrong, is that it is wrong to endorse traditional marriages through the govt and not other beliefs about marriage. By that token, it is equally WRONG to endorse same sex marriages through govt where the people of that state do not believe in or agree to endorse that through public institution because it violates their beliefs!

That's where the inconsistency is.

If marriage is practiced independently through religion or other groups/communities, then NOBODY can deny or restrict your right to practice your own beliefs, especially not govt!

The civil union part of the contract can be through govt, but it has to remain secular and neutral.  If it has any of these terms that the public does not consent to, that's no longer neutral but biased and faith based.

So you are BOTH right that Govt should NOT BE designating or regulating anything by spiritual values.

This is why Constitutionalists argue to keep marriage out of govt in order to be consistent and respect equal religious freedom!


----------



## saveliberty

If being gay isn't a choice, is gay marriage a choice?


----------



## JoeMoma

saveliberty said:


> If being gay isn't a choice, is gay marriage a choice?


I have heard of people who come out as being gay after marrying (heterosexually) and having children.  So apparently heterosexual marriage was a choice for them.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

MaryL said:


> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree totally, but people are hammering away to indulge homosexuals on this, almost a tsunami FOR homosexual marriage.  I DO NOT  understand nor do I agree with the logic supporting gay marriage,  I just don't understand it. Much like the support for Donald Trump. He is damned  popular in the much the same vein, and that goes to the  easily manipulated fickle and inexplicable nature of the American voter. PT Barnum said : YOU can fool  most of the people some of the time, you cant can't fool all the people all the time.
Click to expand...

Actually, it’s very easy to understand.

First, there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage’; there is only one marriage law in each of the states, contract law that can accommodate two consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Second, the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying US citizens residing in the states from accessing state laws for no other reason than who they are, in this case denying same-sex couples access to marriage contract law because they are gay.

Third, denying gay Americans access to marriage law they are eligible to participate in solely because of their sexual orientation violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

And last, the 14th Amendment jurisprudence which prohibits the states from violating the due process and equal protection rights of gay Americans applies only to government, not private religious entities such as churches.

Now you understand.


----------



## saveliberty

I understand government high jacked a religiously protected right and crossed the separation boundary.


----------



## Skylar

emilynghiem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then show us one state law that requires that a married couple procreate....or be able to procreate in order to married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Skylar:
> @IndependentAce is NOT talking about "civil union" marriage,
> but talking about the SACRAMENT of marriage as a SOCIAL/SPIRITUAL institution.
> 
> You are talking about LEGAL definition, which is DIFFERENT.
> 
> For example,
> by LEGAL definitions a "Corporation is a PERSON" but not a Baby in the womb not viable yet.
> 
> Is a CORPORATION the 'same as a human being"
> 
> NO. Personhood means legally only.
> 
> So that "legal status" is NOT what @IndependentAce is talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ace is talking about legal definitions. Specifically, he's proposing that the State decide if gays and lesbians can be married.
> 
> ....Unless you're arguing that a State government should be allowed to define spiritual definitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Skylar Then you and IndependantAce need to specify and agree WHICH context you are talking about.
Click to expand...


Ace has been pretty clear that he's talking about legal marriage with this statement:



> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.



So either Ace is speaking of the legal definition, in which my questions remain unanswered......or he's speaking of the 'spiritual definition'. 

In which case do you agree that the States should be defining the 'spiritual definition' of marriage?


----------



## emilynghiem

saveliberty said:


> If being gay isn't a choice, is gay marriage a choice?



Dear saveliberty:
(A) To SOME people, being gay and/or not being able to change is NOT a choice.

For OTHERS, some people CAN change and it is choice to go through that process to change (either from gay to straight or trans/bi etc etc).

(B) gay marriage is like a choice of religion.

Free exercise of religion does NOT have to EXPRESS state that it protects Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Buddhists, etc. for their right to practice their beliefs.

So the choice or conviction regarding marriage does not have to be "spelled out" by govt in order to be practiced.

The problem is trying to legislate, regulate, endorse and manage "marriage and benefits" through govt, which then requires spelling out the terms.

This is why so many Constitutionalists argue that marriage, benefits, health care, and other Social Programs should NOT be run through govt. -- Because it leads to micromanaging people's personal and social choices through the federal level that requires Congress to approve funding.

Some people BELIEVE in using govt for this.
Some people DO NOT.

It even violates the beliefs of some people who are religiously oppose the "unconstitutional/unauthorized" use of govt for social programs that belong to the states or people, through charity or free market/free choice.

Two totally clashing beliefs about govt and how it should be used and what is off limits.

Why not give taxpayers a choice of which "Political Religion" to fund, by "free exercise of religion."


----------



## emilynghiem

Skylar said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then show us one state law that requires that a married couple procreate....or be able to procreate in order to married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Skylar:
> @IndependentAce is NOT talking about "civil union" marriage,
> but talking about the SACRAMENT of marriage as a SOCIAL/SPIRITUAL institution.
> 
> You are talking about LEGAL definition, which is DIFFERENT.
> 
> For example,
> by LEGAL definitions a "Corporation is a PERSON" but not a Baby in the womb not viable yet.
> 
> Is a CORPORATION the 'same as a human being"
> 
> NO. Personhood means legally only.
> 
> So that "legal status" is NOT what @IndependentAce is talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ace is talking about legal definitions. Specifically, he's proposing that the State decide if gays and lesbians can be married.
> 
> ....Unless you're arguing that a State government should be allowed to define spiritual definitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Skylar Then you and IndependantAce need to specify and agree WHICH context you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ace has been pretty clear that he's talking about legal marriage with this statement:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So either Ace is speaking of the legal definition, in which my questions remain unanswered......or he's speaking of the 'spiritual definition'.
> 
> In which case do you agree that the States should be defining the 'spiritual definition' of marriage?
Click to expand...


* NO -- not unless ALL the people AGREE on marriage can govt endorse such a policy -- it would have to reflect CONSENSUS of all the people's beliefs in that state to be constitutionally equal and inclusive. Otherwise it is discrimination and the govt is imposing definitions that violate or exclude the beliefs of SOME of the public. So that's unconstitutional for govt to exclude/discriminate against anyone under that jurisdiction.

* I am agreeing with BOTH of you that the govt should NOT be defining or endorsing the "definition of marriage" because it is imposing or discriminating against people of other beliefs. The PEOPLE would have to agree; it cannot be MANDATED BY GOVT.

IndependantAce opposes Govt endorsing same sex unions as marriage.
(And I support that argument NOT to impose that through Govt because of people's religious beliefs against this.)
This is like Govt endorsing
* teaching God and Creation in schools
* right to life starting at conception, etc.
Because of members of the public who DO NOT share those beliefs, this is violating "separation of church and state."

You and I equally argue that Govt CANNOT endorse traditional marriage BUT exclude same sex marriage because that is DISCRIMINATION.

However, Skylar the solution is NOT to impose same sex marriage, either.

By the same token, NEITHER definition of marriage should be imposed. Or it's violating the beliefs of people excluded from representation, who should be equally protected.

Both sides need to consent to the laws or else they are unconstitutional by imposing beliefs in conflict with the dissenting citizens.


----------



## Skylar

emilynghiem said:


> This is why so many Constitutionalists argue that marriage, benefits, health care, and other Social Programs should NOT be run through govt. -- Because it leads to micromanaging people's personal and social choices through the federal level that requires Congress to approve funding.



And the 'constituionalists' would be wrong. As the government running marriage.....are the States. Read the 10th amendment on what authority the States' have. And save for certain constitutional guarantees, the authority of the State over marriage is preemptive. 



> Some people BELIEVE in using govt for this.
> Some people DO NOT.



And the courts decided who was right.  The State has the authority to regulate mariage, subject to certain constitutional guarantees. 

That some disagree is legally irrelevant.


----------



## WinterBorn

saveliberty said:


> I understand government high jacked a religiously protected right and crossed the separation boundary.



What right would that be?


----------



## Skylar

emilynghiem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then show us one state law that requires that a married couple procreate....or be able to procreate in order to married.
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Skylar:
> @IndependentAce is NOT talking about "civil union" marriage,
> but talking about the SACRAMENT of marriage as a SOCIAL/SPIRITUAL institution.
> 
> You are talking about LEGAL definition, which is DIFFERENT.
> 
> For example,
> by LEGAL definitions a "Corporation is a PERSON" but not a Baby in the womb not viable yet.
> 
> Is a CORPORATION the 'same as a human being"
> 
> NO. Personhood means legally only.
> 
> So that "legal status" is NOT what @IndependentAce is talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ace is talking about legal definitions. Specifically, he's proposing that the State decide if gays and lesbians can be married.
> 
> ....Unless you're arguing that a State government should be allowed to define spiritual definitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Skylar Then you and IndependantAce need to specify and agree WHICH context you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ace has been pretty clear that he's talking about legal marriage with this statement:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So either Ace is speaking of the legal definition, in which my questions remain unanswered......or he's speaking of the 'spiritual definition'.
> 
> In which case do you agree that the States should be defining the 'spiritual definition' of marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * NO -- not unless ALL the people AGREE on marriage can govt endorse such a policy -- it would have to reflect CONSENSUS of all the people's beliefs in that state to be constitutionally equal and inclusive.
Click to expand...


Nope. No such consensus is necessary to enact laws. All that's necessary is a relevant majority acting in compliance with rights. You've never really understood how our system of law actually works, equating any disagreement from anyone with some legal controversy that invalidates laws.

That simply isn't the case. 



> Otherwise it is discrimination and the govt is imposing definitions that violate or exclude the beliefs of SOME of the public. So that's unconstitutional for govt to exclude/discriminate against anyone under that jurisdiction.



No more so than setting speed limits. 

Your belief in a universal consensus is not, nor has ever been our system of laws. The relevant majority imposes their will on the minority, subject to certain constitutional guarantees.


----------



## yiostheoy

heirtothewind said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?
> 
> Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?
> 
> If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?
> 
> Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?
> 
> If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be "hindu"....knock yourself out..... but Christianity does not condone homosexuality as it is offensive to God, the father and His son Jesus Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus ran around with 12 men.
Click to expand...

There was no good reason to resurrect this thread after the SCOTUS ruled on Obergefell v. Hodges invoking the 14th Amendment back on 6/26/2015.

If you don't like the ruling you would need to repeal the 14th Amendment.

Any amendment may be repealed.  The 18th Amendment proved that.

Repealing the 14th however would be extremely difficult.  Not impossible but difficult:

- all persons born or naturalized are US citizens with equal protection under the law;

- congressmen apportioned based on the population including everyone of legal voting age;

- Confederates may not be Federal elected officials;

- Federal debt is assured.



Supreme Court Declares Same-Sex Marriage Legal In All 50 States


----------



## yiostheoy

saveliberty said:


> I understand government high jacked a religiously protected right and crossed the separation boundary.


You must be forgetting about the 1st Amendment then, that the Federal (or State per 14th) Government(s) may not make religious laws.

Preventing same sex couples from marrying was a religious law.

Obergefell v. Hodges repealed all those laws and made future such enactments null and void.


----------



## Packyderm

IndependantAce said:


> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.





* Of course it isnt a constitutional right. Obergefell v. Hodges was a tragedy...but mostly in its boldness. The Supreme Court has been crushing the states, and by extension the people, for decades. They have reached the point where they simply do not bother to hide their exercise of "raw judicial power" (Byron White) because they are dealing with a cowed (and cowardly) citizenry. In other words this group of Oligarchs does as it pleases. And liberalism pleases them most. That and power.*
*   Though the pretense of Constitutional government had been kept up until recently they find it less necessary these days thanks to poor education,enforced federal dependence, family destruction and the success of defining deviancy down. At one time not so long ago it was pretended California had a choice for example...that the wishes of it's citizens mattered. Along came proposition 8. And along came the federal courts to overturn the will of the people. The people in state after state moved rapidly to write bans into their constitutions of a disgusting act which had never been possible in the first place. And the courts moved just as rapidly behind them to overturn the votes of the people.
   As in abortion, and school prayer the unelected oligarchs disregarded not only the will of the people they rule but the Constitution as well. *
*   Evon so the states share the blame. It is the responsibility of the governors and legislatures to defend their citizens against this sort of nonsense. And they are failing their duty. I'll leave with another quote which suggests how the real men who built this country responded to such over reaches... "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" Andrew Jackson.*
*   Get used to being ruled. Or not. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison et al chose the latter.*


----------



## Packyderm

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is not a right..
> 
> However since marriage licenses were born from racism, why do we still have them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Marriage is in fact a right.
Click to expand...


    Marriage is not a right. It is a restriction on rights.


----------



## Packyderm

yiostheoy said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand government high jacked a religiously protected right and crossed the separation boundary.
> 
> 
> 
> You must be forgetting about the 1st Amendment then, that the Federal (or State per 14th) Government(s) may not make religious laws.
> 
> Preventing same sex couples from marrying was a religious law.
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges repealed all those laws and made future such enactments null and void.
Click to expand...


    The first amendment does no such thing. Lets look at it. 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

   It is called the "Establishment Clause" for a reason. Congress is forbidden to establish a national religion. It didn't forbid the states...actually the men who wrote the Constitution went home to their states and established official churches immediately in many cases. They saw no problem with it. It doesn't mention "separation" at all. That is imaginary. It doesn't mention the President nor does it mention the states  or the people EXCEPT to ban Congress from legislation which PROHIBIT the people of the states from expressing their religious inclinations.
   It was obviously intended to protect the states, and their citizens, from religious rulings from Washington. Not to impose Washington's religious laws on the states.

  But more to the point the majority opinion in OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES did not invoke religion as a reason for overthrowing constitutional democracy did they? They used, as the brilliant Justice Scalia said, "mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie". I may be wrong here but as far as I know not once does Obergefell rely on, in its ruling, the First Amendment.

  When do you scummy liberals get such nonsense?


----------



## WinterBorn

Packyderm said:


> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Of course it isnt a constitutional right. Obergefell v. Hodges was a tragedy...but mostly in its boldness. The Supreme Court has been crushing the states, and by extension the people, for decades. They have reached the point where they simply do not bother to hide their exercise of "raw judicial power" (Byron White) because they are dealing with a cowed (and cowardly) citizenry. In other words this group of Oligarchs does as it pleases. And liberalism pleases them most. That and power.*
> *   Though the pretense of Constitutional government had been kept up until recently they find it less necessary these days thanks to poor education,enforced federal dependence, family destruction and the success of defining deviancy down. At one time not so long ago it was pretended California had a choice for example...that the wishes of it's citizens mattered. Along came proposition 8. And along came the federal courts to overturn the will of the people. The people in state after state moved rapidly to write bans into their constitutions of a disgusting act which had never been possible in the first place. And the courts moved just as rapidly behind them to overturn the votes of the people.
> As in abortion, and school prayer the unelected oligarchs disregarded not only the will of the people they rule but the Constitution as well. *
> *   Evon so the states share the blame. It is the responsibility of the governors and legislatures to defend their citizens against this sort of nonsense. And they are failing their duty. I'll leave with another quote which suggests how the real men who built this country responded to such over reaches... "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" Andrew Jackson.*
> *   Get used to being ruled. Or not. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison et al chose the latter.*
Click to expand...


You are entitled to your beliefs.

I find it amusing that you mention Jefferson in the same post decrying the SCOTUS rulings on school prayer.  Jefferson was most certainly not a Christian.

And to use Jackson quotes is hilarious!  After the war with the British was over, Jackson jailed a senator for daring to question the ongoing marial law.  When a judge ruled the senator should be released, Jackson had the judge banished from New Orleans.  Andrew Jackson is NOT a man to be quoted in favor of the "average joe" or even individual rights.


----------



## Packyderm

Get your amusement where you can I suppose. I myself find it amusing that you conflate Christianity with defense of freedom. 

   But even so I think his religious beliefs have been misunderstood/misrepresented by irreligious liberals. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence which is one of the most religious documents in history outside of papal bulls. Anyhow, we KNOW without a doubt, what his response would have been to a Supreme Court ruling that his state must marry gays. Or that kids couldn't pray in school. Or that his states abortion laws were summarily overturned. He would have shot somebody between the eyes.
  He did propose a bill to disestablish the Episcopal Church as the official established church of Virginia. That bill failed in the Virginia Legislature. Not being a liberal or of a totalitarian bent Jefferson didn't run to the courts or simply ignore the law establishing the PEC. He accepted it as the will of the people.

  "You seem...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy...and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life...The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots..."

   Prophetic words from a man who may have entertained unorthodox ideas about Christianity but had a laser focus on the corruption of power. His fears have come to pass.


----------



## Skylar

Packyderm said:


> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Of course it isnt a constitutional right. Obergefell v. Hodges was a tragedy...but mostly in its boldness. The Supreme Court has been crushing the states, and by extension the people, for decades.*
Click to expand...


So by your estimation, Interracial marriage bans should have stood? How about State gun bans?

The Supreme court defends the rights of people by limiting the power of the States when the States violate those rights. As they should since the passage of the 14th amendment. As the states have pretty regularly abused the rights of people. 



> They have reached the point where they simply do not bother to hide their exercise of "raw judicial power" (Byron White) because they are dealing with a cowed (and cowardly) citizenry. In other words this group of Oligarchs does as it pleases. And liberalism pleases them most. That and power.



Recognizing the right to gays is the 'group of oligarchs doing as it pleases'? 

Really? You're literally arguing for the power of the States to strip people of rights......as freedom. And the court preventing the States in their attempts to strip people of rights....as tyranny. 

The Court's obligation is the Supreme Law of the Land: the Constitution. When State or Federal Statutory laws conflict with the Constitution the courts have an obligation to advance the Supreme Law of the Land.


----------



## Packyderm

> So by your estimation, Interracial marriage bans should have stood? How about State gun bans?



  My estimation doesn't matter. What do self governing people allow to stand or fall? Isn't that the only real question? By asking this question you betray your belief in a government of men rather than of laws. And situational ethics.



> The Supreme court defends the rights of people by limiting the power of the States when the States violate those rights. As they should since the passage of the 14th amendment. As the states have pretty regularly abused the rights of people.



   No it doesnt. It strips them of their right to govern themselves as free citizens. And it does violence to the Constitution, our federal system of government and our history and culture.
   BTW above the Supreme Court, busily "limiting the power of the states", stands the Constitution...built and crafted to limit the power of the federal governent




> Recognizing the right to gays is the 'group of oligarchs doing as it pleases'?



  They didn't recognize anything because it doesn't exist, didn't exist and has never existed. As admitted by the black robed social justice warriors themselves. It was invented. The majority admitted they relied on "new insight"...not the law or the Constitution or precedent. In fact they admittedly did violence to precedent, laws, custom and constitutional understanding. In their own words.

_"To be sure, these cases presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners, as did Baker v. Nelson, 409 U. S. 810, a one-line summary decision issued in 1972, holding that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage did not present a substantial federal question." [majority opinion OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES]_

_“[R]egulation of domestic relations is an area that haslong been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”[majority opinion OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES]_

_“[T]he Federal Government, through our history, hasdeferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.”[majority opinion OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES]_
[/quote]



> Really? You're literally arguing for the power of the States to strip people of rights......as freedom. And the court preventing the States in their attempts to strip people of rights....as tyranny.



  Well meaning tyranny is still tyranny. You seem to be advocating a benign sort of dictatorship? Where people incapable of self government are explained the error of their ways and ordered to make amends and to hell with such wasteful nonsense as voting, state courts, legislatures and governments. 




> The Court's obligation is the Supreme Law of the Land: the Constitution. When State or Federal Statutory laws conflict with the Constitution the courts have an obligation to advance the Supreme Law of the Land.



   Here is the supreme law of the land..*."The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."*

  If you see where the Constitution delegates the definition of marriage to the Federal government get back to me.

  And if Constitutional and limited government don't appeal to you then by all means admire the gobbly-gook and my little pony reasoning of the supreme court by reading their decision in full. If your stomach can take it. Then do yourself a real favor and read Scalias dissent. It is brilliant.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]


----------



## Skylar

Packyderm said:


> So by your estimation, Interracial marriage bans should have stood? How about State gun bans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My estimation doesn't matter. What do self governing people allow to stand or fall? Isn't that the only real question? By asking this question you betray your belief in a government of men rather than of laws. And situational ethics.
Click to expand...


Your version of 'self governing people' is plain old tyranny of the majority. *Where a simple majority can strip any right, can grant the government any power.*

Um, no. That's not our system of government nor has it ever been. The power of the government, state and federal, is limited by the rights of the people. The federal government limited by the BoR. And the States limited by the BoR under the 14th amendment. Those rights of the people cannot simply be stripped from the people under the rhetorical sock drawer of 'self governance'. 

*When government tramples on rights the courts have an obligation to check it. *You insist that they should never do this. You're obviously wrong. 




> No it doesnt. It strips them of their right to govern themselves as free citizens. And it does violence to the Constitution, our federal system of government and our history and culture.



You're confusing rights with powers. What you're describing is the POWER of the government to impose itself on the people. And laughably conflating this with 'rights'. Rights are freedom FROM government. People have rights. Not governments. Not ever. 

*And in every instance of 'rights' you've called on.....you've described government power. *Which the federal judiciary has every authority to limit when it abrogates rights.



> BTW above the Supreme Court, busily "limiting the power of the states", stands the Constitution...built and crafted to limit the power of the federal government.



With the Supreme Court being the arbiter of the meaning of the constitution, placing the Constitution above legislative acts that violate it. Says who? 

Says Alexander Hamilton in Federalist paper 78:



> *The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. *A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. I*t therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. *If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.



But the Federalist Papers are wrong?

*Um, no. Its just you, having fallaciously equated rights with powers.* They aren't the same thing. And it is your fundamental misunderstanding of what rights are that have put your view in conflict with the founders, case law and history.

Get used to the idea.


----------



## Dragonlady

Dale Smith said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Real churches marry gay people all of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not Bible believing churches....501C3 churches do..... so they can maintain their tax free status....consider yourself "schooled".....
Click to expand...


Real Churches.  Mainstream churches.  Churches that preach the love of Jesus, not the fire and brimstone of the First Testament.  Christians who consider those who would call themselves "real Christians" to be rabid fundamentalist cultists who practice something that in no way resembles Christianity.


----------



## Dale Smith

Dragonlady said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Real churches marry gay people all of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not Bible believing churches....501C3 churches do..... so they can maintain their tax free status....consider yourself "schooled".....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real Churches.  Mainstream churches.  Churches that preach the love of Jesus, not the fire and brimstone of the First Testament.  Christians who consider those who would call themselves "real Christians" to be rabid fundamentalist cultists who practice something that in no way resembles Christianity.
Click to expand...

n

 Does the love of Jesus also encompass pedophilia as well as homosexuality? Spare me your Aleister Crowley bullshit of "Do as thou wilst"


----------



## WinterBorn

Dale Smith said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Real churches marry gay people all of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not Bible believing churches....501C3 churches do..... so they can maintain their tax free status....consider yourself "schooled".....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real Churches.  Mainstream churches.  Churches that preach the love of Jesus, not the fire and brimstone of the First Testament.  Christians who consider those who would call themselves "real Christians" to be rabid fundamentalist cultists who practice something that in no way resembles Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> n
> 
> Does the love of Jesus also encompass pedophilia as well as homosexuality? Spare me your Aleister Crowley bullshit of "Do as thou wilst"
Click to expand...


Pedophilia and homosexuality are not comparable.  

With one you have two adults who love each other.   With the other you have a child being abused.


----------



## Dale Smith

WinterBorn said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Real churches marry gay people all of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not Bible believing churches....501C3 churches do..... so they can maintain their tax free status....consider yourself "schooled".....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real Churches.  Mainstream churches.  Churches that preach the love of Jesus, not the fire and brimstone of the First Testament.  Christians who consider those who would call themselves "real Christians" to be rabid fundamentalist cultists who practice something that in no way resembles Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> n
> 
> Does the love of Jesus also encompass pedophilia as well as homosexuality? Spare me your Aleister Crowley bullshit of "Do as thou wilst"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pedophilia and homosexuality are not comparable.
> 
> With one you have two adults who love each other.   With the other you have a child being abused.
Click to expand...


Go fuck yourself....spare me the "friend of the queer" speech.


----------



## WinterBorn

Dale Smith said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Real churches marry gay people all of the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not Bible believing churches....501C3 churches do..... so they can maintain their tax free status....consider yourself "schooled".....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real Churches.  Mainstream churches.  Churches that preach the love of Jesus, not the fire and brimstone of the First Testament.  Christians who consider those who would call themselves "real Christians" to be rabid fundamentalist cultists who practice something that in no way resembles Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> n
> 
> Does the love of Jesus also encompass pedophilia as well as homosexuality? Spare me your Aleister Crowley bullshit of "Do as thou wilst"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pedophilia and homosexuality are not comparable.
> 
> With one you have two adults who love each other.   With the other you have a child being abused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself....spare me the "friend of the queer" speech.
Click to expand...


Just the truth.    Nice "Christian" response.   You just use select bible passages to justify your hate.


----------



## ABikerSailor

But WinterBorn..................didn't you know that's how the Christians get you to join them?  They scare the hell out of you with cherry picked verses, and then cherry pick more to get you to follow their dogma. 

Seen it many times.


----------



## WinterBorn

ABikerSailor said:


> But WinterBorn..................didn't you know that's how the Christians get you to join them?  They scare the hell out of you with cherry picked verses, and then cherry pick more to get you to follow their dogma.
> 
> Seen it many times.



Yeah, you are right.   They preach about the God of Love, and demand you fear him.


----------



## Dale Smith

WinterBorn said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not Bible believing churches....501C3 churches do..... so they can maintain their tax free status....consider yourself "schooled".....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Real Churches.  Mainstream churches.  Churches that preach the love of Jesus, not the fire and brimstone of the First Testament.  Christians who consider those who would call themselves "real Christians" to be rabid fundamentalist cultists who practice something that in no way resembles Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> n
> 
> Does the love of Jesus also encompass pedophilia as well as homosexuality? Spare me your Aleister Crowley bullshit of "Do as thou wilst"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pedophilia and homosexuality are not comparable.
> 
> With one you have two adults who love each other.   With the other you have a child being abused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself....spare me the "friend of the queer" speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just the truth.    Nice "Christian" response.   You just use select bible passages to justify your hate.
Click to expand...



No, I don't "hate" but I am tired of the LGBT and GLSEN agenda where they are pushing acceptance for the queer agenda in our public schools starting at the grade school level and anyone that objects can expect to be ostracized...it's not like I give a shit. I will not be silenced nor will I be bullied into accepting it...get it now?


----------



## Dale Smith

ABikerSailor said:


> But WinterBorn..................didn't you know that's how the Christians get you to join them?  They scare the hell out of you with cherry picked verses, and then cherry pick more to get you to follow their dogma.
> 
> Seen it many times.



Yeah, accept faggotry or you don't have faith in a higher power...I "get it". I don't give a flying fuck what consenting adults do in the privacy of their home...but keep it "private" and stop telling people that they must accept their way of life and flaunting it in the face of people. Get your freak on but don't expect everyone to approve of it....get it now?


----------



## WinterBorn

Dale Smith said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Real Churches.  Mainstream churches.  Churches that preach the love of Jesus, not the fire and brimstone of the First Testament.  Christians who consider those who would call themselves "real Christians" to be rabid fundamentalist cultists who practice something that in no way resembles Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> n
> 
> Does the love of Jesus also encompass pedophilia as well as homosexuality? Spare me your Aleister Crowley bullshit of "Do as thou wilst"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pedophilia and homosexuality are not comparable.
> 
> With one you have two adults who love each other.   With the other you have a child being abused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself....spare me the "friend of the queer" speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just the truth.    Nice "Christian" response.   You just use select bible passages to justify your hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't "hate" but I am tired of the LGBT and GLSEN agenda where they are pushing acceptance for the queer agenda in our public schools starting at the grade school level and anyone that objects can expect to be ostracized...it's not like I give a shit. I will not be silenced nor will I be bullied into accepting it...get it now?
Click to expand...


Rein it in, Sparky.  I have not said anything about you being silent.   You equated homosexuality with pedophilia.   I simply pointed out the fact that this inaccurate, to say the least.    Then you start posting profanities and slinging crap around.

Jeez junior, get a grip.


----------



## Dale Smith

WinterBorn said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> n
> 
> Does the love of Jesus also encompass pedophilia as well as homosexuality? Spare me your Aleister Crowley bullshit of "Do as thou wilst"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedophilia and homosexuality are not comparable.
> 
> With one you have two adults who love each other.   With the other you have a child being abused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself....spare me the "friend of the queer" speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just the truth.    Nice "Christian" response.   You just use select bible passages to justify your hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't "hate" but I am tired of the LGBT and GLSEN agenda where they are pushing acceptance for the queer agenda in our public schools starting at the grade school level and anyone that objects can expect to be ostracized...it's not like I give a shit. I will not be silenced nor will I be bullied into accepting it...get it now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rein it in, Sparky.  I have not said anything about you being silent.   You equated homosexuality with pedophilia.   I simply pointed out the fact that this inaccurate, to say the least.    Then you start posting profanities and slinging crap around.
> 
> Jeez junior, get a grip.
Click to expand...



The LGBT and NAMBLA are wanting to lower the age of consent like what they are trying to do in the UK...so yeah, I am equating homosexuality and pedophilia because they go "hand in hand"...deny it all you want but it is what it is.


----------



## WinterBorn

Dale Smith said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pedophilia and homosexuality are not comparable.
> 
> With one you have two adults who love each other.   With the other you have a child being abused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself....spare me the "friend of the queer" speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just the truth.    Nice "Christian" response.   You just use select bible passages to justify your hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't "hate" but I am tired of the LGBT and GLSEN agenda where they are pushing acceptance for the queer agenda in our public schools starting at the grade school level and anyone that objects can expect to be ostracized...it's not like I give a shit. I will not be silenced nor will I be bullied into accepting it...get it now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rein it in, Sparky.  I have not said anything about you being silent.   You equated homosexuality with pedophilia.   I simply pointed out the fact that this inaccurate, to say the least.    Then you start posting profanities and slinging crap around.
> 
> Jeez junior, get a grip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The LGBT and NAMBLA are wanting to lower the age of consent like what they are trying to do in the UK...so yeah, I am equating homosexuality and pedophilia because they go "hand in hand"...deny it all you want but it is what it is.
Click to expand...


What it is would be bullshit.   The FBI separates the two, and even classifies child molesters who molest young children as neither gay nor straight.

You are welcome your beliefs, but the facts remain the same.


----------



## Packyderm

Christian churches condemn homosexuality. That your experience is limited to empty, banal, fad following dying churches simply gives you a distorted and provincial view of the world.  The two largest denominations in the US, by far the largest , follow the Christian condemnation of homosexuality. And have no part in these sham gay marriages. That's Roman Catholic and Southern Baptist. 
   Worldwide the same holds. Orthodox , Roman Catholic, Coptic....that's about 1.5 billion   Outside the us the charismatic movement sweeping South America rejects homosexuality as do Anglican communion churches outside the anglosphere
   There has always been heresy. Just don't pretend your homosexual heresy is Christianity.


----------



## PredFan

IndependantAce said:


> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.



No it's not but it IS in fact a liberty. Why are you against freedom and liberty? Why do you want big government to tell people how to live their lives? Do you not care about the values this country was founded on?


----------



## Packyderm

Was gay marriage a part of the founding? No? Wow. There goes that pathetic bit of doublethink.


----------



## jillian

IndependantAce said:


> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.



apparently, it is.

hint: marriage is a fundamental right. two consenting adults cannot be denied that right absent a compelling governmental interest. your bigotry is not a compelling governmental interest.

thanks.

now read:

{{meta.pageTitle}}

p.s. marriage has zero to do with procreation or there would be a test to make sure no one who could not have a child or would choose not to have a child would get married. now be quiet.


----------



## Tennyson

Is same-sex marriage a constitutional right depends on the definition of "constitutional."

Is there constitutional basis for same-sex marriage? No.

Was there a constitutional basis for the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling? No.

If one wants to use the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges as being constitutional, then yes.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Is same-sex marriage a constitutional right depends on the definition of "constitutional."
> 
> Is there constitutional basis for same-sex marriage? No.
> 
> Was there a constitutional basis for the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling? No.
> 
> If one wants to use the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges as being constitutional, then yes.



Says who? Remembering of course that the Constitution isn't an exhaustive list of rights. But an exhaustive list of powers.

And if you're curious to see how is supposed to interpret the constitution according to the Founders, just read Federalist 78. I'll give you a hint: its not you.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is same-sex marriage a constitutional right depends on the definition of "constitutional."
> 
> Is there constitutional basis for same-sex marriage? No.
> 
> Was there a constitutional basis for the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling? No.
> 
> If one wants to use the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges as being constitutional, then yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says who? Remembering of course that the Constitution isn't an exhaustive list of rights. But an exhaustive list of powers.
> 
> And if you're curious to see how is supposed to interpret the constitution according to the Founders, just read Federalist 78. I'll give you a hint: its not you.
Click to expand...


I am going to say every single founder. The method of interpretation was consistent with each of the founders: always go back to the debates and the spirit and purpose for the meaning rather than making up a meaning to suit the flavor of the day.

What does Federalist No. 78 say? First off, you cannot quote mine for something that fits your views and pass it off as representative of the founder’s method of interpretation. Secondly, Federalist No. 78 states several things regarding interpretation of the Constitution:

Hamilton is referencing the judiciary and the federal Congress only as the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the states other than a conflict with one of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. The court overstepped its bounds once regarding the states in the founding era, and the Eleventh Amendment was proposed in three days to reign in the court.

States control their destiny and what the people want in their state.

The federal government is limited to Article I, Section 8 powers of interstate commerce, military, and foreign policy;

The federal judiciary is bound by the Constitution until the people change the Constitution.​
Hamilton also emphasized these same sentiments in Federalist No. 81, Federalist No. 33, and on June 18, 1787, in the Philadelphia convention.

The Constitution has limited and enumerated powers. The federal judiciary’s were more limited than Congress.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is same-sex marriage a constitutional right depends on the definition of "constitutional."
> 
> Is there constitutional basis for same-sex marriage? No.
> 
> Was there a constitutional basis for the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling? No.
> 
> If one wants to use the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges as being constitutional, then yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says who? Remembering of course that the Constitution isn't an exhaustive list of rights. But an exhaustive list of powers.
> 
> And if you're curious to see how is supposed to interpret the constitution according to the Founders, just read Federalist 78. I'll give you a hint: its not you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am going to say every single founder. The method of interpretation was consistent with each of the founders: always go back to the debates and the spirit and purpose for the meaning rather than making up a meaning to suit the flavor of the day.
> 
> What does Federalist No. 78 say? First off, you cannot quote mine for something that fits your views and pass it off as representative of the founder’s method of interpretation. Secondly, Federalist No. 78 states several things regarding interpretation of the Constitution:
> 
> Hamilton is referencing the judiciary and the federal Congress only as the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the states other than a conflict with one of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. The court overstepped its bounds once regarding the states in the founding era, and the Eleventh Amendment was proposed in three days to reign in the court.
> 
> States control their destiny and what the people want in their state.
> 
> The federal government is limited to Article I, Section 8 powers of interstate commerce, military, and foreign policy;
> 
> The federal judiciary is bound by the Constitution until the people change the Constitution.​
> Hamilton also emphasized these same sentiments in Federalist No. 81, Federalist No. 33, and on June 18, 1787, in the Philadelphia convention.
> 
> The Constitution has limited and enumerated powers. The federal judiciary’s were more limited than Congress.
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure that Hamilton didn't refer to himself in the 3rd person in Federalist 78. So that's not Federalist 78 you're quoting. Let me offer you the actual quotes:



			
				Federalist 78 said:
			
		

> The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. *It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.* If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.



With 'them' in that context....being the federal judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to intepret the constitution.

As for 'changing the constitution', that's exactly what was done with the 14th amendment. The due process clause of which was the basis of the Obergefell ruling.

The constitution is not an exhaustive list of rights, as the 9th amendment makes comically clear. Its an exhaustive list of powers. And the courts have recognized the right to marry is a fundamental right.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is same-sex marriage a constitutional right depends on the definition of "constitutional."
> 
> Is there constitutional basis for same-sex marriage? No.
> 
> Was there a constitutional basis for the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling? No.
> 
> If one wants to use the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges as being constitutional, then yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says who? Remembering of course that the Constitution isn't an exhaustive list of rights. But an exhaustive list of powers.
> 
> And if you're curious to see how is supposed to interpret the constitution according to the Founders, just read Federalist 78. I'll give you a hint: its not you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am going to say every single founder. The method of interpretation was consistent with each of the founders: always go back to the debates and the spirit and purpose for the meaning rather than making up a meaning to suit the flavor of the day.
> 
> What does Federalist No. 78 say? First off, you cannot quote mine for something that fits your views and pass it off as representative of the founder’s method of interpretation. Secondly, Federalist No. 78 states several things regarding interpretation of the Constitution:
> 
> Hamilton is referencing the judiciary and the federal Congress only as the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the states other than a conflict with one of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. The court overstepped its bounds once regarding the states in the founding era, and the Eleventh Amendment was proposed in three days to reign in the court.
> 
> States control their destiny and what the people want in their state.
> 
> The federal government is limited to Article I, Section 8 powers of interstate commerce, military, and foreign policy;
> 
> The federal judiciary is bound by the Constitution until the people change the Constitution.​
> Hamilton also emphasized these same sentiments in Federalist No. 81, Federalist No. 33, and on June 18, 1787, in the Philadelphia convention.
> 
> The Constitution has limited and enumerated powers. The federal judiciary’s were more limited than Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that Hamilton didn't refer to himself in the 3rd person in Federalist 78. So that's not Federalist 78 you're quoting. Let me offer you the actual quotes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. *It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.* If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With 'them' in that context....being the federal judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to intepret the constitution.
> 
> As for 'changing the constitution', that's exactly what was done with the 14th amendment. The due process clause of which was the basis of the Obergefell ruling.
> 
> The constitution is not an exhaustive list of rights, as the 9th amendment makes comically clear. Its an exhaustive list of powers. And the courts have recognized the right to marry is a fundamental right.
Click to expand...



I am not sure what point you are trying to make with an out of context quote from Hamilton’s Federalist No. 78, which is out of context with the other writings by Hamilton and the other founders regarding interpretation of the Constitution: Hamilton also emphasized these same sentiments in Federalist No. 81, Federalist No. 33, and on June 18, 1787, in the Philadelphia convention.

Hamilton is referencing the judiciary and the federal Congress only as the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the states other than a conflict with one of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. The court overstepped its bounds once regarding the states in the founding era, and the Eleventh Amendment was proposed in three days to reign in the court.

You are quote mining for support of your worldview, and that is not credible.  An out of context quote from one document, which is out of context for all the documents on this subject is not an argument regarding the founders’ intent on how the Constitution is interpreted.

Hamilton is speaking of the separation of powers. Hamilton is also speaking to the limitations on Congress and if they pass legislation outside of their purview. Hamilton is not speaking of state laws or state constitutions.

You left the next paragraph out also:

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.​
The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the Constitution. Twentieth century activist judges used the Fourteenth Amendment to change the Constitution. They are two different things. 

The_ Obergefell v. Hodges_ ruling did not use the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> [
> The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the Constitution. Twentieth century activist judges used the Fourteenth Amendment to change the Constitution. They are two different things.
> 
> The_ Obergefell v. Hodges_ ruling did not use the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.



The Fourteenth Amendment did indeed change the Constitution. In many fundamental ways- beyond even Section 1.

_All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.* No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States*; *nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law*;* nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*_
*
Prior to the 14th Amendment States had much more power to deny the rights of Americans within their state. 

Obergefell refers repeatedly to the Due Porcess clause
*

(1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs.

The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why _Loving_ invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause. See 388 U. S., at 12. Decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make. See _Lawrence_, _supra_, at 574. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation

(3) The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always co-extensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other. This dynamic is reflected in _Loving, _where the Court invoked both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause;

And finally- explicitely- you are refuted

(4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. _Baker_ v. _Nelson_ is overruled.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> I am not sure what point you are trying to make with an out of context quote from Hamilton’s Federalist No. 78, which is out of context with the other writings by Hamilton and the other founders regarding interpretation of the Constitution: Hamilton also emphasized these same sentiments in Federalist No. 81, Federalist No. 33, and on June 18, 1787, in the Philadelphia convention.



Horseshit. My citation of Federalist 78 is completely in context and establishes, unambiguously, that the judiciary is to be the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.



			
				Federalist 78 said:
			
		

> *It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.*



With 'them' being the federal judiciary. And 'its' being the the constitution. We have the constitutionally designated body to interpret the constitution saying one thing. And you saying another.

Obviously the Federal Judicary wins.



> Hamilton is referencing the judiciary and the federal Congress only as the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the states other than a conflict with one of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. The court overstepped its bounds once regarding the states in the founding era, and the Eleventh Amendment was proposed in three days to reign in the court.



Hamilton is citing the judiciary and its role as interpreter of the meaning of the constitution. That's beyond dispute. As Barron v. Baltimore established, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States under the Constitution. The 14th amendment changed that, granting the federal government the power to prevent the States
from violating the rights of federal citizens.

Which every State citizen is.

All of which I'm pretty sure you know.



> You are quote mining for support of your worldview, and that is not credible.  An out of context quote from one document, which is out of context for all the documents on this subject is not an argument regarding the founders’ intent on how the Constitution is interpreted.



Again, horseshit. You have provided nothing to back your perspective, nor the slightest evidence that the judiciary isn't the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution by design. You've simply alluded vaguely to the quote being 'out of context' or 'quote mined'.

When we both know its fully in context and obviously establishes my point: *That the federal judiciary is the arbiter of the meaning of the constitution.*

And like it or not, the 14th amendment is part of the constitution. Thus,  any dispute between you and the federal judiciary on the meaning and application of the 14th amendment has the same winner every time:

Not you.

Hamilton is speaking of the separation of powers. Hamilton is also speaking to the limitations on Congress and if they pass legislation outside of their purview. Hamilton is not speaking of state laws or state constitutions.

You left the next paragraph out also:

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.
​[/quote]
A citation which in no way contradicts my point. As the judges have an obligation to put the Constitution above any statute. Under the Bill of Rights, any federal statute. Under the 14th amendment, any state law as well.

Which is exactly what they did in Obergefell....placing the due process clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution above the State laws that violate the rights of citizens.

Exactly as the federal judiciary should.


> The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the Constitution.



Laughing....of course it did. Every amendment changes the constitution. That's what amendments are. With the primary proponents of the 14th amendment in congress arguing that it would apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

With Senator Howard going so far as to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th amendment is intended to apply to the States.

They even cited Barron v. Baltimore as establishing that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. And cited the 14th amendment as changing that.

To argue that the 14th was never intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States or change the constitution is beyond ludicrious. And you know its nonsense, as I've quoted citations of both Howard and Bingham to you making these exact points.



> The_ Obergefell v. Hodges_ ruling did not use the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.



Um, wow. You're really out of your depth. As the Obergefell court obviously did;



			
				Obergefell v. Hodges said:
			
		

> These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.



Seriously, do you ever fact check any of the nonsense you type? I'm kinda embarrassed for you at this point.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what point you are trying to make with an out of context quote from Hamilton’s Federalist No. 78, which is out of context with the other writings by Hamilton and the other founders regarding interpretation of the Constitution: Hamilton also emphasized these same sentiments in Federalist No. 81, Federalist No. 33, and on June 18, 1787, in the Philadelphia convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit. My citation of Federalist 78 is completely in context and establishes, unambiguously, that the judiciary is to be the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With 'them' being the federal judiciary. And 'its' being the the constitution. We have the constitutionally designated body to interpret the constitution saying one thing. And you saying another.
> 
> Obviously the Federal Judicary wins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamilton is referencing the judiciary and the federal Congress only as the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the states other than a conflict with one of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. The court overstepped its bounds once regarding the states in the founding era, and the Eleventh Amendment was proposed in three days to reign in the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hamilton is citing the judiciary and its role as interpreter of the meaning of the constitution. That's beyond dispute. As Barron v. Baltimore established, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States under the Constitution. The 14th amendment changed that, granting the federal government the power to prevent the States
> from violating the rights of federal citizens.
> 
> Which every State citizen is.
> 
> All of which I'm pretty sure you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are quote mining for support of your worldview, and that is not credible.  An out of context quote from one document, which is out of context for all the documents on this subject is not an argument regarding the founders’ intent on how the Constitution is interpreted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, horseshit. You have provided nothing to back your perspective, nor the slightest evidence that the judiciary isn't the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution by design. You've simply alluded vaguely to the quote being 'out of context' or 'quote mined'.
> 
> When we both know its fully in context and obviously establishes my point: *That the federal judiciary is the arbiter of the meaning of the constitution.*
> 
> And like it or not, the 14th amendment is part of the constitution. Thus,  any dispute between you and the federal judiciary on the meaning and application of the 14th amendment has the same winner every time:
> 
> Not you.
> 
> Hamilton is speaking of the separation of powers. Hamilton is also speaking to the limitations on Congress and if they pass legislation outside of their purview. Hamilton is not speaking of state laws or state constitutions.
> 
> You left the next paragraph out also:
> 
> Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.
> ​
Click to expand...

A citation which in no way contradicts my point. As the judges have an obligation to put the Constitution above any statute. Under the Bill of Rights, any federal statute. Under the 14th amendment, any state law as well.

Which is exactly what they did in Obergefell....placing the due process clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution above the State laws that violate the rights of citizens.

Exactly as the federal judiciary should.


> The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the Constitution.



Laughing....of course it did. Every amendment changes the constitution. That's what amendments are. With the primary proponents of the 14th amendment in congress arguing that it would apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

With Senator Howard going so far as to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th amendment is intended to apply to the States.

They even cited Barron v. Baltimore as establishing that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. And cited the 14th amendment as changing that.

To argue that the 14th was never intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States or change the constitution is beyond ludicrious. And you know its nonsense, as I've quoted citations of both Howard and Bingham to you making these exact points.



> The_ Obergefell v. Hodges_ ruling did not use the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.



Um, wow. You're really out of your depth. As the Obergefell court obviously did;



			
				Obergefell v. Hodges said:
			
		

> These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.



Seriously, do you ever fact check any of the nonsense you type? I'm kinda embarrassed for you at this point.[/QUOTE]

Your entire premise revolves around an out of context quote by Hamilton in a document about the separation of powers regarding the federal judiciary vis-a-vis the legislative branch. The concept you are presenting regarding same-sex marriage and the states was not a concept in the federalist papers, was not a concept in the founding era, nor was it a concept in 1866. The entire concept was created in 2015 by a Supreme Court with no constitutional basis. 

You seem to have a predilection for lowering an exchange to gutter level exchanges. I do not play that game as I have yet to encounter anyone with that strategy to have the intellectual or educational background to advance any discussion on a higher plane than that. 

_Obergefell v. Hodges _not use the due process of the Fourteenth Amendment. Obergefell used substantive due process and substantive due process did not exist until the twentieth century. The due process clause and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment were both functions of the law within the judicial process and had nothing to do with rights. Just because Kennedy said that he used substantive due process from the Fourteenth Amendment does not make it so and it cannot be so because it did not exist.


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the Constitution. Twentieth century activist judges used the Fourteenth Amendment to change the Constitution. They are two different things.
> 
> The_ Obergefell v. Hodges_ ruling did not use the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment did indeed change the Constitution. In many fundamental ways- beyond even Section 1.
> 
> _All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.* No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States*; *nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law*;* nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*_
> *
> Prior to the 14th Amendment States had much more power to deny the rights of Americans within their state.
> 
> Obergefell refers repeatedly to the Due Porcess clause
> *
> 
> (1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs.
> 
> The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why _Loving_ invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause. See 388 U. S., at 12. Decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make. See _Lawrence_, _supra_, at 574. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation
> 
> (3) The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always co-extensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other. This dynamic is reflected in _Loving, _where the Court invoked both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause;
> 
> And finally- explicitely- you are refuted
> 
> (4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. _Baker_ v. _Nelson_ is overruled.
Click to expand...


The equal protection clause and the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment are not clauses pertaining to rights, especially fundamental rights as that requires same-sex marriage being in the history and tradition of this country. The due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment are procedural due process. Kennedy used substantive due process, which did not exist until the twentieth century.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what point you are trying to make with an out of context quote from Hamilton’s Federalist No. 78, which is out of context with the other writings by Hamilton and the other founders regarding interpretation of the Constitution: Hamilton also emphasized these same sentiments in Federalist No. 81, Federalist No. 33, and on June 18, 1787, in the Philadelphia convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit. My citation of Federalist 78 is completely in context and establishes, unambiguously, that the judiciary is to be the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With 'them' being the federal judiciary. And 'its' being the the constitution. We have the constitutionally designated body to interpret the constitution saying one thing. And you saying another.
> 
> Obviously the Federal Judicary wins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamilton is referencing the judiciary and the federal Congress only as the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the states other than a conflict with one of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. The court overstepped its bounds once regarding the states in the founding era, and the Eleventh Amendment was proposed in three days to reign in the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hamilton is citing the judiciary and its role as interpreter of the meaning of the constitution. That's beyond dispute. As Barron v. Baltimore established, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States under the Constitution. The 14th amendment changed that, granting the federal government the power to prevent the States
> from violating the rights of federal citizens.
> 
> Which every State citizen is.
> 
> All of which I'm pretty sure you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are quote mining for support of your worldview, and that is not credible.  An out of context quote from one document, which is out of context for all the documents on this subject is not an argument regarding the founders’ intent on how the Constitution is interpreted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, horseshit. You have provided nothing to back your perspective, nor the slightest evidence that the judiciary isn't the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution by design. You've simply alluded vaguely to the quote being 'out of context' or 'quote mined'.
> 
> When we both know its fully in context and obviously establishes my point: *That the federal judiciary is the arbiter of the meaning of the constitution.*
> 
> And like it or not, the 14th amendment is part of the constitution. Thus,  any dispute between you and the federal judiciary on the meaning and application of the 14th amendment has the same winner every time:
> 
> Not you.
> 
> Hamilton is speaking of the separation of powers. Hamilton is also speaking to the limitations on Congress and if they pass legislation outside of their purview. Hamilton is not speaking of state laws or state constitutions.
> 
> You left the next paragraph out also:
> 
> Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A citation which in no way contradicts my point. As the judges have an obligation to put the Constitution above any statute. Under the Bill of Rights, any federal statute. Under the 14th amendment, any state law as well.
> 
> Which is exactly what they did in Obergefell....placing the due process clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution above the State laws that violate the rights of citizens.
> 
> Exactly as the federal judiciary should.
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing....of course it did. Every amendment changes the constitution. That's what amendments are. With the primary proponents of the 14th amendment in congress arguing that it would apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> With Senator Howard going so far as to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th amendment is intended to apply to the States.
> 
> They even cited Barron v. Baltimore as establishing that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. And cited the 14th amendment as changing that.
> 
> To argue that the 14th was never intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States or change the constitution is beyond ludicrious. And you know its nonsense, as I've quoted citations of both Howard and Bingham to you making these exact points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_ Obergefell v. Hodges_ ruling did not use the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, wow. You're really out of your depth. As the Obergefell court obviously did;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you ever fact check any of the nonsense you type? I'm kinda embarrassed for you at this point.
Click to expand...


Your entire premise revolves around an out of context quote by Hamilton in a document about the separation of powers regarding the federal judiciary vis-a-vis the legislative branch.
[/quote]

Hamilton explicitly and unambiguously cited the judiciary as the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.

You insist that the judiciary is not the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.

Hamilton trumps you every time. As the judiciary has both the authority and the duty to place the constitution above legislative acts that violate them. Says who?

Says good old Federalist Paper 78. 



			
				Federalist Paper 78 said:
			
		

> A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, *the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.*



And yet you *still* insist that the Judiciary isn't the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution and can't put the constitution above laws that violate it.

Um, yeah, they can. Yeah, they do. 



> The concept you are presenting regarding same-sex marriage and the states was not a concept in the federalist papers, was not a concept in the founding era, nor was it a concept in 1866. The entire concept was created in 2015 by a Supreme Court with no constitutional basis.



The basis of the the Obergefell (contrary to your stunning ignorance on the ruling) was the 14th amendment. An amendment that didn't exist in the founding era. 

Amendments (contrary to your stunning ignorance on amendments) change the constitution. And it is to the constitution that the judiciary has an obligation to uphold.

Which they did in the Obergefell ruling, placing the rights of people above state laws that violate those rights. 



> You seem to have a predilection for lowering an exchange to gutter level exchanges. I do not play that game as I have yet to encounter anyone with that strategy to have the intellectual or educational background to advance any discussion on a higher plane than that.



By what? Accurately quoting the Federalist Papers, Howard, Bingham, and the Obergefell ruling? 

For crying out loud, you argued with a straight face that an amendment to the constitution *doesn't* change the constitution. 



> _Obergefell v. Hodges _not use the due process of the Fourteenth Amendment. Obergefell used substantive due process and substantive due process did not exist until the twentieth century. The due process clause and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment were both functions of the law within the judicial process and had nothing to do with rights. Just because Kennedy said that he used substantive due process from the Fourteenth Amendment does not make it so and it cannot be so because it did not exist.



That's what you say. This is what the Obergefell ruling says, explicitly citing the due process clause of the 14th amendment:



			
				Obergefell v. Hodges said:
			
		

> The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.



Its right there in black and white. And you close your eyes, pretend it doesn't exist....and then insist that because you pretend, the ruling magically changes to match.

Um, no. It doesn't. You're quite simply wrong. As the Obergefell makes ludicriously clear.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the Constitution. Twentieth century activist judges used the Fourteenth Amendment to change the Constitution. They are two different things.
> 
> The_ Obergefell v. Hodges_ ruling did not use the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment did indeed change the Constitution. In many fundamental ways- beyond even Section 1.
> 
> _All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.* No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States*; *nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law*;* nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*_
> *
> Prior to the 14th Amendment States had much more power to deny the rights of Americans within their state.
> 
> Obergefell refers repeatedly to the Due Porcess clause
> *
> 
> (1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs.
> 
> The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why _Loving_ invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause. See 388 U. S., at 12. Decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make. See _Lawrence_, _supra_, at 574. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation
> 
> (3) The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always co-extensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other. This dynamic is reflected in _Loving, _where the Court invoked both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause;
> 
> And finally- explicitely- you are refuted
> 
> (4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. _Baker_ v. _Nelson_ is overruled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The equal protection clause and the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment are not clauses pertaining to rights, especially fundamental rights as that requires same-sex marriage being in the history and tradition of this country. The due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment are procedural due process. Kennedy used substantive due process, which did not exist until the twentieth century.
Click to expand...


Says who? If its just you citing yourself again, you're gonna need a better source.

And as we've *long* established, the intent of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States, to change the constitution to allow the federal government to protect the rights of federal citizens from State law.

The precedent on the 14th amendment is over a century long. While the period where the courts ignored the intent of the 14th was about 3 decades. 

Yet in defiance of all logic and reason, you insist that the 14th amendment *didn't* change the constitution. Do you even know what an amendment to the constitution is?


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what point you are trying to make with an out of context quote from Hamilton’s Federalist No. 78, which is out of context with the other writings by Hamilton and the other founders regarding interpretation of the Constitution: Hamilton also emphasized these same sentiments in Federalist No. 81, Federalist No. 33, and on June 18, 1787, in the Philadelphia convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit. My citation of Federalist 78 is completely in context and establishes, unambiguously, that the judiciary is to be the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With 'them' being the federal judiciary. And 'its' being the the constitution. We have the constitutionally designated body to interpret the constitution saying one thing. And you saying another.
> 
> Obviously the Federal Judicary wins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamilton is referencing the judiciary and the federal Congress only as the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the states other than a conflict with one of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. The court overstepped its bounds once regarding the states in the founding era, and the Eleventh Amendment was proposed in three days to reign in the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hamilton is citing the judiciary and its role as interpreter of the meaning of the constitution. That's beyond dispute. As Barron v. Baltimore established, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States under the Constitution. The 14th amendment changed that, granting the federal government the power to prevent the States
> from violating the rights of federal citizens.
> 
> Which every State citizen is.
> 
> All of which I'm pretty sure you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are quote mining for support of your worldview, and that is not credible.  An out of context quote from one document, which is out of context for all the documents on this subject is not an argument regarding the founders’ intent on how the Constitution is interpreted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, horseshit. You have provided nothing to back your perspective, nor the slightest evidence that the judiciary isn't the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution by design. You've simply alluded vaguely to the quote being 'out of context' or 'quote mined'.
> 
> When we both know its fully in context and obviously establishes my point: *That the federal judiciary is the arbiter of the meaning of the constitution.*
> 
> And like it or not, the 14th amendment is part of the constitution. Thus,  any dispute between you and the federal judiciary on the meaning and application of the 14th amendment has the same winner every time:
> 
> Not you.
> 
> Hamilton is speaking of the separation of powers. Hamilton is also speaking to the limitations on Congress and if they pass legislation outside of their purview. Hamilton is not speaking of state laws or state constitutions.
> 
> You left the next paragraph out also:
> 
> Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A citation which in no way contradicts my point. As the judges have an obligation to put the Constitution above any statute. Under the Bill of Rights, any federal statute. Under the 14th amendment, any state law as well.
> 
> Which is exactly what they did in Obergefell....placing the due process clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution above the State laws that violate the rights of citizens.
> 
> Exactly as the federal judiciary should.
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing....of course it did. Every amendment changes the constitution. That's what amendments are. With the primary proponents of the 14th amendment in congress arguing that it would apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> With Senator Howard going so far as to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th amendment is intended to apply to the States.
> 
> They even cited Barron v. Baltimore as establishing that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. And cited the 14th amendment as changing that.
> 
> To argue that the 14th was never intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States or change the constitution is beyond ludicrious. And you know its nonsense, as I've quoted citations of both Howard and Bingham to you making these exact points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_ Obergefell v. Hodges_ ruling did not use the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, wow. You're really out of your depth. As the Obergefell court obviously did;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you ever fact check any of the nonsense you type? I'm kinda embarrassed for you at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your entire premise revolves around an out of context quote by Hamilton in a document about the separation of powers regarding the federal judiciary vis-a-vis the legislative branch.
Click to expand...


Hamilton explicitly and unambiguously cited the judiciary as the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.

You insist that the judiciary is not the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.

Hamilton trumps you every time. As the judiciary has both the authority and the duty to place the constitution above legislative acts that violate them. Says who?

Says good old Federalist Paper 78.



			
				Federalist Paper 78 said:
			
		

> A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, *the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.*



And yet you *still* insist that the Judiciary isn't the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution and can't put the constitution above laws that violate it.

Um, yeah, they can. Yeah, they do.



> The concept you are presenting regarding same-sex marriage and the states was not a concept in the federalist papers, was not a concept in the founding era, nor was it a concept in 1866. The entire concept was created in 2015 by a Supreme Court with no constitutional basis.



The basis of the the Obergefell (contrary to your stunning ignorance on the ruling) was the 14th amendment. An amendment that didn't exist in the founding era.

Amendments (contrary to your stunning ignorance on amendments) change the constitution. And it is to the constitution that the judiciary has an obligation to uphold.

Which they did in the Obergefell ruling, placing the rights of people above state laws that violate those rights.



> You seem to have a predilection for lowering an exchange to gutter level exchanges. I do not play that game as I have yet to encounter anyone with that strategy to have the intellectual or educational background to advance any discussion on a higher plane than that.



By what? Accurately quoting the Federalist Papers, Howard, Bingham, and the Obergefell ruling?

For crying out loud, you argued with a straight face that an amendment to the constitution *doesn't* change the constitution.



> _Obergefell v. Hodges _not use the due process of the Fourteenth Amendment. Obergefell used substantive due process and substantive due process did not exist until the twentieth century. The due process clause and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment were both functions of the law within the judicial process and had nothing to do with rights. Just because Kennedy said that he used substantive due process from the Fourteenth Amendment does not make it so and it cannot be so because it did not exist.



That's what you say. This is what the Obergefell ruling says, explicitly citing the due process clause of the 14th amendment:



			
				Obergefell v. Hodges said:
			
		

> The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.



Its right there in black and white. And you close your eyes, pretend it doesn't exist....and then insist that because you pretend, the ruling magically changes to match.

Um, no. It doesn't. You're quite simply wrong. As the Obergefell makes ludicriously clear.[/QUOTE]

I don't know what to tell you or anyone else whose entire premise is based on and out of context quote by Hamilton in a document written for the state of New York. Federalist No. 78 only regarded the seperation of powers in the context of the congress of the United States.

The substantive due process did not exist in the 19th century and the Bill of Rights were not incorporated with the Fourteenth Amendment and it was twentieth century activist courts that created the concept.

Anyone can draw any conclusion they want it they start with a premise, go to Google, and work backwards to find an out of context quote to support their worldview.


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what point you are trying to make with an out of context quote from Hamilton’s Federalist No. 78, which is out of context with the other writings by Hamilton and the other founders regarding interpretation of the Constitution: Hamilton also emphasized these same sentiments in Federalist No. 81, Federalist No. 33, and on June 18, 1787, in the Philadelphia convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit. My citation of Federalist 78 is completely in context and establishes, unambiguously, that the judiciary is to be the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With 'them' being the federal judiciary. And 'its' being the the constitution. We have the constitutionally designated body to interpret the constitution saying one thing. And you saying another.
> 
> Obviously the Federal Judicary wins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamilton is referencing the judiciary and the federal Congress only as the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the states other than a conflict with one of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. The court overstepped its bounds once regarding the states in the founding era, and the Eleventh Amendment was proposed in three days to reign in the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hamilton is citing the judiciary and its role as interpreter of the meaning of the constitution. That's beyond dispute. As Barron v. Baltimore established, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States under the Constitution. The 14th amendment changed that, granting the federal government the power to prevent the States
> from violating the rights of federal citizens.
> 
> Which every State citizen is.
> 
> All of which I'm pretty sure you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are quote mining for support of your worldview, and that is not credible.  An out of context quote from one document, which is out of context for all the documents on this subject is not an argument regarding the founders’ intent on how the Constitution is interpreted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, horseshit. You have provided nothing to back your perspective, nor the slightest evidence that the judiciary isn't the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution by design. You've simply alluded vaguely to the quote being 'out of context' or 'quote mined'.
> 
> When we both know its fully in context and obviously establishes my point: *That the federal judiciary is the arbiter of the meaning of the constitution.*
> 
> And like it or not, the 14th amendment is part of the constitution. Thus,  any dispute between you and the federal judiciary on the meaning and application of the 14th amendment has the same winner every time:
> 
> Not you.
> 
> Hamilton is speaking of the separation of powers. Hamilton is also speaking to the limitations on Congress and if they pass legislation outside of their purview. Hamilton is not speaking of state laws or state constitutions.
> 
> You left the next paragraph out also:
> 
> Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A citation which in no way contradicts my point. As the judges have an obligation to put the Constitution above any statute. Under the Bill of Rights, any federal statute. Under the 14th amendment, any state law as well.
> 
> Which is exactly what they did in Obergefell....placing the due process clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution above the State laws that violate the rights of citizens.
> 
> Exactly as the federal judiciary should.
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing....of course it did. Every amendment changes the constitution. That's what amendments are. With the primary proponents of the 14th amendment in congress arguing that it would apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> With Senator Howard going so far as to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th amendment is intended to apply to the States.
> 
> They even cited Barron v. Baltimore as establishing that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. And cited the 14th amendment as changing that.
> 
> To argue that the 14th was never intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States or change the constitution is beyond ludicrious. And you know its nonsense, as I've quoted citations of both Howard and Bingham to you making these exact points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_ Obergefell v. Hodges_ ruling did not use the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, wow. You're really out of your depth. As the Obergefell court obviously did;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you ever fact check any of the nonsense you type? I'm kinda embarrassed for you at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your entire premise revolves around an out of context quote by Hamilton in a document about the separation of powers regarding the federal judiciary vis-a-vis the legislative branch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hamilton explicitly and unambiguously cited the judiciary as the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.
> 
> You insist that the judiciary is not the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.
> 
> Hamilton trumps you every time. As the judiciary has both the authority and the duty to place the constitution above legislative acts that violate them. Says who?
> 
> Says good old Federalist Paper 78.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist Paper 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, *the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you *still* insist that the Judiciary isn't the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution and can't put the constitution above laws that violate it.
> 
> Um, yeah, they can. Yeah, they do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The concept you are presenting regarding same-sex marriage and the states was not a concept in the federalist papers, was not a concept in the founding era, nor was it a concept in 1866. The entire concept was created in 2015 by a Supreme Court with no constitutional basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The basis of the the Obergefell (contrary to your stunning ignorance on the ruling) was the 14th amendment. An amendment that didn't exist in the founding era.
> 
> Amendments (contrary to your stunning ignorance on amendments) change the constitution. And it is to the constitution that the judiciary has an obligation to uphold.
> 
> Which they did in the Obergefell ruling, placing the rights of people above state laws that violate those rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have a predilection for lowering an exchange to gutter level exchanges. I do not play that game as I have yet to encounter anyone with that strategy to have the intellectual or educational background to advance any discussion on a higher plane than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By what? Accurately quoting the Federalist Papers, Howard, Bingham, and the Obergefell ruling?
> 
> For crying out loud, you argued with a straight face that an amendment to the constitution *doesn't* change the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Obergefell v. Hodges _not use the due process of the Fourteenth Amendment. Obergefell used substantive due process and substantive due process did not exist until the twentieth century. The due process clause and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment were both functions of the law within the judicial process and had nothing to do with rights. Just because Kennedy said that he used substantive due process from the Fourteenth Amendment does not make it so and it cannot be so because it did not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what you say. This is what the Obergefell ruling says, explicitly citing the due process clause of the 14th amendment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its right there in black and white. And you close your eyes, pretend it doesn't exist....and then insist that because you pretend, the ruling magically changes to match.
> 
> Um, no. It doesn't. You're quite simply wrong. As the Obergefell makes ludicriously clear.
Click to expand...


I don't know what to tell you or anyone else whose entire premise is based on and out of context quote by Hamilton in a document written for the state of New York. Federalist No. 78 only regarded the seperation of powers in the context of the congress of the United States.

The substantive due process did not exist in the 19th century and the Bill of Rights were not incorporated with the Fourteenth Amendment and it was twentieth century activist courts that created the concept.

Anyone can draw any conclusion they want it they start with a premise, go to Google, and work backwards to find an out of context quote to support their worldview.[/QUOTE]

It is right there- Obergefell- Due Process- 14th Amendment.

_Obergefell v. Hodges said: 

The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.

You can of course pretend whatever you want- but the Obergefell was based upon the 14th Amendment- and because of Obergefell- Americans can marry whoever they want- including the same gender.
_
And by the way-this was exactly the same reasoning used for Loving v. Virginia.

You are a few decades late to the issue.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> I don't know what to tell you or anyone else whose entire premise is based on and out of context quote by Hamilton in a document written for the state of New York. Federalist No. 78 only regarded the seperation of powers in the context of the congress of the United States.
> 
> Says you. Hamilton says differently:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist Paper 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law.* It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. *If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, *the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With your own quote of the Federalist Papers reaffirming the same point: that the judiciary should put the constitution above legislative statutes that violate it.
> 
> You say differently. You're nobody. Hamilton wins.
> 
> [quote
> The substantive due process did not exist in the 19th century and the Bill of Rights were not incorporated with the Fourteenth Amendment and it was twentieth century activist courts that created the concept.
Click to expand...


The 14th amendment wasn't even ratified until nearly 1870. So your reference to the '19th century' and the 14th amendment is already nearly 70% irrelevant. 

The courts ignored the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment from the 1870s to the 1890s. From about 1900 until the present day, they recognized the purpose of the 14th amendment as being the application of the bill of rights to the States.

Which is *exactly* what Bingham and Howard said it was to do. 

Judicial precedent affirming the 14th amendment's application to the States has existed for about 115 years. It was rejected for about 30.  *Meaning that the weight of judicial precedent affirms the current interpretation by a ratio of about 4 to 1. *

Worse for you, the current interpretation is aligned with the intent of the writers of the 14th, which was clearly to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. 

*You lose utterly. Twice*. There's a reason your interpretations are legally irrelevant and have no bearing on the outcome of Obergefell or any other case the court is hearing. 

You simply don't know what you're talking about. 



> Anyone can draw any conclusion they want it they start with a premise, go to Google, and work backwards to find an out of context quote to support their worldview.



If it was as easy as you claim, you'd have done it. You already tried....and failed comically. As we both know my conclusions are in context and accurately conveyed. 

Try again. Remembering of course that I have the rulings, Papers, Bingham and Howard quotes right here that contradict your fallacious paraphrases and vague allusions to 'being out of context'.


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what point you are trying to make with an out of context quote from Hamilton’s Federalist No. 78, which is out of context with the other writings by Hamilton and the other founders regarding interpretation of the Constitution: Hamilton also emphasized these same sentiments in Federalist No. 81, Federalist No. 33, and on June 18, 1787, in the Philadelphia convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit. My citation of Federalist 78 is completely in context and establishes, unambiguously, that the judiciary is to be the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With 'them' being the federal judiciary. And 'its' being the the constitution. We have the constitutionally designated body to interpret the constitution saying one thing. And you saying another.
> 
> Obviously the Federal Judicary wins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamilton is referencing the judiciary and the federal Congress only as the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the states other than a conflict with one of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. The court overstepped its bounds once regarding the states in the founding era, and the Eleventh Amendment was proposed in three days to reign in the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hamilton is citing the judiciary and its role as interpreter of the meaning of the constitution. That's beyond dispute. As Barron v. Baltimore established, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States under the Constitution. The 14th amendment changed that, granting the federal government the power to prevent the States
> from violating the rights of federal citizens.
> 
> Which every State citizen is.
> 
> All of which I'm pretty sure you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are quote mining for support of your worldview, and that is not credible.  An out of context quote from one document, which is out of context for all the documents on this subject is not an argument regarding the founders’ intent on how the Constitution is interpreted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, horseshit. You have provided nothing to back your perspective, nor the slightest evidence that the judiciary isn't the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution by design. You've simply alluded vaguely to the quote being 'out of context' or 'quote mined'.
> 
> When we both know its fully in context and obviously establishes my point: *That the federal judiciary is the arbiter of the meaning of the constitution.*
> 
> And like it or not, the 14th amendment is part of the constitution. Thus,  any dispute between you and the federal judiciary on the meaning and application of the 14th amendment has the same winner every time:
> 
> Not you.
> 
> Hamilton is speaking of the separation of powers. Hamilton is also speaking to the limitations on Congress and if they pass legislation outside of their purview. Hamilton is not speaking of state laws or state constitutions.
> 
> You left the next paragraph out also:
> 
> Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A citation which in no way contradicts my point. As the judges have an obligation to put the Constitution above any statute. Under the Bill of Rights, any federal statute. Under the 14th amendment, any state law as well.
> 
> Which is exactly what they did in Obergefell....placing the due process clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution above the State laws that violate the rights of citizens.
> 
> Exactly as the federal judiciary should.
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing....of course it did. Every amendment changes the constitution. That's what amendments are. With the primary proponents of the 14th amendment in congress arguing that it would apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> With Senator Howard going so far as to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th amendment is intended to apply to the States.
> 
> They even cited Barron v. Baltimore as establishing that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. And cited the 14th amendment as changing that.
> 
> To argue that the 14th was never intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States or change the constitution is beyond ludicrious. And you know its nonsense, as I've quoted citations of both Howard and Bingham to you making these exact points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_ Obergefell v. Hodges_ ruling did not use the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, wow. You're really out of your depth. As the Obergefell court obviously did;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you ever fact check any of the nonsense you type? I'm kinda embarrassed for you at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your entire premise revolves around an out of context quote by Hamilton in a document about the separation of powers regarding the federal judiciary vis-a-vis the legislative branch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hamilton explicitly and unambiguously cited the judiciary as the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.
> 
> You insist that the judiciary is not the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.
> 
> Hamilton trumps you every time. As the judiciary has both the authority and the duty to place the constitution above legislative acts that violate them. Says who?
> 
> Says good old Federalist Paper 78.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist Paper 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, *the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you *still* insist that the Judiciary isn't the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution and can't put the constitution above laws that violate it.
> 
> Um, yeah, they can. Yeah, they do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The concept you are presenting regarding same-sex marriage and the states was not a concept in the federalist papers, was not a concept in the founding era, nor was it a concept in 1866. The entire concept was created in 2015 by a Supreme Court with no constitutional basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The basis of the the Obergefell (contrary to your stunning ignorance on the ruling) was the 14th amendment. An amendment that didn't exist in the founding era.
> 
> Amendments (contrary to your stunning ignorance on amendments) change the constitution. And it is to the constitution that the judiciary has an obligation to uphold.
> 
> Which they did in the Obergefell ruling, placing the rights of people above state laws that violate those rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have a predilection for lowering an exchange to gutter level exchanges. I do not play that game as I have yet to encounter anyone with that strategy to have the intellectual or educational background to advance any discussion on a higher plane than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By what? Accurately quoting the Federalist Papers, Howard, Bingham, and the Obergefell ruling?
> 
> For crying out loud, you argued with a straight face that an amendment to the constitution *doesn't* change the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Obergefell v. Hodges _not use the due process of the Fourteenth Amendment. Obergefell used substantive due process and substantive due process did not exist until the twentieth century. The due process clause and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment were both functions of the law within the judicial process and had nothing to do with rights. Just because Kennedy said that he used substantive due process from the Fourteenth Amendment does not make it so and it cannot be so because it did not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what you say. This is what the Obergefell ruling says, explicitly citing the due process clause of the 14th amendment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its right there in black and white. And you close your eyes, pretend it doesn't exist....and then insist that because you pretend, the ruling magically changes to match.
> 
> Um, no. It doesn't. You're quite simply wrong. As the Obergefell makes ludicriously clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what to tell you or anyone else whose entire premise is based on and out of context quote by Hamilton in a document written for the state of New York. Federalist No. 78 only regarded the seperation of powers in the context of the congress of the United States.
> 
> The substantive due process did not exist in the 19th century and the Bill of Rights were not incorporated with the Fourteenth Amendment and it was twentieth century activist courts that created the concept.
> 
> Anyone can draw any conclusion they want it they start with a premise, go to Google, and work backwards to find an out of context quote to support their worldview.
Click to expand...


It is right there- Obergefell- Due Process- 14th Amendment.

_Obergefell v. Hodges said: 

The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.

You can of course pretend whatever you want- but the Obergefell was based upon the 14th Amendment- and because of Obergefell- Americans can marry whoever they want- including the same gender.
_
And by the way-this was exactly the same reasoning used for Loving v. Virginia.

You are a few decades late to the issue.[/QUOTE]

_ 
_
You have yet to address the use of substantive due process that did not exist in the 19th century. To keep referencing the same substantive due process clause that did not exist isn't an argument and neither is bringing up Loving. Your only argument is to demonstrate that substantive due prices was a legal concept in the Fourteenth Amendment when it was ratified.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> You have yet to address the use of substantive due process that did not exist in the 19th century. To keep referencing the same substantive due process clause that did not exist isn't an argument and neither is bringing up Loving. Your only argument is to demonstrate that substantive due prices was a legal concept in the Fourteenth Amendment when it was ratified.




Its been addressed. *Repeatedly*....and you straight up ignored it. Just like you ignored the Federalist Papers, just like you ignored Bingham. Just like you ignored Howard. Just like you ignored the Obergefell decision.

You do realize that the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes, right?


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit. My citation of Federalist 78 is completely in context and establishes, unambiguously, that the judiciary is to be the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.
> 
> With 'them' being the federal judiciary. And 'its' being the the constitution. We have the constitutionally designated body to interpret the constitution saying one thing. And you saying another.
> 
> Obviously the Federal Judicary wins.
> 
> Hamilton is citing the judiciary and its role as interpreter of the meaning of the constitution. That's beyond dispute. As Barron v. Baltimore established, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States under the Constitution. The 14th amendment changed that, granting the federal government the power to prevent the States
> from violating the rights of federal citizens.
> 
> Which every State citizen is.
> 
> All of which I'm pretty sure you know.
> 
> Again, horseshit. You have provided nothing to back your perspective, nor the slightest evidence that the judiciary isn't the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution by design. You've simply alluded vaguely to the quote being 'out of context' or 'quote mined'.
> 
> When we both know its fully in context and obviously establishes my point: *That the federal judiciary is the arbiter of the meaning of the constitution.*
> 
> And like it or not, the 14th amendment is part of the constitution. Thus,  any dispute between you and the federal judiciary on the meaning and application of the 14th amendment has the same winner every time:
> 
> Not you.
> 
> Hamilton is speaking of the separation of powers. Hamilton is also speaking to the limitations on Congress and if they pass legislation outside of their purview. Hamilton is not speaking of state laws or state constitutions.
> 
> You left the next paragraph out also:
> 
> Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> A citation which in no way contradicts my point. As the judges have an obligation to put the Constitution above any statute. Under the Bill of Rights, any federal statute. Under the 14th amendment, any state law as well.
> 
> Which is exactly what they did in Obergefell....placing the due process clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution above the State laws that violate the rights of citizens.
> 
> Exactly as the federal judiciary should.
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing....of course it did. Every amendment changes the constitution. That's what amendments are. With the primary proponents of the 14th amendment in congress arguing that it would apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> With Senator Howard going so far as to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th amendment is intended to apply to the States.
> 
> They even cited Barron v. Baltimore as establishing that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. And cited the 14th amendment as changing that.
> 
> To argue that the 14th was never intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States or change the constitution is beyond ludicrious. And you know its nonsense, as I've quoted citations of both Howard and Bingham to you making these exact points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_ Obergefell v. Hodges_ ruling did not use the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, wow. You're really out of your depth. As the Obergefell court obviously did;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you ever fact check any of the nonsense you type? I'm kinda embarrassed for you at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your entire premise revolves around an out of context quote by Hamilton in a document about the separation of powers regarding the federal judiciary vis-a-vis the legislative branch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hamilton explicitly and unambiguously cited the judiciary as the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.
> 
> You insist that the judiciary is not the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.
> 
> Hamilton trumps you every time. As the judiciary has both the authority and the duty to place the constitution above legislative acts that violate them. Says who?
> 
> Says good old Federalist Paper 78.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist Paper 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, *the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you *still* insist that the Judiciary isn't the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution and can't put the constitution above laws that violate it.
> 
> Um, yeah, they can. Yeah, they do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The concept you are presenting regarding same-sex marriage and the states was not a concept in the federalist papers, was not a concept in the founding era, nor was it a concept in 1866. The entire concept was created in 2015 by a Supreme Court with no constitutional basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The basis of the the Obergefell (contrary to your stunning ignorance on the ruling) was the 14th amendment. An amendment that didn't exist in the founding era.
> 
> Amendments (contrary to your stunning ignorance on amendments) change the constitution. And it is to the constitution that the judiciary has an obligation to uphold.
> 
> Which they did in the Obergefell ruling, placing the rights of people above state laws that violate those rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have a predilection for lowering an exchange to gutter level exchanges. I do not play that game as I have yet to encounter anyone with that strategy to have the intellectual or educational background to advance any discussion on a higher plane than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By what? Accurately quoting the Federalist Papers, Howard, Bingham, and the Obergefell ruling?
> 
> For crying out loud, you argued with a straight face that an amendment to the constitution *doesn't* change the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Obergefell v. Hodges _not use the due process of the Fourteenth Amendment. Obergefell used substantive due process and substantive due process did not exist until the twentieth century. The due process clause and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment were both functions of the law within the judicial process and had nothing to do with rights. Just because Kennedy said that he used substantive due process from the Fourteenth Amendment does not make it so and it cannot be so because it did not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what you say. This is what the Obergefell ruling says, explicitly citing the due process clause of the 14th amendment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its right there in black and white. And you close your eyes, pretend it doesn't exist....and then insist that because you pretend, the ruling magically changes to match.
> 
> Um, no. It doesn't. You're quite simply wrong. As the Obergefell makes ludicriously clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what to tell you or anyone else whose entire premise is based on and out of context quote by Hamilton in a document written for the state of New York. Federalist No. 78 only regarded the seperation of powers in the context of the congress of the United States.
> 
> The substantive due process did not exist in the 19th century and the Bill of Rights were not incorporated with the Fourteenth Amendment and it was twentieth century activist courts that created the concept.
> 
> Anyone can draw any conclusion they want it they start with a premise, go to Google, and work backwards to find an out of context quote to support their worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is right there- Obergefell- Due Process- 14th Amendment.
> 
> _Obergefell v. Hodges said:
> 
> The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.
> 
> You can of course pretend whatever you want- but the Obergefell was based upon the 14th Amendment- and because of Obergefell- Americans can marry whoever they want- including the same gender.
> _
> And by the way-this was exactly the same reasoning used for Loving v. Virginia.
> 
> You are a few decades late to the issue.
Click to expand...


_ 
_
You have yet to address the use of substantive due process that did not exist in the 19th century. To keep referencing the same substantive due process clause that did not exist isn't an argument and neither is bringing up Loving. Your only argument is to demonstrate that substantive due prices was a legal concept in the Fourteenth Amendment when it was ratified.[/QUOTE]

Why should I discuss your strawmen?

Obergefell is based upon the 14th Amendment- as is Loving v. Virginia. 

My argument is that the court was right in Obergefell and was right 50 years ago in Loving. 

And Americans regardless of their race or gender can marry each other because of Obergefell and Loving.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what to tell you or anyone else whose entire premise is based on and out of context quote by Hamilton in a document written for the state of New York. Federalist No. 78 only regarded the seperation of powers in the context of the congress of the United States.
> 
> Says you. Hamilton says differently:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist Paper 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law.* It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. *If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, *the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With your own quote of the Federalist Papers reaffirming the same point: that the judiciary should put the constitution above legislative statutes that violate it.
> 
> You say differently. You're nobody. Hamilton wins.
> 
> [quote
> The substantive due process did not exist in the 19th century and the Bill of Rights were not incorporated with the Fourteenth Amendment and it was twentieth century activist courts that created the concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment wasn't even ratified until nearly 1870. So your reference to the '19th century' and the 14th amendment is already nearly 70% irrelevant.
> 
> The courts ignored the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment from the 1870s to the 1890s. From about 1900 until the present day, they recognized the purpose of the 14th amendment as being the application of the bill of rights to the States.
> 
> Which is *exactly* what Bingham and Howard said it was to do.
> 
> Judicial precedent affirming the 14th amendment's application to the States has existed for about 115 years. It was rejected for about 30.  *Meaning that the weight of judicial precedent affirms the current interpretation by a ratio of about 4 to 1. *
> 
> Worse for you, the current interpretation is aligned with the intent of the writers of the 14th, which was clearly to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> *You lose utterly. Twice*. There's a reason your interpretations are legally irrelevant and have no bearing on the outcome of Obergefell or any other case the court is hearing.
> 
> You simply don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can draw any conclusion they want it they start with a premise, go to Google, and work backwards to find an out of context quote to support their worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it was as easy as you claim, you'd have done it. You already tried....and failed comically. As we both know my conclusions are in context and accurately conveyed.
> 
> Try again. Remembering of course that I have the rulings, Papers, Bingham and Howard quotes right here that contradict your fallacious paraphrases and vague allusions o 'being out of context'.
Click to expand...


The Fourteenth Amendment started in 1866 and was ratified in 1868. 

The courts did not ignore anything. The courts used the intent and  they use procedural due process of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

I am sure you do have every out of context quote by Bingham and  Howard at your disposal. 

Good luck with all that when you write your next law review or write your next appellate brief. And be sure to use that unsophisticated and jenjune rhetoric of yours, it will alert the court or review that you have superior knowledge of the Constitution. They look for things such as that.


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> A citation which in no way contradicts my point. As the judges have an obligation to put the Constitution above any statute. Under the Bill of Rights, any federal statute. Under the 14th amendment, any state law as well.
> 
> Which is exactly what they did in Obergefell....placing the due process clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution above the State laws that violate the rights of citizens.
> 
> Exactly as the federal judiciary should.
> Laughing....of course it did. Every amendment changes the constitution. That's what amendments are. With the primary proponents of the 14th amendment in congress arguing that it would apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> With Senator Howard going so far as to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th amendment is intended to apply to the States.
> 
> They even cited Barron v. Baltimore as establishing that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. And cited the 14th amendment as changing that.
> 
> To argue that the 14th was never intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States or change the constitution is beyond ludicrious. And you know its nonsense, as I've quoted citations of both Howard and Bingham to you making these exact points.
> 
> Um, wow. You're really out of your depth. As the Obergefell court obviously did;
> 
> Seriously, do you ever fact check any of the nonsense you type? I'm kinda embarrassed for you at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire premise revolves around an out of context quote by Hamilton in a document about the separation of powers regarding the federal judiciary vis-a-vis the legislative branch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hamilton explicitly and unambiguously cited the judiciary as the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.
> 
> You insist that the judiciary is not the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.
> 
> Hamilton trumps you every time. As the judiciary has both the authority and the duty to place the constitution above legislative acts that violate them. Says who?
> 
> Says good old Federalist Paper 78.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist Paper 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, *the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you *still* insist that the Judiciary isn't the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution and can't put the constitution above laws that violate it.
> 
> Um, yeah, they can. Yeah, they do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The concept you are presenting regarding same-sex marriage and the states was not a concept in the federalist papers, was not a concept in the founding era, nor was it a concept in 1866. The entire concept was created in 2015 by a Supreme Court with no constitutional basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The basis of the the Obergefell (contrary to your stunning ignorance on the ruling) was the 14th amendment. An amendment that didn't exist in the founding era.
> 
> Amendments (contrary to your stunning ignorance on amendments) change the constitution. And it is to the constitution that the judiciary has an obligation to uphold.
> 
> Which they did in the Obergefell ruling, placing the rights of people above state laws that violate those rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have a predilection for lowering an exchange to gutter level exchanges. I do not play that game as I have yet to encounter anyone with that strategy to have the intellectual or educational background to advance any discussion on a higher plane than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By what? Accurately quoting the Federalist Papers, Howard, Bingham, and the Obergefell ruling?
> 
> For crying out loud, you argued with a straight face that an amendment to the constitution *doesn't* change the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Obergefell v. Hodges _not use the due process of the Fourteenth Amendment. Obergefell used substantive due process and substantive due process did not exist until the twentieth century. The due process clause and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment were both functions of the law within the judicial process and had nothing to do with rights. Just because Kennedy said that he used substantive due process from the Fourteenth Amendment does not make it so and it cannot be so because it did not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what you say. This is what the Obergefell ruling says, explicitly citing the due process clause of the 14th amendment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its right there in black and white. And you close your eyes, pretend it doesn't exist....and then insist that because you pretend, the ruling magically changes to match.
> 
> Um, no. It doesn't. You're quite simply wrong. As the Obergefell makes ludicriously clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what to tell you or anyone else whose entire premise is based on and out of context quote by Hamilton in a document written for the state of New York. Federalist No. 78 only regarded the seperation of powers in the context of the congress of the United States.
> 
> The substantive due process did not exist in the 19th century and the Bill of Rights were not incorporated with the Fourteenth Amendment and it was twentieth century activist courts that created the concept.
> 
> Anyone can draw any conclusion they want it they start with a premise, go to Google, and work backwards to find an out of context quote to support their worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is right there- Obergefell- Due Process- 14th Amendment.
> 
> _Obergefell v. Hodges said:
> 
> The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.
> 
> You can of course pretend whatever you want- but the Obergefell was based upon the 14th Amendment- and because of Obergefell- Americans can marry whoever they want- including the same gender.
> _
> And by the way-this was exactly the same reasoning used for Loving v. Virginia.
> 
> You are a few decades late to the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _
> _
> You have yet to address the use of substantive due process that did not exist in the 19th century. To keep referencing the same substantive due process clause that did not exist isn't an argument and neither is bringing up Loving. Your only argument is to demonstrate that substantive due prices was a legal concept in the Fourteenth Amendment when it was ratified.
Click to expand...


Why should I discuss your strawmen?

Obergefell is based upon the 14th Amendment- as is Loving v. Virginia.

My argument is that the court was right in Obergefell and was right 50 years ago in Loving.

And Americans regardless of their race or gender can marry each other because of Obergefell and Loving.[/QUOTE]

I understand that. Now all you have to do to substantiate that is to provide the evidence that substantive due process existed in 1868 and that should put an end to it.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to address the use of substantive due process that did not exist in the 19th century. To keep referencing the same substantive due process clause that did not exist isn't an argument and neither is bringing up Loving. Your only argument is to demonstrate that substantive due prices was a legal concept in the Fourteenth Amendment when it was ratified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its been addressed. *Repeatedly*....and you straight up ignored it. Just like you ignored the Federalist Papers, just like you ignored Bingham. Just like you ignored Howard. Just like you ignored the Obergefell decision.
> 
> You do realize that the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes, right?
Click to expand...

 
I do have a bad habit of ignoring a single out of context quote that is being used as representative of an entire generation and thousands of other documents. That is a bad habit I need to work on.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what to tell you or anyone else whose entire premise is based on and out of context quote by Hamilton in a document written for the state of New York. Federalist No. 78 only regarded the seperation of powers in the context of the congress of the United States.
> 
> Says you. Hamilton says differently:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist Paper 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law.* It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. *If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, *the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With your own quote of the Federalist Papers reaffirming the same point: that the judiciary should put the constitution above legislative statutes that violate it.
> 
> You say differently. You're nobody. Hamilton wins.
> 
> [quote
> The substantive due process did not exist in the 19th century and the Bill of Rights were not incorporated with the Fourteenth Amendment and it was twentieth century activist courts that created the concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment wasn't even ratified until nearly 1870. So your reference to the '19th century' and the 14th amendment is already nearly 70% irrelevant.
> 
> The courts ignored the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment from the 1870s to the 1890s. From about 1900 until the present day, they recognized the purpose of the 14th amendment as being the application of the bill of rights to the States.
> 
> Which is *exactly* what Bingham and Howard said it was to do.
> 
> Judicial precedent affirming the 14th amendment's application to the States has existed for about 115 years. It was rejected for about 30.  *Meaning that the weight of judicial precedent affirms the current interpretation by a ratio of about 4 to 1. *
> 
> Worse for you, the current interpretation is aligned with the intent of the writers of the 14th, which was clearly to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> *You lose utterly. Twice*. There's a reason your interpretations are legally irrelevant and have no bearing on the outcome of Obergefell or any other case the court is hearing.
> 
> You simply don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can draw any conclusion they want it they start with a premise, go to Google, and work backwards to find an out of context quote to support their worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it was as easy as you claim, you'd have done it. You already tried....and failed comically. As we both know my conclusions are in context and accurately conveyed.
> 
> Try again. Remembering of course that I have the rulings, Papers, Bingham and Howard quotes right here that contradict your fallacious paraphrases and vague allusions o 'being out of context'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment started in 1866 and was ratified in 1868.
Click to expand...


Which might explain why the courts didn't apply the 14th amendment BEFORE 1868....or during the overwhelming majority of the 19th century. 

They applied an interpretation that ignored Bingham and Howard for about 30 years. Then, starting in around 1900, began applying the amendment in a manner consistent with its intent: to Apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

And have done so ever since, for the last 115 years or so. The weight of precedent contradicting out out strips what you think supports you by a factor of nearly 4 to 1. 

With the court's current interpretation inline with the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment: the application of Bill of Rights to the States. 



> The courts did not ignore anything. The courts used the intent and  they use procedural due process of the Fourteenth Amendment.



Sure they did. They argued, straight out, that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. When Bingham and Howard made it ludicrously clear that that was exactly what the 14th amendment was designed to do.

For crying out loud, Howard actually took the time to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th was intended to apply to the States when he introduced the amendment to the Senate. 

It wasn't until 1900 that the courts returned to what the primary proponents of the 14th amendment obviously intended. And we've been there ever since. 

30 years......to 115 years. With the 115 years matching the intent of the amendment. 

You lose again. Twice. 



> I am sure you do have every out of context quote by Bingham and  Howard at your disposal.



Laughing...anything that contradicts you you insist is 'out of context'. Despite you being laughably unable to establish any other context than the one I presented.

You're alluding to an argument you can't factually support. While ignoring the evidence that explicitly contradicts you. Like say, Federalist Paper 78.....which makes it ludicriously clear that its the role of the judiciary to interpret the meaning of the constitution and place the constitution above legislative acts that violate it. 



			
				Federalist 78 said:
			
		

> The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. *It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. *If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; *or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.*
> Good luck with all that when you write your next law



Just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't make the Federalist Papers disappear. Or Obergefell, Bingham, Howard, of the 14th amendment magically change.



> review or write your next appellate brief. And be sure to use that unsophisticated and jenjune rhetoric of yours, it will alert the court or review that you have superior knowledge of the Constitution. They look for things such as that.



Laughing....um, slick? My interpretations ARE the court's interpretations. As Obegefell makes ludicriously clear: 



			
				Obergefell v. Hodges said:
			
		

> These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.



But you insist that the Supreme Court is wrong, and _you're right?_

Make sure to include that in your next appellant brief. I'm sure the judges will get a good belly laugh. And please, misspell 'jejune' again when you do it. Its like frosting on your fail cake.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to address the use of substantive due process that did not exist in the 19th century. To keep referencing the same substantive due process clause that did not exist isn't an argument and neither is bringing up Loving. Your only argument is to demonstrate that substantive due prices was a legal concept in the Fourteenth Amendment when it was ratified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its been addressed. *Repeatedly*....and you straight up ignored it. Just like you ignored the Federalist Papers, just like you ignored Bingham. Just like you ignored Howard. Just like you ignored the Obergefell decision.
> 
> You do realize that the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do have a bad habit of ignoring a single out of context quote that is being used as representative of an entire generation and thousands of other documents. That is a bad habit I need to work on.
Click to expand...


Laughing......you insist that anything that contradicts you is 'out of context'. But you can't offer us any evidence to demonstrate it is so.

And given that the judiciary is and has always been the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution, historical precedent is so on my side. While your imagination is, like your entire argument, gloriously irrelevant to the outcome of any case.

But tell us again how the Supreme Court is wrong....and you must be right, because you say so. Or babble about 'jenjune' rhetoric.

For goodness sake, fella.....if you're going to try to insult someone, make sure to spell the insult correctly.


----------



## hjmick

IndependantAce said:


> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.




How did I ever miss this idiotic tripe?

*"Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned" *Yeah, not really... Millions of people have lots of sex for pleasure only, probably more than those who have sex for procreating only. I'm married, we're not going to procreate. Ever.

*"the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society" *Not. Even. Close. Educate yourself.

Fuck, the rest is to ignorant to bother with. IndependunceAss makes my head hurt...


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what to tell you or anyone else whose entire premise is based on and out of context quote by Hamilton in a document written for the state of New York. Federalist No. 78 only regarded the seperation of powers in the context of the congress of the United States.
> 
> Says you. Hamilton says differently:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist Paper 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law.* It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. *If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, *the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With your own quote of the Federalist Papers reaffirming the same point: that the judiciary should put the constitution above legislative statutes that violate it.
> 
> You say differently. You're nobody. Hamilton wins.
> 
> [quote
> The substantive due process did not exist in the 19th century and the Bill of Rights were not incorporated with the Fourteenth Amendment and it was twentieth century activist courts that created the concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment wasn't even ratified until nearly 1870. So your reference to the '19th century' and the 14th amendment is already nearly 70% irrelevant.
> 
> The courts ignored the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment from the 1870s to the 1890s. From about 1900 until the present day, they recognized the purpose of the 14th amendment as being the application of the bill of rights to the States.
> 
> Which is *exactly* what Bingham and Howard said it was to do.
> 
> Judicial precedent affirming the 14th amendment's application to the States has existed for about 115 years. It was rejected for about 30.  *Meaning that the weight of judicial precedent affirms the current interpretation by a ratio of about 4 to 1. *
> 
> Worse for you, the current interpretation is aligned with the intent of the writers of the 14th, which was clearly to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> *You lose utterly. Twice*. There's a reason your interpretations are legally irrelevant and have no bearing on the outcome of Obergefell or any other case the court is hearing.
> 
> You simply don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can draw any conclusion they want it they start with a premise, go to Google, and work backwards to find an out of context quote to support their worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it was as easy as you claim, you'd have done it. You already tried....and failed comically. As we both know my conclusions are in context and accurately conveyed.
> 
> Try again. Remembering of course that I have the rulings, Papers, Bingham and Howard quotes right here that contradict your fallacious paraphrases and vague allusions o 'being out of context'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment started in 1866 and was ratified in 1868.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which might explain why the courts didn't apply the 14th amendment BEFORE 1868....or during the overwhelming majority of the 19th century.
> 
> They applied an interpretation that ignored Bingham and Howard for about 30 years. Then, starting in around 1900, began applying the amendment in a manner consistent with its intent: to Apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> And have done so ever since, for the last 115 years or so. The weight of precedent contradicting out out strips what you think supports you by a factor of nearly 4 to 1.
> 
> With the court's current interpretation inline with the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment: the application of Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The courts did not ignore anything. The courts used the intent and  they use procedural due process of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure they did. They argued, straight out, that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. When Bingham and Howard made it ludicrously clear that that was exactly what the 14th amendment was designed to do.
> 
> For crying out loud, Howard actually took the time to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th was intended to apply to the States when he introduced the amendment to the Senate.
> 
> It wasn't until 1900 that the courts returned to what the primary proponents of the 14th amendment obviously intended. And we've been there ever since.
> 
> 30 years......to 115 years. With the 115 years matching the intent of the amendment.
> 
> You lose again. Twice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you do have every out of context quote by Bingham and  Howard at your disposal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing...anything that contradicts you you insist is 'out of context'. Despite you being laughably unable to establish any other context than the one I presented.
> 
> You're alluding to an argument you can't factually support. While ignoring the evidence that explicitly contradicts you. Like say, Federalist Paper 78.....which makes it ludicriously clear that its the role of the judiciary to interpret the meaning of the constitution and place the constitution above legislative acts that violate it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. *It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. *If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; *or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.*
> Good luck with all that when you write your next law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't make the Federalist Papers disappear. Or Obergefell, Bingham, Howard, of the 14th amendment magically change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> review or write your next appellate brief. And be sure to use that unsophisticated and jenjune rhetoric of yours, it will alert the court or review that you have superior knowledge of the Constitution. They look for things such as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing....um, slick? My interpretations ARE the court's interpretations. As Obegefell makes ludicriously clear:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you insist that the Supreme Court is wrong, and _you're right?_
> 
> Make sure to include that in your next appellant brief. I'm sure the judges will get a good belly laugh. And please, misspell 'jejune' again when you do it. Its like frosting on your fail cake.
Click to expand...


The courts applied the Fourteenth Amendment as it was intended and the reconstruction congress created laws and approved the state's constitutions based on the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment that contradicts your version. 

Anytime you want to provide me with any evidence that substantive due process existed in the nineteenth century to support the Supreme Court ruling, go ahead and do that. Other than that, all that you have is the Supreme Court in the early to mid 1930s creating substantive due process to rule against FDR's  New Deal.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to address the use of substantive due process that did not exist in the 19th century. To keep referencing the same substantive due process clause that did not exist isn't an argument and neither is bringing up Loving. Your only argument is to demonstrate that substantive due prices was a legal concept in the Fourteenth Amendment when it was ratified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its been addressed. *Repeatedly*....and you straight up ignored it. Just like you ignored the Federalist Papers, just like you ignored Bingham. Just like you ignored Howard. Just like you ignored the Obergefell decision.
> 
> You do realize that the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do have a bad habit of ignoring a single out of context quote that is being used as representative of an entire generation and thousands of other documents. That is a bad habit I need to work on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing......you insist that anything that contradicts you is 'out of context'. But you can't offer us any evidence to demonstrate it is so.
> 
> And given that the judiciary is and has always been the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution, historical precedent is so on my side. While your imagination is, like your entire argument, gloriously irrelevant to the outcome of any case.
> 
> But tell us again how the Supreme Court is wrong....and you must be right, because you say so. Or babble about 'jenjune' rhetoric.
> 
> For goodness sake, fella.....if you're going to try to insult someone, make sure to spell the insult correctly.
Click to expand...


Be sure to alert me when you write your next brief or law review on this subject. I anticipate reading them.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to address the use of substantive due process that did not exist in the 19th century. To keep referencing the same substantive due process clause that did not exist isn't an argument and neither is bringing up Loving. Your only argument is to demonstrate that substantive due prices was a legal concept in the Fourteenth Amendment when it was ratified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its been addressed. *Repeatedly*....and you straight up ignored it. Just like you ignored the Federalist Papers, just like you ignored Bingham. Just like you ignored Howard. Just like you ignored the Obergefell decision.
> 
> You do realize that the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do have a bad habit of ignoring a single out of context quote that is being used as representative of an entire generation and thousands of other documents. That is a bad habit I need to work on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing......you insist that anything that contradicts you is 'out of context'. But you can't offer us any evidence to demonstrate it is so.
> 
> And given that the judiciary is and has always been the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution, historical precedent is so on my side. While your imagination is, like your entire argument, gloriously irrelevant to the outcome of any case.
> 
> But tell us again how the Supreme Court is wrong....and you must be right, because you say so. Or babble about 'jenjune' rhetoric.
> 
> For goodness sake, fella.....if you're going to try to insult someone, make sure to spell the insult correctly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be sure to alert me when you write your next brief or law review on this subject. I anticipate reading them.
Click to expand...


Be sure to give me a giggle when your next law brief is predicated on the idea that the Supreme Court is wrong and you're right _because you say so._

And make sure its filled with all the 'jenjune' rhetoric you can muster.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to address the use of substantive due process that did not exist in the 19th century. To keep referencing the same substantive due process clause that did not exist isn't an argument and neither is bringing up Loving. Your only argument is to demonstrate that substantive due prices was a legal concept in the Fourteenth Amendment when it was ratified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its been addressed. *Repeatedly*....and you straight up ignored it. Just like you ignored the Federalist Papers, just like you ignored Bingham. Just like you ignored Howard. Just like you ignored the Obergefell decision.
> 
> You do realize that the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do have a bad habit of ignoring a single out of context quote that is being used as representative of an entire generation and thousands of other documents. That is a bad habit I need to work on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing......you insist that anything that contradicts you is 'out of context'. But you can't offer us any evidence to demonstrate it is so.
> 
> And given that the judiciary is and has always been the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution, historical precedent is so on my side. While your imagination is, like your entire argument, gloriously irrelevant to the outcome of any case.
> 
> But tell us again how the Supreme Court is wrong....and you must be right, because you say so. Or babble about 'jenjune' rhetoric.
> 
> For goodness sake, fella.....if you're going to try to insult someone, make sure to spell the insult correctly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be sure to alert me when you write your next brief or law review on this subject. I anticipate reading them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be sure to give me a giggle when your next law brief is predicated on the idea that the Supreme Court is wrong and you're right _because you say so._
> 
> And make sure its filled with all the 'jenjune' rhetoric you can muster.
Click to expand...


What is a "law brief?"


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what to tell you or anyone else whose entire premise is based on and out of context quote by Hamilton in a document written for the state of New York. Federalist No. 78 only regarded the seperation of powers in the context of the congress of the United States.
> 
> Says you. Hamilton says differently:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist Paper 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law.* It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. *If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, *the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With your own quote of the Federalist Papers reaffirming the same point: that the judiciary should put the constitution above legislative statutes that violate it.
> 
> You say differently. You're nobody. Hamilton wins.
> 
> [quote
> The substantive due process did not exist in the 19th century and the Bill of Rights were not incorporated with the Fourteenth Amendment and it was twentieth century activist courts that created the concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment wasn't even ratified until nearly 1870. So your reference to the '19th century' and the 14th amendment is already nearly 70% irrelevant.
> 
> The courts ignored the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment from the 1870s to the 1890s. From about 1900 until the present day, they recognized the purpose of the 14th amendment as being the application of the bill of rights to the States.
> 
> Which is *exactly* what Bingham and Howard said it was to do.
> 
> Judicial precedent affirming the 14th amendment's application to the States has existed for about 115 years. It was rejected for about 30.  *Meaning that the weight of judicial precedent affirms the current interpretation by a ratio of about 4 to 1. *
> 
> Worse for you, the current interpretation is aligned with the intent of the writers of the 14th, which was clearly to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> *You lose utterly. Twice*. There's a reason your interpretations are legally irrelevant and have no bearing on the outcome of Obergefell or any other case the court is hearing.
> 
> You simply don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can draw any conclusion they want it they start with a premise, go to Google, and work backwards to find an out of context quote to support their worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it was as easy as you claim, you'd have done it. You already tried....and failed comically. As we both know my conclusions are in context and accurately conveyed.
> 
> Try again. Remembering of course that I have the rulings, Papers, Bingham and Howard quotes right here that contradict your fallacious paraphrases and vague allusions o 'being out of context'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment started in 1866 and was ratified in 1868.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which might explain why the courts didn't apply the 14th amendment BEFORE 1868....or during the overwhelming majority of the 19th century.
> 
> They applied an interpretation that ignored Bingham and Howard for about 30 years. Then, starting in around 1900, began applying the amendment in a manner consistent with its intent: to Apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> And have done so ever since, for the last 115 years or so. The weight of precedent contradicting out out strips what you think supports you by a factor of nearly 4 to 1.
> 
> With the court's current interpretation inline with the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment: the application of Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The courts did not ignore anything. The courts used the intent and  they use procedural due process of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure they did. They argued, straight out, that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. When Bingham and Howard made it ludicrously clear that that was exactly what the 14th amendment was designed to do.
> 
> For crying out loud, Howard actually took the time to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th was intended to apply to the States when he introduced the amendment to the Senate.
> 
> It wasn't until 1900 that the courts returned to what the primary proponents of the 14th amendment obviously intended. And we've been there ever since.
> 
> 30 years......to 115 years. With the 115 years matching the intent of the amendment.
> 
> You lose again. Twice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you do have every out of context quote by Bingham and  Howard at your disposal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing...anything that contradicts you you insist is 'out of context'. Despite you being laughably unable to establish any other context than the one I presented.
> 
> You're alluding to an argument you can't factually support. While ignoring the evidence that explicitly contradicts you. Like say, Federalist Paper 78.....which makes it ludicriously clear that its the role of the judiciary to interpret the meaning of the constitution and place the constitution above legislative acts that violate it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. *It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. *If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; *or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.*
> Good luck with all that when you write your next law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't make the Federalist Papers disappear. Or Obergefell, Bingham, Howard, of the 14th amendment magically change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> review or write your next appellate brief. And be sure to use that unsophisticated and jenjune rhetoric of yours, it will alert the court or review that you have superior knowledge of the Constitution. They look for things such as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing....um, slick? My interpretations ARE the court's interpretations. As Obegefell makes ludicriously clear:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you insist that the Supreme Court is wrong, and _you're right?_
> 
> Make sure to include that in your next appellant brief. I'm sure the judges will get a good belly laugh. And please, misspell 'jejune' again when you do it. Its like frosting on your fail cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts applied the Fourteenth Amendment as it was intended and the reconstruction congress created laws and approved the state's constitutions based on the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment that contradicts your version.
Click to expand...


No, they didn't. The Slaughterhouse cases  found that the 14th amendment didn't extend the rights protected in the BIll of Rights to the States. But instead only protected rights like 'the right to travel between states' or 'navigate on rivers'. 

This despite the purpose of the 14th amendment described *repeatedly* as being the application of the Bill of Rights to the States. With Howard reading the Bill of Rights, one amendment at a time, as what the 14th was intended to apply to the states when he introduced the 14th to the Senate.

Again, Tenny.......you simply have no idea what you're talking about. And for the last 115 years or so, the judiciary has aligned their intepretation with the intent of  those who have written the 14th amendment.

Compared to the less than 30 years where they ignored the intent of the 14th. 



> Anytime you want to provide me with any evidence that substantive due process existed in the nineteenth century to support the Supreme Court ruling, go ahead and do that. Other than that, all that you have is the Supreme Court in the early to mid 1930s creating substantive due process to rule against FDR's  New Deal.



You have yet to provide any evidence for your entire argument, merely asserting it must be so. I on the other hand have quoted the Federalist Papers, the 14th amendment, and the Obergefell ruling.

All contradicting you. While you have nothing to back your assertions but your ability to type.

For crying out loud, I cited the Obergefell case *explicitly* citing the due process clause of the 14th amendment as a basis for their ruling.....and you _still _insist it never happened.

Factually establish your claims first. As so far, your only contribution to this discussion has been desperate, willful ignorance.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its been addressed. *Repeatedly*....and you straight up ignored it. Just like you ignored the Federalist Papers, just like you ignored Bingham. Just like you ignored Howard. Just like you ignored the Obergefell decision.
> 
> You do realize that the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do have a bad habit of ignoring a single out of context quote that is being used as representative of an entire generation and thousands of other documents. That is a bad habit I need to work on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing......you insist that anything that contradicts you is 'out of context'. But you can't offer us any evidence to demonstrate it is so.
> 
> And given that the judiciary is and has always been the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution, historical precedent is so on my side. While your imagination is, like your entire argument, gloriously irrelevant to the outcome of any case.
> 
> But tell us again how the Supreme Court is wrong....and you must be right, because you say so. Or babble about 'jenjune' rhetoric.
> 
> For goodness sake, fella.....if you're going to try to insult someone, make sure to spell the insult correctly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be sure to alert me when you write your next brief or law review on this subject. I anticipate reading them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be sure to give me a giggle when your next law brief is predicated on the idea that the Supreme Court is wrong and you're right _because you say so._
> 
> And make sure its filled with all the 'jenjune' rhetoric you can muster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is a "law brief?"
Click to expand...


What is 'jenjune rhetoric'?

And remember of course that the entire basis of your argment is that the Supreme Court is wrong and you must be right, because you say so.

So, um....how's that working out for you? Obergefell has surely already been overturned by your 'uh-uh' school of rhetorical argument. Surely it has.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what to tell you or anyone else whose entire premise is based on and out of context quote by Hamilton in a document written for the state of New York. Federalist No. 78 only regarded the seperation of powers in the context of the congress of the United States.
> 
> Says you. Hamilton says differently:
> 
> With your own quote of the Federalist Papers reaffirming the same point: that the judiciary should put the constitution above legislative statutes that violate it.
> 
> You say differently. You're nobody. Hamilton wins.
> 
> [quote
> The substantive due process did not exist in the 19th century and the Bill of Rights were not incorporated with the Fourteenth Amendment and it was twentieth century activist courts that created the concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment wasn't even ratified until nearly 1870. So your reference to the '19th century' and the 14th amendment is already nearly 70% irrelevant.
> 
> The courts ignored the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment from the 1870s to the 1890s. From about 1900 until the present day, they recognized the purpose of the 14th amendment as being the application of the bill of rights to the States.
> 
> Which is *exactly* what Bingham and Howard said it was to do.
> 
> Judicial precedent affirming the 14th amendment's application to the States has existed for about 115 years. It was rejected for about 30.  *Meaning that the weight of judicial precedent affirms the current interpretation by a ratio of about 4 to 1. *
> 
> Worse for you, the current interpretation is aligned with the intent of the writers of the 14th, which was clearly to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> *You lose utterly. Twice*. There's a reason your interpretations are legally irrelevant and have no bearing on the outcome of Obergefell or any other case the court is hearing.
> 
> You simply don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can draw any conclusion they want it they start with a premise, go to Google, and work backwards to find an out of context quote to support their worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it was as easy as you claim, you'd have done it. You already tried....and failed comically. As we both know my conclusions are in context and accurately conveyed.
> 
> Try again. Remembering of course that I have the rulings, Papers, Bingham and Howard quotes right here that contradict your fallacious paraphrases and vague allusions o 'being out of context'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment started in 1866 and was ratified in 1868.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which might explain why the courts didn't apply the 14th amendment BEFORE 1868....or during the overwhelming majority of the 19th century.
> 
> They applied an interpretation that ignored Bingham and Howard for about 30 years. Then, starting in around 1900, began applying the amendment in a manner consistent with its intent: to Apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> And have done so ever since, for the last 115 years or so. The weight of precedent contradicting out out strips what you think supports you by a factor of nearly 4 to 1.
> 
> With the court's current interpretation inline with the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment: the application of Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The courts did not ignore anything. The courts used the intent and  they use procedural due process of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure they did. They argued, straight out, that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. When Bingham and Howard made it ludicrously clear that that was exactly what the 14th amendment was designed to do.
> 
> For crying out loud, Howard actually took the time to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th was intended to apply to the States when he introduced the amendment to the Senate.
> 
> It wasn't until 1900 that the courts returned to what the primary proponents of the 14th amendment obviously intended. And we've been there ever since.
> 
> 30 years......to 115 years. With the 115 years matching the intent of the amendment.
> 
> You lose again. Twice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you do have every out of context quote by Bingham and  Howard at your disposal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing...anything that contradicts you you insist is 'out of context'. Despite you being laughably unable to establish any other context than the one I presented.
> 
> You're alluding to an argument you can't factually support. While ignoring the evidence that explicitly contradicts you. Like say, Federalist Paper 78.....which makes it ludicriously clear that its the role of the judiciary to interpret the meaning of the constitution and place the constitution above legislative acts that violate it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. *It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. *If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; *or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.*
> Good luck with all that when you write your next law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't make the Federalist Papers disappear. Or Obergefell, Bingham, Howard, of the 14th amendment magically change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> review or write your next appellate brief. And be sure to use that unsophisticated and jenjune rhetoric of yours, it will alert the court or review that you have superior knowledge of the Constitution. They look for things such as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing....um, slick? My interpretations ARE the court's interpretations. As Obegefell makes ludicriously clear:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you insist that the Supreme Court is wrong, and _you're right?_
> 
> Make sure to include that in your next appellant brief. I'm sure the judges will get a good belly laugh. And please, misspell 'jejune' again when you do it. Its like frosting on your fail cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts applied the Fourteenth Amendment as it was intended and the reconstruction congress created laws and approved the state's constitutions based on the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment that contradicts your version.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they didn't. The Slaughterhouse cases  found that the 14th amendment didn't extend the rights protected in the BIll of Rights to the States. But instead only protected rights like 'the right to travel between states' or 'navigate on rivers'.
> 
> This despite the purpose of the 14th amendment described *repeatedly* as being the application of the Bill of Rights to the States. With Howard reading the Bill of Rights, one amendment at a time, as what the 14th was intended to apply to the states when he introduced the 14th to the Senate.
> 
> Again, Tenny.......you simply have no idea what you're talking about. And for the last 115 years or so, the judiciary has aligned their intepretation with the intent of  those who have written the 14th amendment.
> 
> Compared to the less than 30 years where they ignored the intent of the 14th.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anytime you want to provide me with any evidence that substantive due process existed in the nineteenth century to support the Supreme Court ruling, go ahead and do that. Other than that, all that you have is the Supreme Court in the early to mid 1930s creating substantive due process to rule against FDR's  New Deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have yet to provide any evidence for your entire argument, merely asserting it must be so. I on the other hand have quoted the Federalist Papers, the 14th amendment, and the Obergefell ruling.
> 
> All contradicting you. While you have nothing to back your assertions but your ability to type.
> 
> For crying out loud, I cited the Obergefell case *explicitly* citing the due process clause of the 14th amendment as a basis for their ruling.....and you _still _insist it never happened.
> 
> Factually establish your claims first. As so far, your only contribution to this discussion has been desperate, willful ignorance.
Click to expand...

 
No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the  Bill of Rights. Case after case made that as did the actions of congress. 

Anytime you want to provide evidence that substantive due process existed before the 1930s, just post it.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do have a bad habit of ignoring a single out of context quote that is being used as representative of an entire generation and thousands of other documents. That is a bad habit I need to work on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laughing......you insist that anything that contradicts you is 'out of context'. But you can't offer us any evidence to demonstrate it is so.
> 
> And given that the judiciary is and has always been the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution, historical precedent is so on my side. While your imagination is, like your entire argument, gloriously irrelevant to the outcome of any case.
> 
> But tell us again how the Supreme Court is wrong....and you must be right, because you say so. Or babble about 'jenjune' rhetoric.
> 
> For goodness sake, fella.....if you're going to try to insult someone, make sure to spell the insult correctly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be sure to alert me when you write your next brief or law review on this subject. I anticipate reading them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be sure to give me a giggle when your next law brief is predicated on the idea that the Supreme Court is wrong and you're right _because you say so._
> 
> And make sure its filled with all the 'jenjune' rhetoric you can muster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is a "law brief?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is 'jenjune rhetoric'?
> 
> And remember of course that the entire basis of your argment is that the Supreme Court is wrong and you must be right, because you say so.
> 
> So, um....how's that working out for you? Obergefell has surely already been overturned by your 'uh-uh' school of rhetorical argument. Surely it has.
Click to expand...

 
Is there a definition of a "law brief" in there?


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment wasn't even ratified until nearly 1870. So your reference to the '19th century' and the 14th amendment is already nearly 70% irrelevant.
> 
> The courts ignored the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment from the 1870s to the 1890s. From about 1900 until the present day, they recognized the purpose of the 14th amendment as being the application of the bill of rights to the States.
> 
> Which is *exactly* what Bingham and Howard said it was to do.
> 
> Judicial precedent affirming the 14th amendment's application to the States has existed for about 115 years. It was rejected for about 30.  *Meaning that the weight of judicial precedent affirms the current interpretation by a ratio of about 4 to 1. *
> 
> Worse for you, the current interpretation is aligned with the intent of the writers of the 14th, which was clearly to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> *You lose utterly. Twice*. There's a reason your interpretations are legally irrelevant and have no bearing on the outcome of Obergefell or any other case the court is hearing.
> 
> You simply don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> If it was as easy as you claim, you'd have done it. You already tried....and failed comically. As we both know my conclusions are in context and accurately conveyed.
> 
> Try again. Remembering of course that I have the rulings, Papers, Bingham and Howard quotes right here that contradict your fallacious paraphrases and vague allusions o 'being out of context'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment started in 1866 and was ratified in 1868.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which might explain why the courts didn't apply the 14th amendment BEFORE 1868....or during the overwhelming majority of the 19th century.
> 
> They applied an interpretation that ignored Bingham and Howard for about 30 years. Then, starting in around 1900, began applying the amendment in a manner consistent with its intent: to Apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> And have done so ever since, for the last 115 years or so. The weight of precedent contradicting out out strips what you think supports you by a factor of nearly 4 to 1.
> 
> With the court's current interpretation inline with the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment: the application of Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The courts did not ignore anything. The courts used the intent and  they use procedural due process of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure they did. They argued, straight out, that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. When Bingham and Howard made it ludicrously clear that that was exactly what the 14th amendment was designed to do.
> 
> For crying out loud, Howard actually took the time to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th was intended to apply to the States when he introduced the amendment to the Senate.
> 
> It wasn't until 1900 that the courts returned to what the primary proponents of the 14th amendment obviously intended. And we've been there ever since.
> 
> 30 years......to 115 years. With the 115 years matching the intent of the amendment.
> 
> You lose again. Twice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you do have every out of context quote by Bingham and  Howard at your disposal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing...anything that contradicts you you insist is 'out of context'. Despite you being laughably unable to establish any other context than the one I presented.
> 
> You're alluding to an argument you can't factually support. While ignoring the evidence that explicitly contradicts you. Like say, Federalist Paper 78.....which makes it ludicriously clear that its the role of the judiciary to interpret the meaning of the constitution and place the constitution above legislative acts that violate it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. *It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. *If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; *or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.*
> Good luck with all that when you write your next law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't make the Federalist Papers disappear. Or Obergefell, Bingham, Howard, of the 14th amendment magically change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> review or write your next appellate brief. And be sure to use that unsophisticated and jenjune rhetoric of yours, it will alert the court or review that you have superior knowledge of the Constitution. They look for things such as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing....um, slick? My interpretations ARE the court's interpretations. As Obegefell makes ludicriously clear:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you insist that the Supreme Court is wrong, and _you're right?_
> 
> Make sure to include that in your next appellant brief. I'm sure the judges will get a good belly laugh. And please, misspell 'jejune' again when you do it. Its like frosting on your fail cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts applied the Fourteenth Amendment as it was intended and the reconstruction congress created laws and approved the state's constitutions based on the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment that contradicts your version.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they didn't. The Slaughterhouse cases  found that the 14th amendment didn't extend the rights protected in the BIll of Rights to the States. But instead only protected rights like 'the right to travel between states' or 'navigate on rivers'.
> 
> This despite the purpose of the 14th amendment described *repeatedly* as being the application of the Bill of Rights to the States. With Howard reading the Bill of Rights, one amendment at a time, as what the 14th was intended to apply to the states when he introduced the 14th to the Senate.
> 
> Again, Tenny.......you simply have no idea what you're talking about. And for the last 115 years or so, the judiciary has aligned their intepretation with the intent of  those who have written the 14th amendment.
> 
> Compared to the less than 30 years where they ignored the intent of the 14th.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anytime you want to provide me with any evidence that substantive due process existed in the nineteenth century to support the Supreme Court ruling, go ahead and do that. Other than that, all that you have is the Supreme Court in the early to mid 1930s creating substantive due process to rule against FDR's  New Deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have yet to provide any evidence for your entire argument, merely asserting it must be so. I on the other hand have quoted the Federalist Papers, the 14th amendment, and the Obergefell ruling.
> 
> All contradicting you. While you have nothing to back your assertions but your ability to type.
> 
> For crying out loud, I cited the Obergefell case *explicitly* citing the due process clause of the 14th amendment as a basis for their ruling.....and you _still _insist it never happened.
> 
> Factually establish your claims first. As so far, your only contribution to this discussion has been desperate, willful ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the  Bill of Rights. Case after case made that as did the actions of congress.
Click to expand...


Horseshit. Not only did Howard argue that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States, he read those rights out, one at a time.

_"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the *second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. *To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

*The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "*_

_- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate_


And Howard was hardly alone. John Bingham made a similar argument when introducing the Amendment to the House:

_"The proposition pending before the house is simple a proposition to arm the Congress of the United States, by the consent of the people of the United States, w*ith the power to enforce the bill of rights as its stands in the constitution today. *

-John Bingham
 Congressional Globe, 39th Session, p 1088_

All of which you know, Tenny. But you really hope we don't. Ignore as you wish. It won't matter either way. As the judiciary is still the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution, exactly as the founders intended. And the 14th amendment still applies to the States, exactly as the primary proponents of the 14th amendment intended. 

Get used to the idea.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment started in 1866 and was ratified in 1868.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which might explain why the courts didn't apply the 14th amendment BEFORE 1868....or during the overwhelming majority of the 19th century.
> 
> They applied an interpretation that ignored Bingham and Howard for about 30 years. Then, starting in around 1900, began applying the amendment in a manner consistent with its intent: to Apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> And have done so ever since, for the last 115 years or so. The weight of precedent contradicting out out strips what you think supports you by a factor of nearly 4 to 1.
> 
> With the court's current interpretation inline with the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment: the application of Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The courts did not ignore anything. The courts used the intent and  they use procedural due process of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure they did. They argued, straight out, that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. When Bingham and Howard made it ludicrously clear that that was exactly what the 14th amendment was designed to do.
> 
> For crying out loud, Howard actually took the time to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th was intended to apply to the States when he introduced the amendment to the Senate.
> 
> It wasn't until 1900 that the courts returned to what the primary proponents of the 14th amendment obviously intended. And we've been there ever since.
> 
> 30 years......to 115 years. With the 115 years matching the intent of the amendment.
> 
> You lose again. Twice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you do have every out of context quote by Bingham and  Howard at your disposal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing...anything that contradicts you you insist is 'out of context'. Despite you being laughably unable to establish any other context than the one I presented.
> 
> You're alluding to an argument you can't factually support. While ignoring the evidence that explicitly contradicts you. Like say, Federalist Paper 78.....which makes it ludicriously clear that its the role of the judiciary to interpret the meaning of the constitution and place the constitution above legislative acts that violate it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. *It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. *If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; *or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.*
> Good luck with all that when you write your next law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't make the Federalist Papers disappear. Or Obergefell, Bingham, Howard, of the 14th amendment magically change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> review or write your next appellate brief. And be sure to use that unsophisticated and jenjune rhetoric of yours, it will alert the court or review that you have superior knowledge of the Constitution. They look for things such as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing....um, slick? My interpretations ARE the court's interpretations. As Obegefell makes ludicriously clear:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you insist that the Supreme Court is wrong, and _you're right?_
> 
> Make sure to include that in your next appellant brief. I'm sure the judges will get a good belly laugh. And please, misspell 'jejune' again when you do it. Its like frosting on your fail cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts applied the Fourteenth Amendment as it was intended and the reconstruction congress created laws and approved the state's constitutions based on the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment that contradicts your version.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they didn't. The Slaughterhouse cases  found that the 14th amendment didn't extend the rights protected in the BIll of Rights to the States. But instead only protected rights like 'the right to travel between states' or 'navigate on rivers'.
> 
> This despite the purpose of the 14th amendment described *repeatedly* as being the application of the Bill of Rights to the States. With Howard reading the Bill of Rights, one amendment at a time, as what the 14th was intended to apply to the states when he introduced the 14th to the Senate.
> 
> Again, Tenny.......you simply have no idea what you're talking about. And for the last 115 years or so, the judiciary has aligned their intepretation with the intent of  those who have written the 14th amendment.
> 
> Compared to the less than 30 years where they ignored the intent of the 14th.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anytime you want to provide me with any evidence that substantive due process existed in the nineteenth century to support the Supreme Court ruling, go ahead and do that. Other than that, all that you have is the Supreme Court in the early to mid 1930s creating substantive due process to rule against FDR's  New Deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have yet to provide any evidence for your entire argument, merely asserting it must be so. I on the other hand have quoted the Federalist Papers, the 14th amendment, and the Obergefell ruling.
> 
> All contradicting you. While you have nothing to back your assertions but your ability to type.
> 
> For crying out loud, I cited the Obergefell case *explicitly* citing the due process clause of the 14th amendment as a basis for their ruling.....and you _still _insist it never happened.
> 
> Factually establish your claims first. As so far, your only contribution to this discussion has been desperate, willful ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the  Bill of Rights. Case after case made that as did the actions of congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit. Not only did Howard argue that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States, he read those rights out, one at a time.
> 
> _"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the *second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. *To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....
> 
> *The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "*_
> 
> _- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate_
> 
> 
> And Howard was hardly alone. John Bingham made a similar argument when introducing the Amendment to the House:
> 
> _"The proposition pending before the house is simple a proposition to arm the Congress of the United States, by the consent of the people of the United States, w*ith the power to enforce the bill of rights as its stands in the constitution today. *
> 
> -John Bingham
> Congressional Globe, 39th Session, p 1088_
> 
> All of which you know, Tenny. But you really hope we don't. Ignore as you wish. It won't matter either way. As the judiciary is still the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution, exactly as the founders intended. And the 14th amendment still applies to the States, exactly as the primary proponents of the 14th amendment intended.
> 
> Get used to the idea.
Click to expand...


Single out of context quotes that contradict the body of statements by Howard and Bingham are not an argument. You do not have an argument until yon can provide evidence of substantive due process before the 1930s.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which might explain why the courts didn't apply the 14th amendment BEFORE 1868....or during the overwhelming majority of the 19th century.
> 
> They applied an interpretation that ignored Bingham and Howard for about 30 years. Then, starting in around 1900, began applying the amendment in a manner consistent with its intent: to Apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> And have done so ever since, for the last 115 years or so. The weight of precedent contradicting out out strips what you think supports you by a factor of nearly 4 to 1.
> 
> With the court's current interpretation inline with the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment: the application of Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> Sure they did. They argued, straight out, that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. When Bingham and Howard made it ludicrously clear that that was exactly what the 14th amendment was designed to do.
> 
> For crying out loud, Howard actually took the time to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th was intended to apply to the States when he introduced the amendment to the Senate.
> 
> It wasn't until 1900 that the courts returned to what the primary proponents of the 14th amendment obviously intended. And we've been there ever since.
> 
> 30 years......to 115 years. With the 115 years matching the intent of the amendment.
> 
> You lose again. Twice.
> 
> Laughing...anything that contradicts you you insist is 'out of context'. Despite you being laughably unable to establish any other context than the one I presented.
> 
> You're alluding to an argument you can't factually support. While ignoring the evidence that explicitly contradicts you. Like say, Federalist Paper 78.....which makes it ludicriously clear that its the role of the judiciary to interpret the meaning of the constitution and place the constitution above legislative acts that violate it.
> 
> Just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't make the Federalist Papers disappear. Or Obergefell, Bingham, Howard, of the 14th amendment magically change.
> 
> Laughing....um, slick? My interpretations ARE the court's interpretations. As Obegefell makes ludicriously clear:
> 
> But you insist that the Supreme Court is wrong, and _you're right?_
> 
> Make sure to include that in your next appellant brief. I'm sure the judges will get a good belly laugh. And please, misspell 'jejune' again when you do it. Its like frosting on your fail cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The courts applied the Fourteenth Amendment as it was intended and the reconstruction congress created laws and approved the state's constitutions based on the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment that contradicts your version.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they didn't. The Slaughterhouse cases  found that the 14th amendment didn't extend the rights protected in the BIll of Rights to the States. But instead only protected rights like 'the right to travel between states' or 'navigate on rivers'.
> 
> This despite the purpose of the 14th amendment described *repeatedly* as being the application of the Bill of Rights to the States. With Howard reading the Bill of Rights, one amendment at a time, as what the 14th was intended to apply to the states when he introduced the 14th to the Senate.
> 
> Again, Tenny.......you simply have no idea what you're talking about. And for the last 115 years or so, the judiciary has aligned their intepretation with the intent of  those who have written the 14th amendment.
> 
> Compared to the less than 30 years where they ignored the intent of the 14th.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anytime you want to provide me with any evidence that substantive due process existed in the nineteenth century to support the Supreme Court ruling, go ahead and do that. Other than that, all that you have is the Supreme Court in the early to mid 1930s creating substantive due process to rule against FDR's  New Deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have yet to provide any evidence for your entire argument, merely asserting it must be so. I on the other hand have quoted the Federalist Papers, the 14th amendment, and the Obergefell ruling.
> 
> All contradicting you. While you have nothing to back your assertions but your ability to type.
> 
> For crying out loud, I cited the Obergefell case *explicitly* citing the due process clause of the 14th amendment as a basis for their ruling.....and you _still _insist it never happened.
> 
> Factually establish your claims first. As so far, your only contribution to this discussion has been desperate, willful ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the  Bill of Rights. Case after case made that as did the actions of congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit. Not only did Howard argue that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States, he read those rights out, one at a time.
> 
> _"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the *second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. *To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....
> 
> *The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "*_
> 
> _- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate_
> 
> 
> And Howard was hardly alone. John Bingham made a similar argument when introducing the Amendment to the House:
> 
> _"The proposition pending before the house is simple a proposition to arm the Congress of the United States, by the consent of the people of the United States, w*ith the power to enforce the bill of rights as its stands in the constitution today. *
> 
> -John Bingham
> Congressional Globe, 39th Session, p 1088_
> 
> All of which you know, Tenny. But you really hope we don't. Ignore as you wish. It won't matter either way. As the judiciary is still the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution, exactly as the founders intended. And the 14th amendment still applies to the States, exactly as the primary proponents of the 14th amendment intended.
> 
> Get used to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Single out of context quotes that contradict the body of statements by Howard and Bingham are not an argument. You do not have an argument until yon can provide evidence of substantive due process before the 1930s.
Click to expand...


And by 'single out of context quote', you mean Senator Howard doing EXACTLY what you insisted that no one in the 39th congress ever did? 

*Laughing....and exactly as I said you would, you ignored Howard, *despite the Senator reading the rights of the Bill of Rights one at a time at what was intended to be applied to the States.

Just like you ignored Bingham, just like you ignored Obergefell, just like you ignored the 14th amendment, just like you ignored the Slaughterhouse cases, just like you ignored the Federalist Papers.

You're nothing if not predictably irrelevant Tenny. Really, is there anything more to you than willful ignorance? As so far, its your only contribution to this discussion. 

Well that and laughably references to 'jenjune'.


----------



## Skylar

Want more? Because Howard and Bingham were clear as a bell on what they intended:

_
They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers*, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect;* while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them except by their own local constitutions, which may be altered from year to year.

*The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."*

-Senator Jacob Howard, 39th Congress, 1866
_
But the purpose of the 14th *wasn't* to apply the Bill of Rights to the States? To provide the federal government with the power to compel the States to respect those fundamental guarantees?

Laughing..._.really? _


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what to tell you or anyone else whose entire premise is based on and out of context quote by Hamilton in a document written for the state of New York. Federalist No. 78 only regarded the seperation of powers in the context of the congress of the United States.
> 
> Says you. Hamilton says differently:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist Paper 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law.* It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. *If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, *the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With your own quote of the Federalist Papers reaffirming the same point: that the judiciary should put the constitution above legislative statutes that violate it.
> 
> You say differently. You're nobody. Hamilton wins.
> 
> [quote
> The substantive due process did not exist in the 19th century and the Bill of Rights were not incorporated with the Fourteenth Amendment and it was twentieth century activist courts that created the concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment wasn't even ratified until nearly 1870. So your reference to the '19th century' and the 14th amendment is already nearly 70% irrelevant.
> 
> The courts ignored the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment from the 1870s to the 1890s. From about 1900 until the present day, they recognized the purpose of the 14th amendment as being the application of the bill of rights to the States.
> 
> Which is *exactly* what Bingham and Howard said it was to do.
> 
> Judicial precedent affirming the 14th amendment's application to the States has existed for about 115 years. It was rejected for about 30.  *Meaning that the weight of judicial precedent affirms the current interpretation by a ratio of about 4 to 1. *
> 
> Worse for you, the current interpretation is aligned with the intent of the writers of the 14th, which was clearly to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> *You lose utterly. Twice*. There's a reason your interpretations are legally irrelevant and have no bearing on the outcome of Obergefell or any other case the court is hearing.
> 
> You simply don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can draw any conclusion they want it they start with a premise, go to Google, and work backwards to find an out of context quote to support their worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it was as easy as you claim, you'd have done it. You already tried....and failed comically. As we both know my conclusions are in context and accurately conveyed.
> 
> Try again. Remembering of course that I have the rulings, Papers, Bingham and Howard quotes right here that contradict your fallacious paraphrases and vague allusions o 'being out of context'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment started in 1866 and was ratified in 1868.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which might explain why the courts didn't apply the 14th amendment BEFORE 1868....or during the overwhelming majority of the 19th century.
> 
> They applied an interpretation that ignored Bingham and Howard for about 30 years. Then, starting in around 1900, began applying the amendment in a manner consistent with its intent: to Apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> And have done so ever since, for the last 115 years or so. The weight of precedent contradicting out out strips what you think supports you by a factor of nearly 4 to 1.
> 
> With the court's current interpretation inline with the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment: the application of Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The courts did not ignore anything. The courts used the intent and  they use procedural due process of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure they did. They argued, straight out, that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. When Bingham and Howard made it ludicrously clear that that was exactly what the 14th amendment was designed to do.
> 
> For crying out loud, Howard actually took the time to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th was intended to apply to the States when he introduced the amendment to the Senate.
> 
> It wasn't until 1900 that the courts returned to what the primary proponents of the 14th amendment obviously intended. And we've been there ever since.
> 
> 30 years......to 115 years. With the 115 years matching the intent of the amendment.
> 
> You lose again. Twice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you do have every out of context quote by Bingham and  Howard at your disposal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing...anything that contradicts you you insist is 'out of context'. Despite you being laughably unable to establish any other context than the one I presented.
> 
> You're alluding to an argument you can't factually support. While ignoring the evidence that explicitly contradicts you. Like say, Federalist Paper 78.....which makes it ludicriously clear that its the role of the judiciary to interpret the meaning of the constitution and place the constitution above legislative acts that violate it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. *It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. *If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; *or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.*
> Good luck with all that when you write your next law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't make the Federalist Papers disappear. Or Obergefell, Bingham, Howard, of the 14th amendment magically change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> review or write your next appellate brief. And be sure to use that unsophisticated and jenjune rhetoric of yours, it will alert the court or review that you have superior knowledge of the Constitution. They look for things such as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing....um, slick? My interpretations ARE the court's interpretations. As Obegefell makes ludicriously clear:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you insist that the Supreme Court is wrong, and _you're right?_
> 
> Make sure to include that in your next appellant brief. I'm sure the judges will get a good belly laugh. And please, misspell 'jejune' again when you do it. Its like frosting on your fail cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts applied the Fourteenth Amendment as it was intended and the reconstruction congress created laws and approved the state's constitutions based on the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment that contradicts your version.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide me with any evidence that substantive due process existed in the nineteenth century to support the Supreme Court ruling, go ahead and do that. Other than that, all that you have is the Supreme Court in the early to mid 1930s creating substantive due process to rule against FDR's  New Deal.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

The doctrine of substantive due process dates back to the last half of the 19th Century (see e.g. _Slaughter-House Cases_ (1873)).

The notion that substantive due process was "created" during the 1930s is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire premise revolves around an out of context quote by Hamilton in a document about the separation of powers regarding the federal judiciary vis-a-vis the legislative branch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamilton explicitly and unambiguously cited the judiciary as the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.
> 
> You insist that the judiciary is not the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.
> 
> Hamilton trumps you every time. As the judiciary has both the authority and the duty to place the constitution above legislative acts that violate them. Says who?
> 
> Says good old Federalist Paper 78.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist Paper 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, *the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you *still* insist that the Judiciary isn't the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution and can't put the constitution above laws that violate it.
> 
> Um, yeah, they can. Yeah, they do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The concept you are presenting regarding same-sex marriage and the states was not a concept in the federalist papers, was not a concept in the founding era, nor was it a concept in 1866. The entire concept was created in 2015 by a Supreme Court with no constitutional basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The basis of the the Obergefell (contrary to your stunning ignorance on the ruling) was the 14th amendment. An amendment that didn't exist in the founding era.
> 
> Amendments (contrary to your stunning ignorance on amendments) change the constitution. And it is to the constitution that the judiciary has an obligation to uphold.
> 
> Which they did in the Obergefell ruling, placing the rights of people above state laws that violate those rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have a predilection for lowering an exchange to gutter level exchanges. I do not play that game as I have yet to encounter anyone with that strategy to have the intellectual or educational background to advance any discussion on a higher plane than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By what? Accurately quoting the Federalist Papers, Howard, Bingham, and the Obergefell ruling?
> 
> For crying out loud, you argued with a straight face that an amendment to the constitution *doesn't* change the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Obergefell v. Hodges _not use the due process of the Fourteenth Amendment. Obergefell used substantive due process and substantive due process did not exist until the twentieth century. The due process clause and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment were both functions of the law within the judicial process and had nothing to do with rights. Just because Kennedy said that he used substantive due process from the Fourteenth Amendment does not make it so and it cannot be so because it did not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what you say. This is what the Obergefell ruling says, explicitly citing the due process clause of the 14th amendment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its right there in black and white. And you close your eyes, pretend it doesn't exist....and then insist that because you pretend, the ruling magically changes to match.
> 
> Um, no. It doesn't. You're quite simply wrong. As the Obergefell makes ludicriously clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what to tell you or anyone else whose entire premise is based on and out of context quote by Hamilton in a document written for the state of New York. Federalist No. 78 only regarded the seperation of powers in the context of the congress of the United States.
> 
> The substantive due process did not exist in the 19th century and the Bill of Rights were not incorporated with the Fourteenth Amendment and it was twentieth century activist courts that created the concept.
> 
> Anyone can draw any conclusion they want it they start with a premise, go to Google, and work backwards to find an out of context quote to support their worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is right there- Obergefell- Due Process- 14th Amendment.
> 
> _Obergefell v. Hodges said:
> 
> The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.
> 
> You can of course pretend whatever you want- but the Obergefell was based upon the 14th Amendment- and because of Obergefell- Americans can marry whoever they want- including the same gender.
> _
> And by the way-this was exactly the same reasoning used for Loving v. Virginia.
> 
> You are a few decades late to the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _
> _
> You have yet to address the use of substantive due process that did not exist in the 19th century. To keep referencing the same substantive due process clause that did not exist isn't an argument and neither is bringing up Loving. Your only argument is to demonstrate that substantive due prices was a legal concept in the Fourteenth Amendment when it was ratified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should I discuss your strawmen?
> 
> Obergefell is based upon the 14th Amendment- as is Loving v. Virginia.
> 
> My argument is that the court was right in Obergefell and was right 50 years ago in Loving.
> 
> And Americans regardless of their race or gender can marry each other because of Obergefell and Loving.
Click to expand...


I understand that. Now all you have to do to substantiate that is to provide the evidence that substantive due process existed in 1868 and that should put an end to it.[/QUOTE]

No- I don't have to dance with your straw men at all.

The Supreme Court enforced our Constitution. 
Obergefell and Loving both enforced the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Americans who couldn't legally before can legally marry now.

Life is good for those who believe in the Constitution.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Matthew said:


> explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?



What is constitutional about stopping a man from marrying two women ?


----------



## Packyderm

Lets see what kind of answer you get Sun Devil. The polygamists have already filed suit in Utah and, I believe, Wyoming. Will have to wait until it wends its way through the courts for the Justices to find a right to marry three women, five boys and a donkey in the founding documents.


----------



## Packyderm

Not Wyoming.

  "Montana polygamist, Nathan Collier, has applied for a marriage license with his second “wife.” If “marriage equality” is now the law of the land, does that mean people have a right to multiple wives or husbands (at the same time)? Collier thinks the principle of marriage equality ought to apply to him and his wives. He has asked for a second, concurrent marriage license. The county lawyer promised him a thoughtful answer to this request"
Is Three Still a Crowd? Polygamy and the Law After Obergefell v. Hodges

As you can see from the article the Supreme Court already banned polygamy in Reynolds vs US. Thats ok The caprice of that oligarchy can be breathtaking. They have also ruled (1) marriage is the exclusive province of the states and (2) sodomy bis a crime before reversing and attacking those same laws. Wouldnt be much of a stretch to discover in the Constitution a right to polygamy. 
 Capriciousness is a sign and trait of despotism.


----------



## Packyderm

jillian said:


> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apparently, it is.
> 
> hint: marriage is a fundamental right. two consenting adults cannot be denied that right absent a compelling governmental interest. your bigotry is not a compelling governmental interest.
> 
> thanks.
> 
> now read:
> 
> {{meta.pageTitle}}
> 
> p.s. marriage has zero to do with procreation or there would be a test to make sure no one who could not have a child or would choose not to have a child would get married. now be quiet.
Click to expand...



   Two consenting adults? You bigot. Who gives you the right to limit marriage to two?


----------



## Packyderm

jillian said:


> p.s. marriage has zero to do with procreation or there would be a test to make sure no one who could not have a child or would choose not to have a child would get married. now be quiet.



  Not what your Supreme Court of the Known Universe said in that travesty Obergefell V Hodges

"Third, marriage safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education.”
Justice Kennedy in the Majority..Obergefell vs Hodges

   Have you ever not been wrong?


----------



## Packyderm

Skylar said:


> Want more? Because Howard and Bingham were clear as a bell on what they intended:
> 
> _
> They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers*, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect;* while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them except by their own local constitutions, which may be altered from year to year.
> 
> *The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."*
> 
> -Senator Jacob Howard, 39th Congress, 1866
> _
> But the purpose of the 14th *wasn't* to apply the Bill of Rights to the States? To provide the federal government with the power to compel the States to respect those fundamental guarantees?
> 
> Laughing..._.really? _



  And you wonder why the House, Senate and the States refused to ratify the 14th Amendment?


----------



## Packyderm

Skylar said:


> But you insist that the Supreme Court is wrong, and _you're right?_



  Imagine the nerve!

Sheesh is there any religious fanatic as bad as a mind numbed liberal?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Packyderm said:


> Lets see what kind of answer you get Sun Devil. The polygamists have already filed suit in Utah and, I believe, Wyoming. Will have to wait until it wends its way through the courts for the Justices to find a right to marry three women, five boys and a donkey in the founding documents.



What's wrong with polygamy? If you choose to live that lifestyle, why should the govt tell you not to?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Packyderm said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Want more? Because Howard and Bingham were clear as a bell on what they intended:
> 
> _
> They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers*, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect;* while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them except by their own local constitutions, which may be altered from year to year.
> 
> *The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."*
> 
> -Senator Jacob Howard, 39th Congress, 1866
> _
> But the purpose of the 14th *wasn't* to apply the Bill of Rights to the States? To provide the federal government with the power to compel the States to respect those fundamental guarantees?
> 
> Laughing..._.really? _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you wonder why the House, Senate and the States refused to ratify the 14th Amendment?
Click to expand...


Yeah, who'd want to be forced to respect human rights? I mean, seriously, if anyone gets power, they want to be able to fuck everyone over


----------



## Packyderm

frigidweirdo said:


> Packyderm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see what kind of answer you get Sun Devil. The polygamists have already filed suit in Utah and, I believe, Wyoming. Will have to wait until it wends its way through the courts for the Justices to find a right to marry three women, five boys and a donkey in the founding documents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with polygamy? If you choose to live that lifestyle, why should the govt tell you not to?
Click to expand...


  Exhibit A above. The attack on marriage, the family, society and morality must necessarily go through phases each building on the other. The Supreme Court denied this would happen. But it will.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Packyderm said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> p.s. marriage has zero to do with procreation or there would be a test to make sure no one who could not have a child or would choose not to have a child would get married. now be quiet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not what your Supreme Court of the Known Universe said in that travesty Obergefell V Hodges
> 
> "Third, marriage safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education.”
> Justice Kennedy in the Majority..Obergefell vs Hodges
> 
> Have you ever not been wrong?
Click to expand...

The failed, ridiculous ‘argument’ made by those hostile to gay Americans was that the intent of marriage is procreation, and because same-sex couples can’t procreate, denying them access to marriage law was ‘justified.’

Of course this ‘reasoning’ is idiocy, as infertile opposite-sex couples are allowed to marry, and older opposite-sex couples no longer able to have children are not compelled by the state to divorce.

Consequent, the state cannot use the ability to procreate as a ‘prerequisite’ to enter into marriage contracts, seeking to do so is inconsistent and devoid of merit.


----------



## jillian

Packyderm said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Packyderm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see what kind of answer you get Sun Devil. The polygamists have already filed suit in Utah and, I believe, Wyoming. Will have to wait until it wends its way through the courts for the Justices to find a right to marry three women, five boys and a donkey in the founding documents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with polygamy? If you choose to live that lifestyle, why should the govt tell you not to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exhibit A above. The attack on marriage, the family, society and morality must necessarily go through phases each building on the other. The Supreme Court denied this would happen. But it will.
Click to expand...


No one is attacking marriage. Your hysteria is underwhelming.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Packyderm said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Packyderm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see what kind of answer you get Sun Devil. The polygamists have already filed suit in Utah and, I believe, Wyoming. Will have to wait until it wends its way through the courts for the Justices to find a right to marry three women, five boys and a donkey in the founding documents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with polygamy? If you choose to live that lifestyle, why should the govt tell you not to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exhibit A above. The attack on marriage, the family, society and morality must necessarily go through phases each building on the other. The Supreme Court denied this would happen. But it will.
Click to expand...


What attack on marriage? 

Polygamy has been in existence as MARRIAGE for a long, long time. It's still practiced in the USA (though not legally) and other countries in the world.

Is it an attack on morality or on YOUR MORALITY? Should we all have your morality?

The Supreme Court denied this would happen? When?


----------



## Skylar

Packyderm said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Want more? Because Howard and Bingham were clear as a bell on what they intended:
> 
> _
> They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers*, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect;* while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them except by their own local constitutions, which may be altered from year to year.
> 
> *The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."*
> 
> -Senator Jacob Howard, 39th Congress, 1866
> _
> But the purpose of the 14th *wasn't* to apply the Bill of Rights to the States? To provide the federal government with the power to compel the States to respect those fundamental guarantees?
> 
> Laughing..._.really? _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you wonder why the House, Senate and the States refused to ratify the 14th Amendment?
Click to expand...


Except of course that they did. Remember, I know the *actual* list of States that ratified the 14th. Not your 'Dear God, I really hope they haven't checked this shit' list. 

Spoiler alert: _I checked. _


----------



## Skylar

Packyderm said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you insist that the Supreme Court is wrong, and _you're right?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine the nerve!
> 
> Sheesh is there any religious fanatic as bad as a mind numbed liberal?
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court in comparison to what? _You?_

It doesn't take religion. It just take a rational assessment of who would be a better, more knowledgeable and informed source. 

Its not you, Packy.


----------



## Skylar

Packyderm said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> p.s. marriage has zero to do with procreation or there would be a test to make sure no one who could not have a child or would choose not to have a child would get married. now be quiet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not what your Supreme Court of the Known Universe said in that travesty Obergefell V Hodges
> 
> "Third, marriage safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education.”
> Justice Kennedy in the Majority..Obergefell vs Hodges
> 
> Have you ever not been wrong?
Click to expand...


Yeah, you're really not bringing your A game tonight, are you?



			
				Obergefell v. Hodges said:
			
		

> "In light of precedent protecting the right of a married couple not to procreate, it cannot be said the Court or the States have conditioned the right to marry on the capacity or commitment to procreate. The constitutional marriage right has many aspects, of which childbearing is only one.



Kids aren't a requirement for marriage. Nor a requirement for the right to marry. As the Obergefell court made quite clear yet again in the same ruling:



			
				Obergefell v. Hodges said:
			
		

> This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.



"The right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."

Both of which you either knew, or should have. Try again, JV.


----------



## Packyderm

"No one is attacking marriage. Your hysteria is underwhelming"

    Things Jillian says...


----------



## Packyderm

"It's time to allow unlimited immigration, leave marriage in the past and stop your white micro aggression. What? Why yes...I am Jewish. Why do you ask?"
   Other things Jillian has said


----------



## Skylar

Packyderm said:


> "No one is attacking marriage. Your hysteria is underwhelming"
> 
> Things Jillian says...




"The right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."

      Things the Supreme Court says.....


----------



## Syriusly

Packyderm said:


> "No one is attacking marriage. Your hysteria is underwhelming"
> 
> Things Jillian says...



My wife and I have been married for over 20 years. My marriage is not threatened because other people can get married.

How it can be an attack on marriage to encourage couples to marry- I really don't understand.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The courts applied the Fourteenth Amendment as it was intended and the reconstruction congress created laws and approved the state's constitutions based on the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment that contradicts your version.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they didn't. The Slaughterhouse cases  found that the 14th amendment didn't extend the rights protected in the BIll of Rights to the States. But instead only protected rights like 'the right to travel between states' or 'navigate on rivers'.
> 
> This despite the purpose of the 14th amendment described *repeatedly* as being the application of the Bill of Rights to the States. With Howard reading the Bill of Rights, one amendment at a time, as what the 14th was intended to apply to the states when he introduced the 14th to the Senate.
> 
> Again, Tenny.......you simply have no idea what you're talking about. And for the last 115 years or so, the judiciary has aligned their intepretation with the intent of  those who have written the 14th amendment.
> 
> Compared to the less than 30 years where they ignored the intent of the 14th.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anytime you want to provide me with any evidence that substantive due process existed in the nineteenth century to support the Supreme Court ruling, go ahead and do that. Other than that, all that you have is the Supreme Court in the early to mid 1930s creating substantive due process to rule against FDR's  New Deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have yet to provide any evidence for your entire argument, merely asserting it must be so. I on the other hand have quoted the Federalist Papers, the 14th amendment, and the Obergefell ruling.
> 
> All contradicting you. While you have nothing to back your assertions but your ability to type.
> 
> For crying out loud, I cited the Obergefell case *explicitly* citing the due process clause of the 14th amendment as a basis for their ruling.....and you _still _insist it never happened.
> 
> Factually establish your claims first. As so far, your only contribution to this discussion has been desperate, willful ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the  Bill of Rights. Case after case made that as did the actions of congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit. Not only did Howard argue that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States, he read those rights out, one at a time.
> 
> _"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the *second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. *To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....
> 
> *The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "*_
> 
> _- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate_
> 
> 
> And Howard was hardly alone. John Bingham made a similar argument when introducing the Amendment to the House:
> 
> _"The proposition pending before the house is simple a proposition to arm the Congress of the United States, by the consent of the people of the United States, w*ith the power to enforce the bill of rights as its stands in the constitution today. *
> 
> -John Bingham
> Congressional Globe, 39th Session, p 1088_
> 
> All of which you know, Tenny. But you really hope we don't. Ignore as you wish. It won't matter either way. As the judiciary is still the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution, exactly as the founders intended. And the 14th amendment still applies to the States, exactly as the primary proponents of the 14th amendment intended.
> 
> Get used to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Single out of context quotes that contradict the body of statements by Howard and Bingham are not an argument. You do not have an argument until yon can provide evidence of substantive due process before the 1930s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by 'single out of context quote', you mean Senator Howard doing EXACTLY what you insisted that no one in the 39th congress ever did?
> 
> *Laughing....and exactly as I said you would, you ignored Howard, *despite the Senator reading the rights of the Bill of Rights one at a time at what was intended to be applied to the States.
> 
> Just like you ignored Bingham, just like you ignored Obergefell, just like you ignored the 14th amendment, just like you ignored the Slaughterhouse cases, just like you ignored the Federalist Papers.
> 
> You're nothing if not predictably irrelevant Tenny. Really, is there anything more to you than willful ignorance? As so far, its your only contribution to this discussion.
> 
> Well that and laughably references to 'jenjune'.
Click to expand...



You have found a good place here that suits your skill-set. You can be the tallest midget by default. Why anyone would want to roll around in the sewer with you is beyond me. Your “debate” style is based on an unprecedented ignorance of history and law topped off with the default of one who lacks a formal or autodidactic education on the subject, thus rendering you with nothing but churlish, uncivilized, and barbaric Tourettes-like keyboard outbursts to mask your deficiencies.  Good luck with maintaining your tallest midget podium here.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Good luck with your Google law and history degree. It will open so many doors for you. And the chip on your shoulder that screams lack of a formal education or knowledge of the subject will open even more doors. I anticipate reading you next law review: _Out of Contest Quotes and Google Supersedes all Known Legal Scholarship_.


----------



## Tennyson

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what to tell you or anyone else whose entire premise is based on and out of context quote by Hamilton in a document written for the state of New York. Federalist No. 78 only regarded the seperation of powers in the context of the congress of the United States.
> 
> Says you. Hamilton says differently:
> 
> With your own quote of the Federalist Papers reaffirming the same point: that the judiciary should put the constitution above legislative statutes that violate it.
> 
> You say differently. You're nobody. Hamilton wins.
> 
> [quote
> The substantive due process did not exist in the 19th century and the Bill of Rights were not incorporated with the Fourteenth Amendment and it was twentieth century activist courts that created the concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment wasn't even ratified until nearly 1870. So your reference to the '19th century' and the 14th amendment is already nearly 70% irrelevant.
> 
> The courts ignored the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment from the 1870s to the 1890s. From about 1900 until the present day, they recognized the purpose of the 14th amendment as being the application of the bill of rights to the States.
> 
> Which is *exactly* what Bingham and Howard said it was to do.
> 
> Judicial precedent affirming the 14th amendment's application to the States has existed for about 115 years. It was rejected for about 30.  *Meaning that the weight of judicial precedent affirms the current interpretation by a ratio of about 4 to 1. *
> 
> Worse for you, the current interpretation is aligned with the intent of the writers of the 14th, which was clearly to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> *You lose utterly. Twice*. There's a reason your interpretations are legally irrelevant and have no bearing on the outcome of Obergefell or any other case the court is hearing.
> 
> You simply don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can draw any conclusion they want it they start with a premise, go to Google, and work backwards to find an out of context quote to support their worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it was as easy as you claim, you'd have done it. You already tried....and failed comically. As we both know my conclusions are in context and accurately conveyed.
> 
> Try again. Remembering of course that I have the rulings, Papers, Bingham and Howard quotes right here that contradict your fallacious paraphrases and vague allusions o 'being out of context'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment started in 1866 and was ratified in 1868.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which might explain why the courts didn't apply the 14th amendment BEFORE 1868....or during the overwhelming majority of the 19th century.
> 
> They applied an interpretation that ignored Bingham and Howard for about 30 years. Then, starting in around 1900, began applying the amendment in a manner consistent with its intent: to Apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> And have done so ever since, for the last 115 years or so. The weight of precedent contradicting out out strips what you think supports you by a factor of nearly 4 to 1.
> 
> With the court's current interpretation inline with the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment: the application of Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The courts did not ignore anything. The courts used the intent and  they use procedural due process of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure they did. They argued, straight out, that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. When Bingham and Howard made it ludicrously clear that that was exactly what the 14th amendment was designed to do.
> 
> For crying out loud, Howard actually took the time to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th was intended to apply to the States when he introduced the amendment to the Senate.
> 
> It wasn't until 1900 that the courts returned to what the primary proponents of the 14th amendment obviously intended. And we've been there ever since.
> 
> 30 years......to 115 years. With the 115 years matching the intent of the amendment.
> 
> You lose again. Twice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you do have every out of context quote by Bingham and  Howard at your disposal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing...anything that contradicts you you insist is 'out of context'. Despite you being laughably unable to establish any other context than the one I presented.
> 
> You're alluding to an argument you can't factually support. While ignoring the evidence that explicitly contradicts you. Like say, Federalist Paper 78.....which makes it ludicriously clear that its the role of the judiciary to interpret the meaning of the constitution and place the constitution above legislative acts that violate it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. *It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. *If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; *or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.*
> Good luck with all that when you write your next law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't make the Federalist Papers disappear. Or Obergefell, Bingham, Howard, of the 14th amendment magically change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> review or write your next appellate brief. And be sure to use that unsophisticated and jenjune rhetoric of yours, it will alert the court or review that you have superior knowledge of the Constitution. They look for things such as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing....um, slick? My interpretations ARE the court's interpretations. As Obegefell makes ludicriously clear:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you insist that the Supreme Court is wrong, and _you're right?_
> 
> Make sure to include that in your next appellant brief. I'm sure the judges will get a good belly laugh. And please, misspell 'jejune' again when you do it. Its like frosting on your fail cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts applied the Fourteenth Amendment as it was intended and the reconstruction congress created laws and approved the state's constitutions based on the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment that contradicts your version.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide me with any evidence that substantive due process existed in the nineteenth century to support the Supreme Court ruling, go ahead and do that. Other than that, all that you have is the Supreme Court in the early to mid 1930s creating substantive due process to rule against FDR's  New Deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The doctrine of substantive due process dates back to the last half of the 19th Century (see e.g. _Slaughter-House Cases_ (1873)).
> 
> The notion that substantive due process was "created" during the 1930s is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.
Click to expand...



I see that your “debating” style is from the philistine school of inadequacy and hate just as is Skyler’s.

The doctrine of substantive due process was not used in the last half of the nineteenth century, and it was not used in the Slaughter-House Cases. The due process clause was used fifteen times in the Slaughter-House Cases and each time it was used as procedural due process. It was not used in the Dredd Scott ruling, and it was not used in the nineteenth century. It was used in the early twentieth century as an economic liberty or private contract rights doctrine starting with the _Lochner v. New York_, 198 US 45 (1905). It was used aggressively in the 1930s to shut down FDR’s New Deal.

Perhaps you and Skyler can co-author a book or law review with your combined Google searches. Good luck and I hope to read it.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment wasn't even ratified until nearly 1870. So your reference to the '19th century' and the 14th amendment is already nearly 70% irrelevant.
> 
> The courts ignored the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment from the 1870s to the 1890s. From about 1900 until the present day, they recognized the purpose of the 14th amendment as being the application of the bill of rights to the States.
> 
> Which is *exactly* what Bingham and Howard said it was to do.
> 
> Judicial precedent affirming the 14th amendment's application to the States has existed for about 115 years. It was rejected for about 30.  *Meaning that the weight of judicial precedent affirms the current interpretation by a ratio of about 4 to 1. *
> 
> Worse for you, the current interpretation is aligned with the intent of the writers of the 14th, which was clearly to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> *You lose utterly. Twice*. There's a reason your interpretations are legally irrelevant and have no bearing on the outcome of Obergefell or any other case the court is hearing.
> 
> You simply don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> If it was as easy as you claim, you'd have done it. You already tried....and failed comically. As we both know my conclusions are in context and accurately conveyed.
> 
> Try again. Remembering of course that I have the rulings, Papers, Bingham and Howard quotes right here that contradict your fallacious paraphrases and vague allusions o 'being out of context'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment started in 1866 and was ratified in 1868.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which might explain why the courts didn't apply the 14th amendment BEFORE 1868....or during the overwhelming majority of the 19th century.
> 
> They applied an interpretation that ignored Bingham and Howard for about 30 years. Then, starting in around 1900, began applying the amendment in a manner consistent with its intent: to Apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> And have done so ever since, for the last 115 years or so. The weight of precedent contradicting out out strips what you think supports you by a factor of nearly 4 to 1.
> 
> With the court's current interpretation inline with the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment: the application of Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The courts did not ignore anything. The courts used the intent and  they use procedural due process of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure they did. They argued, straight out, that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. When Bingham and Howard made it ludicrously clear that that was exactly what the 14th amendment was designed to do.
> 
> For crying out loud, Howard actually took the time to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th was intended to apply to the States when he introduced the amendment to the Senate.
> 
> It wasn't until 1900 that the courts returned to what the primary proponents of the 14th amendment obviously intended. And we've been there ever since.
> 
> 30 years......to 115 years. With the 115 years matching the intent of the amendment.
> 
> You lose again. Twice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you do have every out of context quote by Bingham and  Howard at your disposal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing...anything that contradicts you you insist is 'out of context'. Despite you being laughably unable to establish any other context than the one I presented.
> 
> You're alluding to an argument you can't factually support. While ignoring the evidence that explicitly contradicts you. Like say, Federalist Paper 78.....which makes it ludicriously clear that its the role of the judiciary to interpret the meaning of the constitution and place the constitution above legislative acts that violate it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. *It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. *If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; *or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.*
> Good luck with all that when you write your next law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't make the Federalist Papers disappear. Or Obergefell, Bingham, Howard, of the 14th amendment magically change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> review or write your next appellate brief. And be sure to use that unsophisticated and jenjune rhetoric of yours, it will alert the court or review that you have superior knowledge of the Constitution. They look for things such as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing....um, slick? My interpretations ARE the court's interpretations. As Obegefell makes ludicriously clear:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you insist that the Supreme Court is wrong, and _you're right?_
> 
> Make sure to include that in your next appellant brief. I'm sure the judges will get a good belly laugh. And please, misspell 'jejune' again when you do it. Its like frosting on your fail cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts applied the Fourteenth Amendment as it was intended and the reconstruction congress created laws and approved the state's constitutions based on the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment that contradicts your version.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide me with any evidence that substantive due process existed in the nineteenth century to support the Supreme Court ruling, go ahead and do that. Other than that, all that you have is the Supreme Court in the early to mid 1930s creating substantive due process to rule against FDR's  New Deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The doctrine of substantive due process dates back to the last half of the 19th Century (see e.g. _Slaughter-House Cases_ (1873)).
> 
> The notion that substantive due process was "created" during the 1930s is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see that your “debating” style is from the philistine school of inadequacy and hate just as is Skyler’s.
Click to expand...


Hate? Dial back the melodrama, Sally. Nobody 'hates' you. You're just wrong. As I've demonstrated with quotes from the Supreme Court, Howard and Bingham.

The 14th amendment was clearly intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. As Howard and Bingham both affirmed clearly and unambiguously.
*
The USSC ignored that intent in the Slaughter House cases....generally considered one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in our nation's history.* And for about 30 years, the courts followed the precedent of the Slaughter House court.

Then, around the turn of the century the court began interpreting the 14th as applhying the bill of Rights to the States.......exactly as Howard and Bingham, the two primary proponents of the Amendment, intended. With the courts interpreting in that manner since.

We've had about 120 years of the courts following the application intended by the primary proponents. And 30 years where the courts ignored that intent. And you're arguing for the 30 years and against the original intent of the writers.

Um, no.



> The doctrine of substantive due process was not used in the last half of the nineteenth century, and it was not used in the Slaughter-House Cases. The due process clause was used fifteen times in the Slaughter-House Cases and each time it was used as procedural due process. It was not used in the Dredd Scott ruling, and it was not used in the nineteenth century. It was used in the early twentieth century as an economic liberty or private contract rights doctrine starting with the _Lochner v. New York_, 198 US 45 (1905). It was used aggressively in the 1930s to shut down FDR’s New Deal.



The 14th amendment wasn't even passed until the late 1860s, the Dredd Scott decision in the late 1850s. *Its physically impossible for the 14th amendment to have been applied to the Dredd Scott decision*. Or any decision before 1868.

Well, without a delorean or a blue police box. Cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by more than a decade.

There's a reason why your argument is rejected by our nation and more than a century of precedent.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment started in 1866 and was ratified in 1868.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which might explain why the courts didn't apply the 14th amendment BEFORE 1868....or during the overwhelming majority of the 19th century.
> 
> They applied an interpretation that ignored Bingham and Howard for about 30 years. Then, starting in around 1900, began applying the amendment in a manner consistent with its intent: to Apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> And have done so ever since, for the last 115 years or so. The weight of precedent contradicting out out strips what you think supports you by a factor of nearly 4 to 1.
> 
> With the court's current interpretation inline with the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment: the application of Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The courts did not ignore anything. The courts used the intent and  they use procedural due process of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure they did. They argued, straight out, that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. When Bingham and Howard made it ludicrously clear that that was exactly what the 14th amendment was designed to do.
> 
> For crying out loud, Howard actually took the time to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th was intended to apply to the States when he introduced the amendment to the Senate.
> 
> It wasn't until 1900 that the courts returned to what the primary proponents of the 14th amendment obviously intended. And we've been there ever since.
> 
> 30 years......to 115 years. With the 115 years matching the intent of the amendment.
> 
> You lose again. Twice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you do have every out of context quote by Bingham and  Howard at your disposal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing...anything that contradicts you you insist is 'out of context'. Despite you being laughably unable to establish any other context than the one I presented.
> 
> You're alluding to an argument you can't factually support. While ignoring the evidence that explicitly contradicts you. Like say, Federalist Paper 78.....which makes it ludicriously clear that its the role of the judiciary to interpret the meaning of the constitution and place the constitution above legislative acts that violate it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. *It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. *If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; *or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.*
> Good luck with all that when you write your next law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't make the Federalist Papers disappear. Or Obergefell, Bingham, Howard, of the 14th amendment magically change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> review or write your next appellate brief. And be sure to use that unsophisticated and jenjune rhetoric of yours, it will alert the court or review that you have superior knowledge of the Constitution. They look for things such as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing....um, slick? My interpretations ARE the court's interpretations. As Obegefell makes ludicriously clear:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you insist that the Supreme Court is wrong, and _you're right?_
> 
> Make sure to include that in your next appellant brief. I'm sure the judges will get a good belly laugh. And please, misspell 'jejune' again when you do it. Its like frosting on your fail cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts applied the Fourteenth Amendment as it was intended and the reconstruction congress created laws and approved the state's constitutions based on the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment that contradicts your version.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide me with any evidence that substantive due process existed in the nineteenth century to support the Supreme Court ruling, go ahead and do that. Other than that, all that you have is the Supreme Court in the early to mid 1930s creating substantive due process to rule against FDR's  New Deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The doctrine of substantive due process dates back to the last half of the 19th Century (see e.g. _Slaughter-House Cases_ (1873)).
> 
> The notion that substantive due process was "created" during the 1930s is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see that your “debating” style is from the philistine school of inadequacy and hate just as is Skyler’s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate? Dial back the melodrama, Sally. Nobody 'hates' you. You're just wrong. As I've demonstrated with quotes from the Supreme Court, Howard and Bingham.
> 
> The 14th amendment was clearly intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. As Howard and Bingham both affirmed clearly and unambiguously.
> *
> The USSC ignored that intent in the Slaughter House cases....generally considered one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in our nation's history.* And for about 30 years, the courts followed the precedent of the Slaughter House court.
> 
> Then, around the turn of the century the court began interpreting the 14th as applhying the bill of Rights to the States.......exactly as Howard and Bingham, the two primary proponents of the Amendment, intended. With the courts interpreting in that manner since.
> 
> We've had about 120 years of the courts following the application intended by the primary proponents. And 30 years where the courts ignored that intent. And you're arguing for the 30 years and against the original intent of the writers.
> 
> Um, no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The doctrine of substantive due process was not used in the last half of the nineteenth century, and it was not used in the Slaughter-House Cases. The due process clause was used fifteen times in the Slaughter-House Cases and each time it was used as procedural due process. It was not used in the Dredd Scott ruling, and it was not used in the nineteenth century. It was used in the early twentieth century as an economic liberty or private contract rights doctrine starting with the _Lochner v. New York_, 198 US 45 (1905). It was used aggressively in the 1930s to shut down FDR’s New Deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment wasn't even passed until the late 1860s, the Dredd Scott decision in the late 1850s. *Its physically impossible for the 14th amendment to have been applied to the Dredd Scott decision*. Or any decision before 1868.
> 
> Well, without a delorean or a blue police box. Cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by more than a decade.
> 
> There's a reason why your argument is rejected by our nation and more than a century of precedent.
Click to expand...

 
Ignorant remarks are are not very becoming. I never said the Fourteenth Amendment was used for Dredd Scott. My argument was upheld by the courts until the twentieth century and the reconstruction Congress. Nice dodge on the rest of my post.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which might explain why the courts didn't apply the 14th amendment BEFORE 1868....or during the overwhelming majority of the 19th century.
> 
> They applied an interpretation that ignored Bingham and Howard for about 30 years. Then, starting in around 1900, began applying the amendment in a manner consistent with its intent: to Apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> And have done so ever since, for the last 115 years or so. The weight of precedent contradicting out out strips what you think supports you by a factor of nearly 4 to 1.
> 
> With the court's current interpretation inline with the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment: the application of Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> Sure they did. They argued, straight out, that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. When Bingham and Howard made it ludicrously clear that that was exactly what the 14th amendment was designed to do.
> 
> For crying out loud, Howard actually took the time to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th was intended to apply to the States when he introduced the amendment to the Senate.
> 
> It wasn't until 1900 that the courts returned to what the primary proponents of the 14th amendment obviously intended. And we've been there ever since.
> 
> 30 years......to 115 years. With the 115 years matching the intent of the amendment.
> 
> You lose again. Twice.
> 
> Laughing...anything that contradicts you you insist is 'out of context'. Despite you being laughably unable to establish any other context than the one I presented.
> 
> You're alluding to an argument you can't factually support. While ignoring the evidence that explicitly contradicts you. Like say, Federalist Paper 78.....which makes it ludicriously clear that its the role of the judiciary to interpret the meaning of the constitution and place the constitution above legislative acts that violate it.
> 
> Just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't make the Federalist Papers disappear. Or Obergefell, Bingham, Howard, of the 14th amendment magically change.
> 
> Laughing....um, slick? My interpretations ARE the court's interpretations. As Obegefell makes ludicriously clear:
> 
> But you insist that the Supreme Court is wrong, and _you're right?_
> 
> Make sure to include that in your next appellant brief. I'm sure the judges will get a good belly laugh. And please, misspell 'jejune' again when you do it. Its like frosting on your fail cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The courts applied the Fourteenth Amendment as it was intended and the reconstruction congress created laws and approved the state's constitutions based on the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment that contradicts your version.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide me with any evidence that substantive due process existed in the nineteenth century to support the Supreme Court ruling, go ahead and do that. Other than that, all that you have is the Supreme Court in the early to mid 1930s creating substantive due process to rule against FDR's  New Deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The doctrine of substantive due process dates back to the last half of the 19th Century (see e.g. _Slaughter-House Cases_ (1873)).
> 
> The notion that substantive due process was "created" during the 1930s is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see that your “debating” style is from the philistine school of inadequacy and hate just as is Skyler’s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate? Dial back the melodrama, Sally. Nobody 'hates' you. You're just wrong. As I've demonstrated with quotes from the Supreme Court, Howard and Bingham.
> 
> The 14th amendment was clearly intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. As Howard and Bingham both affirmed clearly and unambiguously.
> *
> The USSC ignored that intent in the Slaughter House cases....generally considered one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in our nation's history.* And for about 30 years, the courts followed the precedent of the Slaughter House court.
> 
> Then, around the turn of the century the court began interpreting the 14th as applhying the bill of Rights to the States.......exactly as Howard and Bingham, the two primary proponents of the Amendment, intended. With the courts interpreting in that manner since.
> 
> We've had about 120 years of the courts following the application intended by the primary proponents. And 30 years where the courts ignored that intent. And you're arguing for the 30 years and against the original intent of the writers.
> 
> Um, no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The doctrine of substantive due process was not used in the last half of the nineteenth century, and it was not used in the Slaughter-House Cases. The due process clause was used fifteen times in the Slaughter-House Cases and each time it was used as procedural due process. It was not used in the Dredd Scott ruling, and it was not used in the nineteenth century. It was used in the early twentieth century as an economic liberty or private contract rights doctrine starting with the _Lochner v. New York_, 198 US 45 (1905). It was used aggressively in the 1930s to shut down FDR’s New Deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment wasn't even passed until the late 1860s, the Dredd Scott decision in the late 1850s. *Its physically impossible for the 14th amendment to have been applied to the Dredd Scott decision*. Or any decision before 1868.
> 
> Well, without a delorean or a blue police box. Cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by more than a decade.
> 
> There's a reason why your argument is rejected by our nation and more than a century of precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorant remarks are are not very becoming.
Click to expand...


Says the guy who insists that the applying the Bill of Rights to the States was never the intent of the 14th amendment:


_"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the *second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. *To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

*The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "*_

_- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate_

This the man who introduced the 14th amendment to the Senate.....introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate.

And just *destroying* your absurdly ignorant nonsense about how the 14th wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. Of course it was. Not only apply it, but compel the States to respect it.

With the Slaughter House cases ignoring the obvious intent of the 14th in what is generally regarded as one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in our nations history. And the the Supreme Court again adopting the intent of the 14th around the turn of the 20th century.

With the courts following that intent for the last 120 years. While ignoring it for only 30.

No thank you.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The courts applied the Fourteenth Amendment as it was intended and the reconstruction congress created laws and approved the state's constitutions based on the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment that contradicts your version.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide me with any evidence that substantive due process existed in the nineteenth century to support the Supreme Court ruling, go ahead and do that. Other than that, all that you have is the Supreme Court in the early to mid 1930s creating substantive due process to rule against FDR's  New Deal.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The doctrine of substantive due process dates back to the last half of the 19th Century (see e.g. _Slaughter-House Cases_ (1873)).
> 
> The notion that substantive due process was "created" during the 1930s is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see that your “debating” style is from the philistine school of inadequacy and hate just as is Skyler’s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate? Dial back the melodrama, Sally. Nobody 'hates' you. You're just wrong. As I've demonstrated with quotes from the Supreme Court, Howard and Bingham.
> 
> The 14th amendment was clearly intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. As Howard and Bingham both affirmed clearly and unambiguously.
> *
> The USSC ignored that intent in the Slaughter House cases....generally considered one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in our nation's history.* And for about 30 years, the courts followed the precedent of the Slaughter House court.
> 
> Then, around the turn of the century the court began interpreting the 14th as applhying the bill of Rights to the States.......exactly as Howard and Bingham, the two primary proponents of the Amendment, intended. With the courts interpreting in that manner since.
> 
> We've had about 120 years of the courts following the application intended by the primary proponents. And 30 years where the courts ignored that intent. And you're arguing for the 30 years and against the original intent of the writers.
> 
> Um, no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The doctrine of substantive due process was not used in the last half of the nineteenth century, and it was not used in the Slaughter-House Cases. The due process clause was used fifteen times in the Slaughter-House Cases and each time it was used as procedural due process. It was not used in the Dredd Scott ruling, and it was not used in the nineteenth century. It was used in the early twentieth century as an economic liberty or private contract rights doctrine starting with the _Lochner v. New York_, 198 US 45 (1905). It was used aggressively in the 1930s to shut down FDR’s New Deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment wasn't even passed until the late 1860s, the Dredd Scott decision in the late 1850s. *Its physically impossible for the 14th amendment to have been applied to the Dredd Scott decision*. Or any decision before 1868.
> 
> Well, without a delorean or a blue police box. Cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by more than a decade.
> 
> There's a reason why your argument is rejected by our nation and more than a century of precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorant remarks are are not very becoming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the guy who insists that the applying the Bill of Rights to the States was never the intent of the 14th amendment:
> 
> 
> _"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the *second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. *To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....
> 
> *The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "*_
> 
> _- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate_
> 
> This the man who introduced the 14th amendment to the Senate.....introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate.
> 
> And just *destroying* your absurdly ignorant nonsense about how the 14th wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. Of course it was. Not only apply it, but compel the States to respect it.
> 
> With the Slaughter House cases ignoring the obvious intent of the 14th in what is generally regarded as one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in our nations history. And the the Supreme Court again adopting the intent of the 14th around the turn of the 20th century.
> 
> With the courts following that intent for the last 120 years. While ignoring it for only 30.
> 
> No thank you.
Click to expand...



Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The doctrine of substantive due process dates back to the last half of the 19th Century (see e.g. _Slaughter-House Cases_ (1873)).
> 
> The notion that substantive due process was "created" during the 1930s is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see that your “debating” style is from the philistine school of inadequacy and hate just as is Skyler’s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate? Dial back the melodrama, Sally. Nobody 'hates' you. You're just wrong. As I've demonstrated with quotes from the Supreme Court, Howard and Bingham.
> 
> The 14th amendment was clearly intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. As Howard and Bingham both affirmed clearly and unambiguously.
> *
> The USSC ignored that intent in the Slaughter House cases....generally considered one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in our nation's history.* And for about 30 years, the courts followed the precedent of the Slaughter House court.
> 
> Then, around the turn of the century the court began interpreting the 14th as applhying the bill of Rights to the States.......exactly as Howard and Bingham, the two primary proponents of the Amendment, intended. With the courts interpreting in that manner since.
> 
> We've had about 120 years of the courts following the application intended by the primary proponents. And 30 years where the courts ignored that intent. And you're arguing for the 30 years and against the original intent of the writers.
> 
> Um, no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The doctrine of substantive due process was not used in the last half of the nineteenth century, and it was not used in the Slaughter-House Cases. The due process clause was used fifteen times in the Slaughter-House Cases and each time it was used as procedural due process. It was not used in the Dredd Scott ruling, and it was not used in the nineteenth century. It was used in the early twentieth century as an economic liberty or private contract rights doctrine starting with the _Lochner v. New York_, 198 US 45 (1905). It was used aggressively in the 1930s to shut down FDR’s New Deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment wasn't even passed until the late 1860s, the Dredd Scott decision in the late 1850s. *Its physically impossible for the 14th amendment to have been applied to the Dredd Scott decision*. Or any decision before 1868.
> 
> Well, without a delorean or a blue police box. Cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by more than a decade.
> 
> There's a reason why your argument is rejected by our nation and more than a century of precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorant remarks are are not very becoming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the guy who insists that the applying the Bill of Rights to the States was never the intent of the 14th amendment:
> 
> 
> _"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the *second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. *To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....
> 
> *The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "*_
> 
> _- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate_
> 
> This the man who introduced the 14th amendment to the Senate.....introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate.
> 
> And just *destroying* your absurdly ignorant nonsense about how the 14th wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. Of course it was. Not only apply it, but compel the States to respect it.
> 
> With the Slaughter House cases ignoring the obvious intent of the 14th in what is generally regarded as one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in our nations history. And the the Supreme Court again adopting the intent of the 14th around the turn of the 20th century.
> 
> With the courts following that intent for the last 120 years. While ignoring it for only 30.
> 
> No thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. His introduction IS part of the debate. He explains, without the slightest ambiguity, what the purpose of the 14th is for, what it is intended to do, and why we need it.

*And you ignore him. Insisting you know better. 
*
Um, no. You don't.

Remember this little gem?



			
				Tennyson said:
			
		

> No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.



The entire Howard quote I just offered you....was from the 39th congress.

_"They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers*, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect;* while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them except by their own local constitutions, which may be altered from year to year.

*The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."*

-Senator Jacob Howard, 39th Congress, 1866_


*So you ignored it, pretending it doesn't exist.*

You simply don't know what you're talking about. Which might explain why the Courts have followed the counsel of Bingham and Howard for the last 120 years on the meaning of the 14th amendment.

And not you.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see that your “debating” style is from the philistine school of inadequacy and hate just as is Skyler’s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate? Dial back the melodrama, Sally. Nobody 'hates' you. You're just wrong. As I've demonstrated with quotes from the Supreme Court, Howard and Bingham.
> 
> The 14th amendment was clearly intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. As Howard and Bingham both affirmed clearly and unambiguously.
> *
> The USSC ignored that intent in the Slaughter House cases....generally considered one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in our nation's history.* And for about 30 years, the courts followed the precedent of the Slaughter House court.
> 
> Then, around the turn of the century the court began interpreting the 14th as applhying the bill of Rights to the States.......exactly as Howard and Bingham, the two primary proponents of the Amendment, intended. With the courts interpreting in that manner since.
> 
> We've had about 120 years of the courts following the application intended by the primary proponents. And 30 years where the courts ignored that intent. And you're arguing for the 30 years and against the original intent of the writers.
> 
> Um, no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The doctrine of substantive due process was not used in the last half of the nineteenth century, and it was not used in the Slaughter-House Cases. The due process clause was used fifteen times in the Slaughter-House Cases and each time it was used as procedural due process. It was not used in the Dredd Scott ruling, and it was not used in the nineteenth century. It was used in the early twentieth century as an economic liberty or private contract rights doctrine starting with the _Lochner v. New York_, 198 US 45 (1905). It was used aggressively in the 1930s to shut down FDR’s New Deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment wasn't even passed until the late 1860s, the Dredd Scott decision in the late 1850s. *Its physically impossible for the 14th amendment to have been applied to the Dredd Scott decision*. Or any decision before 1868.
> 
> Well, without a delorean or a blue police box. Cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by more than a decade.
> 
> There's a reason why your argument is rejected by our nation and more than a century of precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorant remarks are are not very becoming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the guy who insists that the applying the Bill of Rights to the States was never the intent of the 14th amendment:
> 
> 
> _"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the *second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. *To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....
> 
> *The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "*_
> 
> _- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate_
> 
> This the man who introduced the 14th amendment to the Senate.....introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate.
> 
> And just *destroying* your absurdly ignorant nonsense about how the 14th wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. Of course it was. Not only apply it, but compel the States to respect it.
> 
> With the Slaughter House cases ignoring the obvious intent of the 14th in what is generally regarded as one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in our nations history. And the the Supreme Court again adopting the intent of the 14th around the turn of the 20th century.
> 
> With the courts following that intent for the last 120 years. While ignoring it for only 30.
> 
> No thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. His introduction IS part of the debate. He explains, without the slightest ambiguity, what the purpose of the 14th is for, what it is intended to do, and why we need it.
> 
> *And you ignore him. Insisting you know better.
> *
> Um, no. You don't.
> 
> Remember this little gem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entire Howard quote I just offered you....was from the 39th congress.
> 
> _"They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers*, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect;* while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them except by their own local constitutions, which may be altered from year to year.
> 
> *The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."*
> 
> -Senator Jacob Howard, 39th Congress, 1866_
> 
> 
> *So you ignored it, pretending it doesn't exist.*
> 
> You simply don't know what you're talking about. Which might explain why the Courts have followed the counsel of Bingham and Howard for the last 120 years on the meaning of the 14th amendment.
> 
> And not you.
Click to expand...


Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. *The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.*

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hate? Dial back the melodrama, Sally. Nobody 'hates' you. You're just wrong. As I've demonstrated with quotes from the Supreme Court, Howard and Bingham.
> 
> The 14th amendment was clearly intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. As Howard and Bingham both affirmed clearly and unambiguously.
> *
> The USSC ignored that intent in the Slaughter House cases....generally considered one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in our nation's history.* And for about 30 years, the courts followed the precedent of the Slaughter House court.
> 
> Then, around the turn of the century the court began interpreting the 14th as applhying the bill of Rights to the States.......exactly as Howard and Bingham, the two primary proponents of the Amendment, intended. With the courts interpreting in that manner since.
> 
> We've had about 120 years of the courts following the application intended by the primary proponents. And 30 years where the courts ignored that intent. And you're arguing for the 30 years and against the original intent of the writers.
> 
> Um, no.
> 
> The 14th amendment wasn't even passed until the late 1860s, the Dredd Scott decision in the late 1850s. *Its physically impossible for the 14th amendment to have been applied to the Dredd Scott decision*. Or any decision before 1868.
> 
> Well, without a delorean or a blue police box. Cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by more than a decade.
> 
> There's a reason why your argument is rejected by our nation and more than a century of precedent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorant remarks are are not very becoming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the guy who insists that the applying the Bill of Rights to the States was never the intent of the 14th amendment:
> 
> 
> _"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the *second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. *To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....
> 
> *The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "*_
> 
> _- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate_
> 
> This the man who introduced the 14th amendment to the Senate.....introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate.
> 
> And just *destroying* your absurdly ignorant nonsense about how the 14th wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. Of course it was. Not only apply it, but compel the States to respect it.
> 
> With the Slaughter House cases ignoring the obvious intent of the 14th in what is generally regarded as one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in our nations history. And the the Supreme Court again adopting the intent of the 14th around the turn of the 20th century.
> 
> With the courts following that intent for the last 120 years. While ignoring it for only 30.
> 
> No thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. His introduction IS part of the debate. He explains, without the slightest ambiguity, what the purpose of the 14th is for, what it is intended to do, and why we need it.
> 
> *And you ignore him. Insisting you know better.
> *
> Um, no. You don't.
> 
> Remember this little gem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entire Howard quote I just offered you....was from the 39th congress.
> 
> _"They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers*, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect;* while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them except by their own local constitutions, which may be altered from year to year.
> 
> *The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."*
> 
> -Senator Jacob Howard, 39th Congress, 1866_
> 
> 
> *So you ignored it, pretending it doesn't exist.*
> 
> You simply don't know what you're talking about. Which might explain why the Courts have followed the counsel of Bingham and Howard for the last 120 years on the meaning of the 14th amendment.
> 
> And not you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. *The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.*
Click to expand...


And you just blinked. *'Out of context' is your go to for any quote that obliterates your claims. Its your tell.* Your submission and acknowledgement that you've got jack shit to refute my claims, quotes or arguments.

You insisted that no one argued that the 14th amendment
BIll of Rights was to be applied to the States in the 39th congress. *I cited Senator Howard making that *explicit* argument introducing the 14th amendment making the very argument you insist no one ever made.*

You have presented nothing refuting any part of Howard's argument before Congress. You have presented nothing establishing that Howard's advocacy of the 14th amendment as being meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States was 'out of context'.

You've cited nothing, presented nothing, refuted nothing. Worse, *you've been proven irrefutably inaccurate in your claims regarding the 14th amendment and the 39th congress.*

And Howard's introduction of the 14th amendment remain uncontested, unrefuted, and unassailed:

_"They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect; while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them except by their own local constitutions, which may be altered from year to year.

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."

-Senator Jacob Howard, 39th Congress, 1866

_
You ignore Howard. You ignored Bingham. You ignored the express purpose of the 14th amendment.

*For the last 120 years....the court hasn't. *Your entire argument is to ignore the primary proponents and writers of the 14th amendment and ignore the Supreme Court, insisting you know better.

Laughing....no, you don't.


----------



## Skylar

Oh, and another grand passage from Bingham in introducing the 14th to the House for you to straight up ignore and flee, insisting its 'out of context'. 

_*"Sir, it has been the want of the Republican that there was not an express grant of power in the Constitution to enable the whole people of every State, by congressional enactment, to enforce obedience to these requirements of the Constitution. *Nothing can be plainer to the thoughtful men than that if the grant of power had been originally conferred upon the Congress of the nation, and legislation had been upon your statute-books to enforce these requirements of the Constitution in every State, that rebellion, which had scarred and blasted the land, would have been an impossibility.....

.....And sire it is equally clear by every construction of the Constitution, its contemporaneous construction, its continued construction, legislative, executive, and judicial, that these great provisions of the Constitution,* this immortal bill of rights embodied in the Constitution, rested for its execution and enforcement hitherto upon the fidelity of the States. *The House knows, sir, the country knows, the civilized world knows, that the legislative, executive and judicial officers of Eleven States within the Union within the last five years, in utter disregard of these injunctions of your Constitution, in utter disregard of that official oath which the Constitution required they should severally take and faithfully keep which they entered up the discharge of their respective duties, have violated in every sense the word these provisions of the Constitution of the United States, the enforcement of which are absolutely essential to American nationality. 
By order, then, of the committee, sir, and for the purpose of giving the whole people care in future of the unity of the Government which constitutions us one people, and without which American nationality would cease to be, I propose the adoption of this amendment to the House, and through the House, I press it upon the consideration of the loyal people of those whole country. 

Rep. John Bingham
February 26th, 1866
39th Congress_

But Bingham didn't intend to apply the Bill of Rights to the States with the 14th? 

And when you offer your inevitably rout of 'out of context', remember of course that you have presented *jack shit* in defense of your argument. Not a single citation of anyone involved. You've merely cited yourself, insisting that you know better than Bingham, Howard, and the Supreme Court.

And of course, you know what you've presented: *Jack shit. *


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Oh, and another grand passage from Bingham in introducing the 14th to the House for you to straight up ignore and flee, insisting its 'out of context'.
> 
> _*"Sir, it has been the want of the Republican that there was not an express grant of power in the Constitution to enable the whole people of every State, by congressional enactment, to enforce obedience to these requirements of the Constitution. *Nothing can be plainer to the thoughtful men than that if the grant of power had been originally conferred upon the Congress of the nation, and legislation had been upon your statute-books to enforce these requirements of the Constitution in every State, that rebellion, which had scarred and blasted the land, would have been an impossibility.....
> 
> .....And sire it is equally clear by every construction of the Constitution, its contemporaneous construction, its continued construction, legislative, executive, and judicial, that these great provisions of the Constitution,* this immortal bill of rights embodied in the Constitution, rested for its execution and enforcement hitherto upon the fidelity of the States. *The House knows, sir, the country knows, the civilized world knows, that the legislative, executive and judicial officers of Eleven States within the Union within the last five years, in utter disregard of these injunctions of your Constitution, in utter disregard of that official oath which the Constitution required they should severally take and faithfully keep which they entered up the discharge of their respective duties, have violated in every sense the word these provisions of the Constitution of the United States, the enforcement of which are absolutely essential to American nationality.
> By order, then, of the committee, sir, and for the purpose of giving the whole people care in future of the unity of the Government which constitutions us one people, and without which American nationality would cease to be, I propose the adoption of this amendment to the House, and through the House, I press it upon the consideration of the loyal people of those whole country.
> 
> Rep. John Bingham
> February 26th, 1866
> 39th Congress_
> 
> But Bingham didn't intend to apply the Bill of Rights to the States with the 14th?
> 
> And when you offer your inevitably rout of 'out of context', remember of course that you have presented *jack shit* in defense of your argument. Not a single citation of anyone involved. You've merely cited yourself, insisting that you know better than Bingham, Howard, and the Supreme Court.
> 
> And of course, you know what you've presented: *Jack shit. *



Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. *The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.*


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and another grand passage from Bingham in introducing the 14th to the House for you to straight up ignore and flee, insisting its 'out of context'.
> 
> _*"Sir, it has been the want of the Republican that there was not an express grant of power in the Constitution to enable the whole people of every State, by congressional enactment, to enforce obedience to these requirements of the Constitution. *Nothing can be plainer to the thoughtful men than that if the grant of power had been originally conferred upon the Congress of the nation, and legislation had been upon your statute-books to enforce these requirements of the Constitution in every State, that rebellion, which had scarred and blasted the land, would have been an impossibility.....
> 
> .....And sire it is equally clear by every construction of the Constitution, its contemporaneous construction, its continued construction, legislative, executive, and judicial, that these great provisions of the Constitution,* this immortal bill of rights embodied in the Constitution, rested for its execution and enforcement hitherto upon the fidelity of the States. *The House knows, sir, the country knows, the civilized world knows, that the legislative, executive and judicial officers of Eleven States within the Union within the last five years, in utter disregard of these injunctions of your Constitution, in utter disregard of that official oath which the Constitution required they should severally take and faithfully keep which they entered up the discharge of their respective duties, have violated in every sense the word these provisions of the Constitution of the United States, the enforcement of which are absolutely essential to American nationality.
> By order, then, of the committee, sir, and for the purpose of giving the whole people care in future of the unity of the Government which constitutions us one people, and without which American nationality would cease to be, I propose the adoption of this amendment to the House, and through the House, I press it upon the consideration of the loyal people of those whole country.
> 
> Rep. John Bingham
> February 26th, 1866
> 39th Congress_
> 
> But Bingham didn't intend to apply the Bill of Rights to the States with the 14th?
> 
> And when you offer your inevitably rout of 'out of context', remember of course that you have presented *jack shit* in defense of your argument. Not a single citation of anyone involved. You've merely cited yourself, insisting that you know better than Bingham, Howard, and the Supreme Court.
> 
> And of course, you know what you've presented: *Jack shit. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. *The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.*
Click to expand...


You've presented jack shit to contradict anything I've posted. Your entire argument is literally to ignore John Bingham, Jacob Howard, their statements regarding the intention of the 14th amendment, and the Supreme Court's precedent for the last 120 years. 

Meanwhile, I've proven, definitely, that you have no idea what you're talking about. I've offered two direct quotes of the Congressional record where it was argued that the 14th amendment would empower congress to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

And you either ignorantly or deceptively claimed this:



			
				Tennyson said:
			
		

> No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.



You either didn't know what you were talking about, babbling ignorantly. Rendering all of your 'out of context' claims as meaningless gibberish, as you clearly don't know what the context is.

Or you knew that Howard and Bingham, the two primary proponents of the 14th in the Senate and House respectively, had explicitly contradicted you. And lied your ass off.
*
Pick one.*

For the moment, I'm feeling gracious. And am willing to accept that you didn't know what you were talking about. But I'm looking through our previous conversations. And I find even one citation of either Bingham or Howard's above statements.....then its obvious you did know. And lied.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Matthew said:


> explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?



It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.


----------



## Skylar

BuckToothMoron said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.
Click to expand...


Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?

All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.

But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.


----------



## Skylar

Oh, and as yet another blow to Tenny's 'whole-system' approach, Bingham is ludicrously clear as to what he meant when describing what the 14th was intended to do:

_"Mr. Speaker, *that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourtheeth amendment *of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from the citizen of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Those eight amendments are as follows.

Article I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

*These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment. *The words of that amendment, "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," *are an express prohibition upon every State of the Union,* which may be enforced under existing laws of Congress, and such other laws for their better enforcement as Congress may make."

-Senator Bingham, March 31th, 1871_


For fuck's sake, he literally reads the first 8 amendments of the Bill of Rights and explicitly states that it was the intent of the 14th amendment to apply those to the states.

And you *still* insist that it wasn't Bingham's intention to apply the Bill of Rights to the States?

Laughing......_wow. Just, wow. _The only thing 'whole-system' about your argument is its reliance on desperate, willful ignorance. 

Surely you an understand why for the last 120 years, the USSC has not ignored what you do.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Skylar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?
> 
> All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.
> 
> But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.
Click to expand...


Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and another grand passage from Bingham in introducing the 14th to the House for you to straight up ignore and flee, insisting its 'out of context'.
> 
> _*"Sir, it has been the want of the Republican that there was not an express grant of power in the Constitution to enable the whole people of every State, by congressional enactment, to enforce obedience to these requirements of the Constitution. *Nothing can be plainer to the thoughtful men than that if the grant of power had been originally conferred upon the Congress of the nation, and legislation had been upon your statute-books to enforce these requirements of the Constitution in every State, that rebellion, which had scarred and blasted the land, would have been an impossibility.....
> 
> .....And sire it is equally clear by every construction of the Constitution, its contemporaneous construction, its continued construction, legislative, executive, and judicial, that these great provisions of the Constitution,* this immortal bill of rights embodied in the Constitution, rested for its execution and enforcement hitherto upon the fidelity of the States. *The House knows, sir, the country knows, the civilized world knows, that the legislative, executive and judicial officers of Eleven States within the Union within the last five years, in utter disregard of these injunctions of your Constitution, in utter disregard of that official oath which the Constitution required they should severally take and faithfully keep which they entered up the discharge of their respective duties, have violated in every sense the word these provisions of the Constitution of the United States, the enforcement of which are absolutely essential to American nationality.
> By order, then, of the committee, sir, and for the purpose of giving the whole people care in future of the unity of the Government which constitutions us one people, and without which American nationality would cease to be, I propose the adoption of this amendment to the House, and through the House, I press it upon the consideration of the loyal people of those whole country.
> 
> Rep. John Bingham
> February 26th, 1866
> 39th Congress_
> 
> But Bingham didn't intend to apply the Bill of Rights to the States with the 14th?
> 
> And when you offer your inevitably rout of 'out of context', remember of course that you have presented *jack shit* in defense of your argument. Not a single citation of anyone involved. You've merely cited yourself, insisting that you know better than Bingham, Howard, and the Supreme Court.
> 
> And of course, you know what you've presented: *Jack shit. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. *The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've presented jack shit to contradict anything I've posted. Your entire argument is literally to ignore John Bingham, Jacob Howard, their statements regarding the intention of the 14th amendment, and the Supreme Court's precedent for the last 120 years.
> 
> Meanwhile, I've proven, definitely, that you have no idea what you're talking about. I've offered two direct quotes of the Congressional record where it was argued that the 14th amendment would empower congress to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> And you either ignorantly or deceptively claimed this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You either didn't know what you were talking about, babbling ignorantly. Rendering all of your 'out of context' claims as meaningless gibberish, as you clearly don't know what the context is.
> 
> Or you knew that Howard and Bingham, the two primary proponents of the 14th in the Senate and House respectively, had explicitly contradicted you. And lied your ass off.
> *
> Pick one.*
> 
> For the moment, I'm feeling gracious. And am willing to accept that you didn't know what you were talking about. But I'm looking through our previous conversations. And I find even one citation of either Bingham or Howard's above statements.....then its obvious you did know. And lied.
Click to expand...


Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress  was comprised of only two men, just post it.

Here are concepts you will not find in your selective google searches and concepts you have to avoid to support your worldview:

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. *The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.*


----------



## Skylar

BuckToothMoron said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?
> 
> All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.
> 
> But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.
Click to expand...


Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.

The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.

*Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.

Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and another grand passage from Bingham in introducing the 14th to the House for you to straight up ignore and flee, insisting its 'out of context'.
> 
> _*"Sir, it has been the want of the Republican that there was not an express grant of power in the Constitution to enable the whole people of every State, by congressional enactment, to enforce obedience to these requirements of the Constitution. *Nothing can be plainer to the thoughtful men than that if the grant of power had been originally conferred upon the Congress of the nation, and legislation had been upon your statute-books to enforce these requirements of the Constitution in every State, that rebellion, which had scarred and blasted the land, would have been an impossibility.....
> 
> .....And sire it is equally clear by every construction of the Constitution, its contemporaneous construction, its continued construction, legislative, executive, and judicial, that these great provisions of the Constitution,* this immortal bill of rights embodied in the Constitution, rested for its execution and enforcement hitherto upon the fidelity of the States. *The House knows, sir, the country knows, the civilized world knows, that the legislative, executive and judicial officers of Eleven States within the Union within the last five years, in utter disregard of these injunctions of your Constitution, in utter disregard of that official oath which the Constitution required they should severally take and faithfully keep which they entered up the discharge of their respective duties, have violated in every sense the word these provisions of the Constitution of the United States, the enforcement of which are absolutely essential to American nationality.
> By order, then, of the committee, sir, and for the purpose of giving the whole people care in future of the unity of the Government which constitutions us one people, and without which American nationality would cease to be, I propose the adoption of this amendment to the House, and through the House, I press it upon the consideration of the loyal people of those whole country.
> 
> Rep. John Bingham
> February 26th, 1866
> 39th Congress_
> 
> But Bingham didn't intend to apply the Bill of Rights to the States with the 14th?
> 
> And when you offer your inevitably rout of 'out of context', remember of course that you have presented *jack shit* in defense of your argument. Not a single citation of anyone involved. You've merely cited yourself, insisting that you know better than Bingham, Howard, and the Supreme Court.
> 
> And of course, you know what you've presented: *Jack shit. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. *The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've presented jack shit to contradict anything I've posted. Your entire argument is literally to ignore John Bingham, Jacob Howard, their statements regarding the intention of the 14th amendment, and the Supreme Court's precedent for the last 120 years.
> 
> Meanwhile, I've proven, definitely, that you have no idea what you're talking about. I've offered two direct quotes of the Congressional record where it was argued that the 14th amendment would empower congress to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> And you either ignorantly or deceptively claimed this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You either didn't know what you were talking about, babbling ignorantly. Rendering all of your 'out of context' claims as meaningless gibberish, as you clearly don't know what the context is.
> 
> Or you knew that Howard and Bingham, the two primary proponents of the 14th in the Senate and House respectively, had explicitly contradicted you. And lied your ass off.
> *
> Pick one.*
> 
> For the moment, I'm feeling gracious. And am willing to accept that you didn't know what you were talking about. But I'm looking through our previous conversations. And I find even one citation of either Bingham or Howard's above statements.....then its obvious you did know. And lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress  was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> Here are concepts you will not find in your selective google searches and concepts you have to avoid to support your worldview:
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. *The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.*
Click to expand...


And Tenny's runnin'! You claimed that NO ONE in the 39th Congress said that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

I've offered numerous citations from the 39th Congress of members of Congress doing exactly that. Including the man who wrote Article 1 of the 14th amendment, John Bingham. 

*You either lied. Or you didn't know what you were talking about. *Either rendering your 'out of context' nonsense meaningless gibberish. As you clearly don't know what the context is.

You're done, Tenny. All you can do now is run.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Skylar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?
> 
> All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.
> 
> But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
Click to expand...


You are boring. Primarily because all of your examples, be they children, different races, arranged, forced marriage, subservient or anything else, were always unions of the opposite sex. You seem unable to grasp the difference. Either your mind is not capable of subtle nuisance or you are just to stubborn to acknowledge it. 

You're are correct, marriage is what we define it to be, and until the USSC decided differently, it was always defined as some type of union between members of the opposite sex. Ugh....you are like debating with a brick wall, unable to hear, only resist.


----------



## Skylar

BuckToothMoron said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?
> 
> All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.
> 
> But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are boring. Primarily because all of your examples, be they children, different races, arranged, forced marriage, subservient or anything else, were always unions of the opposite sex.
Click to expand...


I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.

And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. *Why not? *

You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.

Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.



> You're are correct, marriage is what we define it to be, and until the USSC decided differently, it was always defined as some type of union between members of the opposite sex. Ugh....you are like debating with a brick wall, unable to hear, only resist.



You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.

You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.

Which is why you failed.

Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Skylar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?
> 
> All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.
> 
> But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are boring. Primarily because all of your examples, be they children, different races, arranged, forced marriage, subservient or anything else, were always unions of the opposite sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.
> 
> And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. *Why not? *
> 
> You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.
> 
> Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're are correct, marriage is what we define it to be, and until the USSC decided differently, it was always defined as some type of union between members of the opposite sex. Ugh....you are like debating with a brick wall, unable to hear, only resist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.
> 
> You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.
> 
> Which is why you failed.
> 
> Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?
Click to expand...


Sorry, to bored to respond


----------



## Skylar

BuckToothMoron said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?
> 
> All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.
> 
> But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are boring. Primarily because all of your examples, be they children, different races, arranged, forced marriage, subservient or anything else, were always unions of the opposite sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.
> 
> And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. *Why not? *
> 
> You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.
> 
> Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're are correct, marriage is what we define it to be, and until the USSC decided differently, it was always defined as some type of union between members of the opposite sex. Ugh....you are like debating with a brick wall, unable to hear, only resist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.
> 
> You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.
> 
> Which is why you failed.
> 
> Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, to bored to respond
Click to expand...

I'll simplify this for you so its not 'to' difficult:

*What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage? *We've already demonstrated that marriage is ludicrously malleable and has been changed repeatedly through history. So an argument that marriage can't change is provably false.

Unless you can provide us with a rational reason for the restriction to exist......then you're just offering us a tired Appeal to Authority Fallacy.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Skylar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are boring. Primarily because all of your examples, be they children, different races, arranged, forced marriage, subservient or anything else, were always unions of the opposite sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.
> 
> And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. *Why not? *
> 
> You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.
> 
> Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're are correct, marriage is what we define it to be, and until the USSC decided differently, it was always defined as some type of union between members of the opposite sex. Ugh....you are like debating with a brick wall, unable to hear, only resist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.
> 
> You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.
> 
> Which is why you failed.
> 
> Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, to bored to respond
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll simplify this for you so its not 'to' difficult:
> 
> *What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage? *We've already demonstrated that marriage is ludicrously malleable and has been changed repeatedly through history. So an argument that marriage can't change is provably false.
> 
> Unless you can provide us with a rational reason for the restriction to exist......then you're just offering us a tired Appeal to Authority Fallacy.
Click to expand...


Sure, whatever. Marriage can be 6 birds walking into a bar and playing darts with hand grenades. Works for me. It's whatever you want it to be.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and another grand passage from Bingham in introducing the 14th to the House for you to straight up ignore and flee, insisting its 'out of context'.
> 
> _*"Sir, it has been the want of the Republican that there was not an express grant of power in the Constitution to enable the whole people of every State, by congressional enactment, to enforce obedience to these requirements of the Constitution. *Nothing can be plainer to the thoughtful men than that if the grant of power had been originally conferred upon the Congress of the nation, and legislation had been upon your statute-books to enforce these requirements of the Constitution in every State, that rebellion, which had scarred and blasted the land, would have been an impossibility.....
> 
> .....And sire it is equally clear by every construction of the Constitution, its contemporaneous construction, its continued construction, legislative, executive, and judicial, that these great provisions of the Constitution,* this immortal bill of rights embodied in the Constitution, rested for its execution and enforcement hitherto upon the fidelity of the States. *The House knows, sir, the country knows, the civilized world knows, that the legislative, executive and judicial officers of Eleven States within the Union within the last five years, in utter disregard of these injunctions of your Constitution, in utter disregard of that official oath which the Constitution required they should severally take and faithfully keep which they entered up the discharge of their respective duties, have violated in every sense the word these provisions of the Constitution of the United States, the enforcement of which are absolutely essential to American nationality.
> By order, then, of the committee, sir, and for the purpose of giving the whole people care in future of the unity of the Government which constitutions us one people, and without which American nationality would cease to be, I propose the adoption of this amendment to the House, and through the House, I press it upon the consideration of the loyal people of those whole country.
> 
> Rep. John Bingham
> February 26th, 1866
> 39th Congress_
> 
> But Bingham didn't intend to apply the Bill of Rights to the States with the 14th?
> 
> And when you offer your inevitably rout of 'out of context', remember of course that you have presented *jack shit* in defense of your argument. Not a single citation of anyone involved. You've merely cited yourself, insisting that you know better than Bingham, Howard, and the Supreme Court.
> 
> And of course, you know what you've presented: *Jack shit. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. *The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've presented jack shit to contradict anything I've posted. Your entire argument is literally to ignore John Bingham, Jacob Howard, their statements regarding the intention of the 14th amendment, and the Supreme Court's precedent for the last 120 years.
> 
> Meanwhile, I've proven, definitely, that you have no idea what you're talking about. I've offered two direct quotes of the Congressional record where it was argued that the 14th amendment would empower congress to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> And you either ignorantly or deceptively claimed this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You either didn't know what you were talking about, babbling ignorantly. Rendering all of your 'out of context' claims as meaningless gibberish, as you clearly don't know what the context is.
> 
> Or you knew that Howard and Bingham, the two primary proponents of the 14th in the Senate and House respectively, had explicitly contradicted you. And lied your ass off.
> *
> Pick one.*
> 
> For the moment, I'm feeling gracious. And am willing to accept that you didn't know what you were talking about. But I'm looking through our previous conversations. And I find even one citation of either Bingham or Howard's above statements.....then its obvious you did know. And lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress  was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> Here are concepts you will not find in your selective google searches and concepts you have to avoid to support your worldview:
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. *The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Tenny's runnin'! You claimed that NO ONE in the 39th Congress said that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> I've offered numerous citations from the 39th Congress of members of Congress doing exactly that. Including the man who wrote Article 1 of the 14th amendment, John Bingham.
> 
> *You either lied. Or you didn't know what you were talking about. *Either rendering your 'out of context' nonsense meaningless gibberish. As you clearly don't know what the context is.
> 
> You're done, Tenny. All you can do now is run.
Click to expand...



I said the Bill of Rights was not debated in the 39th Congress. It was not the purpose.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.


----------



## Skylar

BuckToothMoron said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are boring. Primarily because all of your examples, be they children, different races, arranged, forced marriage, subservient or anything else, were always unions of the opposite sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.
> 
> And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. *Why not? *
> 
> You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.
> 
> Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're are correct, marriage is what we define it to be, and until the USSC decided differently, it was always defined as some type of union between members of the opposite sex. Ugh....you are like debating with a brick wall, unable to hear, only resist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.
> 
> You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.
> 
> Which is why you failed.
> 
> Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, to bored to respond
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll simplify this for you so its not 'to' difficult:
> 
> *What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage? *We've already demonstrated that marriage is ludicrously malleable and has been changed repeatedly through history. So an argument that marriage can't change is provably false.
> 
> Unless you can provide us with a rational reason for the restriction to exist......then you're just offering us a tired Appeal to Authority Fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, whatever. Marriage can be 6 birds walking into a bar and playing darts with hand grenades. Works for me. It's whatever you want it to be.
Click to expand...


That's not an answer to my question:

*What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage? *

Its obvious you have no reason. And that's why you fail.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and another grand passage from Bingham in introducing the 14th to the House for you to straight up ignore and flee, insisting its 'out of context'.
> 
> _*"Sir, it has been the want of the Republican that there was not an express grant of power in the Constitution to enable the whole people of every State, by congressional enactment, to enforce obedience to these requirements of the Constitution. *Nothing can be plainer to the thoughtful men than that if the grant of power had been originally conferred upon the Congress of the nation, and legislation had been upon your statute-books to enforce these requirements of the Constitution in every State, that rebellion, which had scarred and blasted the land, would have been an impossibility.....
> 
> .....And sire it is equally clear by every construction of the Constitution, its contemporaneous construction, its continued construction, legislative, executive, and judicial, that these great provisions of the Constitution,* this immortal bill of rights embodied in the Constitution, rested for its execution and enforcement hitherto upon the fidelity of the States. *The House knows, sir, the country knows, the civilized world knows, that the legislative, executive and judicial officers of Eleven States within the Union within the last five years, in utter disregard of these injunctions of your Constitution, in utter disregard of that official oath which the Constitution required they should severally take and faithfully keep which they entered up the discharge of their respective duties, have violated in every sense the word these provisions of the Constitution of the United States, the enforcement of which are absolutely essential to American nationality.
> By order, then, of the committee, sir, and for the purpose of giving the whole people care in future of the unity of the Government which constitutions us one people, and without which American nationality would cease to be, I propose the adoption of this amendment to the House, and through the House, I press it upon the consideration of the loyal people of those whole country.
> 
> Rep. John Bingham
> February 26th, 1866
> 39th Congress_
> 
> But Bingham didn't intend to apply the Bill of Rights to the States with the 14th?
> 
> And when you offer your inevitably rout of 'out of context', remember of course that you have presented *jack shit* in defense of your argument. Not a single citation of anyone involved. You've merely cited yourself, insisting that you know better than Bingham, Howard, and the Supreme Court.
> 
> And of course, you know what you've presented: *Jack shit. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. *The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've presented jack shit to contradict anything I've posted. Your entire argument is literally to ignore John Bingham, Jacob Howard, their statements regarding the intention of the 14th amendment, and the Supreme Court's precedent for the last 120 years.
> 
> Meanwhile, I've proven, definitely, that you have no idea what you're talking about. I've offered two direct quotes of the Congressional record where it was argued that the 14th amendment would empower congress to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> And you either ignorantly or deceptively claimed this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You either didn't know what you were talking about, babbling ignorantly. Rendering all of your 'out of context' claims as meaningless gibberish, as you clearly don't know what the context is.
> 
> Or you knew that Howard and Bingham, the two primary proponents of the 14th in the Senate and House respectively, had explicitly contradicted you. And lied your ass off.
> *
> Pick one.*
> 
> For the moment, I'm feeling gracious. And am willing to accept that you didn't know what you were talking about. But I'm looking through our previous conversations. And I find even one citation of either Bingham or Howard's above statements.....then its obvious you did know. And lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress  was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> Here are concepts you will not find in your selective google searches and concepts you have to avoid to support your worldview:
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. *The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Tenny's runnin'! You claimed that NO ONE in the 39th Congress said that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> I've offered numerous citations from the 39th Congress of members of Congress doing exactly that. Including the man who wrote Article 1 of the 14th amendment, John Bingham.
> 
> *You either lied. Or you didn't know what you were talking about. *Either rendering your 'out of context' nonsense meaningless gibberish. As you clearly don't know what the context is.
> 
> You're done, Tenny. All you can do now is run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I said the Bill of Rights was not debated in the 39th Congress. It was not the purpose.
Click to expand...


Nope. You said this:



			
				Tennyson said:
			
		

> No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.


You're backpedalling badly, lying and revising your story as it falls apart. Demonstrating that even you have no use for your rhetorical nonsense. As you are ignoring you.

Not only was the issue of the 14th applying the bill of rights discussed in the 39th Congress, it was introduced in the House and Senate as doing exactly that by members of the committee that *wrote* it. Including Howard and Bingham.

All of which you already knew. But *really* hoped we didn't. Or.....you just didn't know what the fuck you were talking about.

*Pick one. Dishonest. Or laughably incompetent. There is no third option. *And please, don't bother 'revising' your quotes to try and cover your ass again. I've got them right here.



> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.



I've offered Howard's introduction AND Bingham's introduction, AND Bingham's reaffirmation that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States *after* the passage of the amendment.

*You've presented jack shit. *

Who says he was ignored? _You do_. You've cited nothing to back that claim up. And I've caught you either lying or wildly ignorant of the 39th congress and the 14th amendment. Rendering you citing you useless noise.
*
PROVE that Howard was ignored. *As I've already demonstrated, unambiguously, that the 14th's purpose as introduced by both Howard and Bingham was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. A fact that Bingham *reaffirmed* after the passage of the 14th amendment, even going so far as to read the first 8 amendments of the Bill of Rights, one at a time, to demonstrate what he intended.
*
Its also the interpretation that the Supreme Court has used for about 120 years. *And you laughably ignore the Supreme Court, Bingham, Howard, and 120 years of precedent insisting you know better.

Spoiler Alert: You don't.

Show us the quotes backing your claims. As you have no credibility, being either a liar or an incompetent.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. *The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've presented jack shit to contradict anything I've posted. Your entire argument is literally to ignore John Bingham, Jacob Howard, their statements regarding the intention of the 14th amendment, and the Supreme Court's precedent for the last 120 years.
> 
> Meanwhile, I've proven, definitely, that you have no idea what you're talking about. I've offered two direct quotes of the Congressional record where it was argued that the 14th amendment would empower congress to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> And you either ignorantly or deceptively claimed this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You either didn't know what you were talking about, babbling ignorantly. Rendering all of your 'out of context' claims as meaningless gibberish, as you clearly don't know what the context is.
> 
> Or you knew that Howard and Bingham, the two primary proponents of the 14th in the Senate and House respectively, had explicitly contradicted you. And lied your ass off.
> *
> Pick one.*
> 
> For the moment, I'm feeling gracious. And am willing to accept that you didn't know what you were talking about. But I'm looking through our previous conversations. And I find even one citation of either Bingham or Howard's above statements.....then its obvious you did know. And lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress  was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> Here are concepts you will not find in your selective google searches and concepts you have to avoid to support your worldview:
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. *The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Tenny's runnin'! You claimed that NO ONE in the 39th Congress said that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> I've offered numerous citations from the 39th Congress of members of Congress doing exactly that. Including the man who wrote Article 1 of the 14th amendment, John Bingham.
> 
> *You either lied. Or you didn't know what you were talking about. *Either rendering your 'out of context' nonsense meaningless gibberish. As you clearly don't know what the context is.
> 
> You're done, Tenny. All you can do now is run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I said the Bill of Rights was not debated in the 39th Congress. It was not the purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You said this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're backpedalling badly, lying and revising your story as it falls apart. Demonstrating that even you have no use for your rhetorical nonsense. As you are ignoring you.
> 
> Not only was the issue of the 14th applying the bill of rights discussed in the 39th Congress, it was introduced in the House and Senate as doing exactly that by members of the committee that *wrote* it. Including Howard and Bingham.
> 
> All of which you already knew. But *really* hoped we didn't. Or.....you just didn't know what the fuck you were talking about.
> 
> *Pick one. Dishonest. Or laughably incompetent. There is no third option. *And please, don't bother 'revising' your quotes to try and cover your ass again. I've got them right here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've offered Howard's introduction AND Bingham's introduction, AND Bingham's reaffirmation that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States *after* the passage of the amendment.
> 
> *You've presented jack shit. *
> 
> Who says he was ignored? _You do_. You've cited nothing to back that claim up. And I've caught you either lying or wildly ignorant of the 39th congress and the 14th amendment. Rendering you citing you useless noise.
> *
> PROVE that Howard was ignored. *As I've already demonstrated, unambiguously, that the 14th's purpose as introduced by both Howard and Bingham was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. A fact that Bingham *reaffirmed* after the passage of the 14th amendment, even going so far as to read the first 8 amendments of the Bill of Rights, one at a time, to demonstrate what he intended.
> *
> Its also the interpretation that the Supreme Court has used for about 120 years. *And you laughably ignore the Supreme Court, Bingham, Howard, and 120 years of precedent insisting you know better.
> 
> Spoiler Alert: You don't.
> 
> Show us the quotes backing your claims. As you have no credibility, being either a liar or an incompetent.
Click to expand...


You are not running from my post.



I said the Bill of Rights was not debated in the 39th Congress. It was not the purpose.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview


----------



## The Professor

ABikerSailor said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?
> 
> Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?
> 
> If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?
> 
> Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?
> 
> If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be "hindu"....knock yourself out..... but Christianity does not condone homosexuality as it is offensive to God, the father and His son Jesus Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got news for you, but Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality.  Matter of fact, when He was asked what the greatest commandment is, He said "Love God above all else, and love one another as you love God".
> 
> Gender wasn't specified.
> 
> And.....................I also challenge you to show me in the Bible where it says that homosexuality is a sin.  Got news for you, you can't.
> 
> However....................you CAN find a place in the Bible (namely the Old Testament, which is a Jewish not a Christian book), where it states that if one man lies with another it's an abomination.  Got news for you, that is from the book that talks about the rules for JEWISH priests, not anything to do with Christianity.  Leviticus is actually a manual for those who are Jewish priests, not Christians.
> 
> And by the way.................if a man lies with a woman on the same Naval command, she gets pregnant, and they decide to get married, that is also considered an "abomination" to the U.S. Navy, and one of those who are in the union have to be transferred to another command.  You can't have a married couple serving in the same command in the Navy.
Click to expand...


The fact that Christ never addressed the subject of homosexuality directly is a moot point. Christians believe the entire Bible is the Word of God, not just the red-letter words attributable to Christ. To Christians the words of Peter, John , Paul and others, including the Biblical Patriarchs, are also sacred. There can be no doubt that the Bible (in both the Old and New Testaments) condemns homosexuality.

First of all, here are verses from the Old Testament which clearly state that homosexuality is an abomination and those who engaged in such activities were to be put to death (all verses are from the KJV):

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” (Leviticus 18:22).

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13).

The following verses from the New Testament also condemn homosexuality (all verses are from the KJV):

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God . Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God ” (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10).

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them” (Romans 1:26-32).

“But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.” (1 Timothy 1:8-10, KJV).

Christians believe that ALL sins will be forgiven to those who accept Christ. Whether those who continue their homosexual behavior would retain their salvation is another matter; however, if those who continue to commit other sins (such as fornication, adultery and drunkenness) do not lose their salvation, it would seem illogical to deny homosexuals the same consideration.

One more thing: The Bible claims, “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, 'You shall not commit adultery,' also said, 'You shall not murder.' If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker” (James 2:10, 11, NIV). I find it strange that there is so much hatred toward homosexuality while adultery seems to be far more acceptable. In the final analysis, adultery includes an element of betrayal and perhaps that makes it the greater sin. Just thinking.

Bottom line: In the overall scheme of things , I doubt that the Bible considers homosexuality to be a greater sin than adultery. From a Biblical vantage point, homosexuals and adulterers have the same standing in both the Old and New Testaments. 

But that's just my own humble opinion.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> You are not running from my post.


Your post was already systematically eviscerated. Worse, your post is just you citing you. And you're either a liar or an incompetent. As demonstrated here:



			
				Tennyson said:
			
		

> No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.


*
And you knew damn well that that's not true. Or should have.*

Meanwhile, I've shown you three direct citations of the Congressional record demonstrating that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. *You've presented jack shit backing your claims.....only citing yourself.*

And you citing you is meaningless gibberish. As you're either a liar or an incompetent.

Show us. Don't tell us.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not running from my post.
> 
> 
> 
> Your post was already systematically eviscerated. Worse, your post is just you citing you. And you're either a liar or an incompetent. As demonstrated here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> And you knew damn well that that's not true. Or should have.*
> 
> Meanwhile, I've shown you three direct citations of the Congressional record demonstrating that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. *You've presented jack shit backing your claims.....only citing yourself.*
> 
> And you citing you is meaningless gibberish. As you're either a liar or an incompetent.
> 
> Show us. Don't tell us.
Click to expand...


Here you go again. Your out of context quotes are addressed in my post. To understand that, you need to understand a certain clause in the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.  

I said the Bill of Rights was not debated in the 39th Congress. It was not the purpose.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not running from my post.
> 
> 
> 
> Your post was already systematically eviscerated. Worse, your post is just you citing you. And you're either a liar or an incompetent. As demonstrated here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> And you knew damn well that that's not true. Or should have.*
> 
> Meanwhile, I've shown you three direct citations of the Congressional record demonstrating that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. *You've presented jack shit backing your claims.....only citing yourself.*
> 
> And you citing you is meaningless gibberish. As you're either a liar or an incompetent.
> 
> Show us. Don't tell us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you go again. Your out of context quotes are addressed in my post. To understand that, you need to understand a certain clause in the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...


*Prove they are out of context. *You've presented no evidence, no citation, nothing._ You've only cited yourself._ And I've demonstrated with your own words that either you don't know what you're talking about.....or you're lying.

*Prove your argument with evidence.* *Prove* that the my quotes are out of context. *Prove* that the Senate ignored Howard. _*Prove*_ that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. I've provided 3 quotes directly from the Congressional Record backing my claims and explicitly contradicting yours.
*
You've presented nothing.* Show me, don't tell me. As you're going against 120 years of precedent, the burden of proof is on you to prove that you're right....and the Supreme Court is wrong.

And you've failed _miserably. _


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Skylar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are boring. Primarily because all of your examples, be they children, different races, arranged, forced marriage, subservient or anything else, were always unions of the opposite sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.
> 
> And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. *Why not? *
> 
> You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.
> 
> Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're are correct, marriage is what we define it to be, and until the USSC decided differently, it was always defined as some type of union between members of the opposite sex. Ugh....you are like debating with a brick wall, unable to hear, only resist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.
> 
> You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.
> 
> Which is why you failed.
> 
> Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, to bored to respond
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll simplify this for you so its not 'to' difficult:
> 
> *What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage? *We've already demonstrated that marriage is ludicrously malleable and has been changed repeatedly through history. So an argument that marriage can't change is provably false.
> 
> Unless you can provide us with a rational reason for the restriction to exist......then you're just offering us a tired Appeal to Authority Fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, whatever. Marriage can be 6 birds walking into a bar and playing darts with hand grenades. Works for me. It's whatever you want it to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not an answer to my question:
> 
> *What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage? *
> 
> Its obvious you have no reason. And that's why you fail.
Click to expand...


What rational reason do you have for restriction on different species participation in marriage? Why can't a guy marry a horse, or 3 men marry 2 women and a goat. Hey, it's all about love. Let anybody marry anything. Fine with me.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not running from my post.
> 
> 
> 
> Your post was already systematically eviscerated. Worse, your post is just you citing you. And you're either a liar or an incompetent. As demonstrated here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> And you knew damn well that that's not true. Or should have.*
> 
> Meanwhile, I've shown you three direct citations of the Congressional record demonstrating that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. *You've presented jack shit backing your claims.....only citing yourself.*
> 
> And you citing you is meaningless gibberish. As you're either a liar or an incompetent.
> 
> Show us. Don't tell us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you go again. Your out of context quotes are addressed in my post. To understand that, you need to understand a certain clause in the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Prove they are out of context. *You've presented no evidence, no citation, nothing._ You've only cited yourself._ And I've demonstrated with your own words that either you don't know what you're talking about.....or you're lying.
> 
> *Prove your argument with evidence.* *Prove* that the my quotes are out of context. *Prove* that the Senate ignored Howard. _*Prove*_ that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. I've provided 3 quotes directly from the Congressional Record backing my claims and explicitly contradicting yours.
> *
> You've presented nothing.* Show me, don't tell me. As you're going against 120 years of precedent, the burden of proof is on you to prove that you're right....and the Supreme Court is wrong.
> 
> And you've failed _miserably. _
Click to expand...


Here is the short version again regarding your out is context quotes, which you have aggressively avoided. And for the record, there is no 120 years of precedent. 

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it along with their statements regarding the Fourteenth Amendment was limited to the freed slaves only, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not running from my post.
> 
> 
> 
> Your post was already systematically eviscerated. Worse, your post is just you citing you. And you're either a liar or an incompetent. As demonstrated here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> And you knew damn well that that's not true. Or should have.*
> 
> Meanwhile, I've shown you three direct citations of the Congressional record demonstrating that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. *You've presented jack shit backing your claims.....only citing yourself.*
> 
> And you citing you is meaningless gibberish. As you're either a liar or an incompetent.
> 
> Show us. Don't tell us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you go again. Your out of context quotes are addressed in my post. To understand that, you need to understand a certain clause in the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Prove they are out of context. *You've presented no evidence, no citation, nothing._ You've only cited yourself._ And I've demonstrated with your own words that either you don't know what you're talking about.....or you're lying.
> 
> *Prove your argument with evidence.* *Prove* that the my quotes are out of context. *Prove* that the Senate ignored Howard. _*Prove*_ that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. I've provided 3 quotes directly from the Congressional Record backing my claims and explicitly contradicting yours.
> *
> You've presented nothing.* Show me, don't tell me. As you're going against 120 years of precedent, the burden of proof is on you to prove that you're right....and the Supreme Court is wrong.
> 
> And you've failed _miserably. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the short version again regarding your out is context quotes, which you have aggressively avoided. And for the record, there is no 120 years of precedent.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it along with their statements regarding the Fourteenth Amendment was limited to the freed slaves only, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
Click to expand...


Still not a single quote of *anyone but yourself.* And you've already demonstrated that you're utterly unreliable. You're gotta need to do some research, son. Just like I did.

PROVE my 3 citations from the Congressional Record were taken 'out of context'. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again. 

PROVE that the Senate ignored Howard. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again. 

PROVE that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to apply the Bill of the RIghts to the States. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again. 

I've got 3 explicit citations from the folks introducing the 14th to the 39th congress explicitly contradicting you. I've got 120 years of legal precedent, backed by the Supreme Court. 

The burden of proof is on you to prove that Howard, Bingham, the Supreme Court and 120 years of legal precedent are all wrong, and that you must be right.

Start crackin'. This time with evidence.


----------



## Skylar

BuckToothMoron said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.
> 
> And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. *Why not? *
> 
> You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.
> 
> Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.
> 
> You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.
> 
> You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.
> 
> Which is why you failed.
> 
> Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, to bored to respond
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll simplify this for you so its not 'to' difficult:
> 
> *What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage? *We've already demonstrated that marriage is ludicrously malleable and has been changed repeatedly through history. So an argument that marriage can't change is provably false.
> 
> Unless you can provide us with a rational reason for the restriction to exist......then you're just offering us a tired Appeal to Authority Fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, whatever. Marriage can be 6 birds walking into a bar and playing darts with hand grenades. Works for me. It's whatever you want it to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not an answer to my question:
> 
> *What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage? *
> 
> Its obvious you have no reason. And that's why you fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What rational reason do you have for restriction on different species participation in marriage? Why can't a guy marry a horse, or 3 men marry 2 women and a goat. Hey, it's all about love. Let anybody marry anything. Fine with me.
Click to expand...


The lack of capacity for consent. Animals can't offer it. People can.

I've answered your question. Now you answer mine:

*What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage? 
*
.....or you could just save yourself time and admit what we both already know:

There is no rational reason.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Skylar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, to bored to respond
> 
> 
> 
> I'll simplify this for you so its not 'to' difficult:
> 
> *What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage? *We've already demonstrated that marriage is ludicrously malleable and has been changed repeatedly through history. So an argument that marriage can't change is provably false.
> 
> Unless you can provide us with a rational reason for the restriction to exist......then you're just offering us a tired Appeal to Authority Fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, whatever. Marriage can be 6 birds walking into a bar and playing darts with hand grenades. Works for me. It's whatever you want it to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not an answer to my question:
> 
> *What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage? *
> 
> Its obvious you have no reason. And that's why you fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What rational reason do you have for restriction on different species participation in marriage? Why can't a guy marry a horse, or 3 men marry 2 women and a goat. Hey, it's all about love. Let anybody marry anything. Fine with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The lack of capacity for consent. Animals can't offer it. People can.
> 
> I've answered your question. Now you answer mine:
> 
> *What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage?
> *
> .....or you could just save yourself time and admit what we both already know:
> 
> There is no rational reason.
Click to expand...


None, all people can marry whoever and as many people as they want. 1 guy can marry 3 women and 2 guys, and those 3 women can marry each other. There should be zero "discrimination" towards any person when it comes to marriage. I used to believe that marriage was a union between a man and a woman, but you have convinced me it is a union between any person with any other person, or any persons with any other persons. Thanks for being so persistent and helping me understand. You're the greatest!


----------



## Skylar

BuckToothMoron said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll simplify this for you so its not 'to' difficult:
> 
> *What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage? *We've already demonstrated that marriage is ludicrously malleable and has been changed repeatedly through history. So an argument that marriage can't change is provably false.
> 
> Unless you can provide us with a rational reason for the restriction to exist......then you're just offering us a tired Appeal to Authority Fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, whatever. Marriage can be 6 birds walking into a bar and playing darts with hand grenades. Works for me. It's whatever you want it to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not an answer to my question:
> 
> *What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage? *
> 
> Its obvious you have no reason. And that's why you fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What rational reason do you have for restriction on different species participation in marriage? Why can't a guy marry a horse, or 3 men marry 2 women and a goat. Hey, it's all about love. Let anybody marry anything. Fine with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The lack of capacity for consent. Animals can't offer it. People can.
> 
> I've answered your question. Now you answer mine:
> 
> *What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage?
> *
> .....or you could just save yourself time and admit what we both already know:
> 
> There is no rational reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None, all people can marry whoever and as many people as they want. 1 guy can marry 3 women and 2 guys, and those 3 women can marry each other. There should be zero "discrimination" towards any person when it comes to marriage. I used to believe that marriage was a union between a man and a woman, but you have convinced me it is a union between any person with any other person, or any persons with any other persons. Thanks for being so persistent and helping me understand. You're the greatest!
Click to expand...


You still haven't answered my question. You're just running from it. 

*What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage? *

You obviously have no rational reason. And you're in excellent company. The Supreme Court couldn't find one either. 

Which is exactly my point.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Skylar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, whatever. Marriage can be 6 birds walking into a bar and playing darts with hand grenades. Works for me. It's whatever you want it to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not an answer to my question:
> 
> *What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage? *
> 
> Its obvious you have no reason. And that's why you fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What rational reason do you have for restriction on different species participation in marriage? Why can't a guy marry a horse, or 3 men marry 2 women and a goat. Hey, it's all about love. Let anybody marry anything. Fine with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The lack of capacity for consent. Animals can't offer it. People can.
> 
> I've answered your question. Now you answer mine:
> 
> *What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage?
> *
> .....or you could just save yourself time and admit what we both already know:
> 
> There is no rational reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None, all people can marry whoever and as many people as they want. 1 guy can marry 3 women and 2 guys, and those 3 women can marry each other. There should be zero "discrimination" towards any person when it comes to marriage. I used to believe that marriage was a union between a man and a woman, but you have convinced me it is a union between any person with any other person, or any persons with any other persons. Thanks for being so persistent and helping me understand. You're the greatest!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still haven't answered my question. You're just running from it.
> 
> *What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage? *
> 
> You obviously have no rational reason. And you're in excellent company. The Supreme Court couldn't find one either.
> 
> Which is exactly my point.
Click to expand...


I just conceded that there should be no restriction on any person or persons when it comes to marriage. Anybody can marry whomever they want and as many as they want. There is no rational reason to put any restriction on marriage, because you have shown the definition of marriage is simple a union of people. Again, thanks for your excellent insight.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not running from my post.
> 
> 
> 
> Your post was already systematically eviscerated. Worse, your post is just you citing you. And you're either a liar or an incompetent. As demonstrated here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> And you knew damn well that that's not true. Or should have.*
> 
> Meanwhile, I've shown you three direct citations of the Congressional record demonstrating that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. *You've presented jack shit backing your claims.....only citing yourself.*
> 
> And you citing you is meaningless gibberish. As you're either a liar or an incompetent.
> 
> Show us. Don't tell us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you go again. Your out of context quotes are addressed in my post. To understand that, you need to understand a certain clause in the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Prove they are out of context. *You've presented no evidence, no citation, nothing._ You've only cited yourself._ And I've demonstrated with your own words that either you don't know what you're talking about.....or you're lying.
> 
> *Prove your argument with evidence.* *Prove* that the my quotes are out of context. *Prove* that the Senate ignored Howard. _*Prove*_ that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. I've provided 3 quotes directly from the Congressional Record backing my claims and explicitly contradicting yours.
> *
> You've presented nothing.* Show me, don't tell me. As you're going against 120 years of precedent, the burden of proof is on you to prove that you're right....and the Supreme Court is wrong.
> 
> And you've failed _miserably. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the short version again regarding your out is context quotes, which you have aggressively avoided. And for the record, there is no 120 years of precedent.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it along with their statements regarding the Fourteenth Amendment was limited to the freed slaves only, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still not a single quote of *anyone but yourself.* And you've already demonstrated that you're utterly unreliable. You're gotta need to do some research, son. Just like I did.
> 
> PROVE my 3 citations from the Congressional Record were taken 'out of context'. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.
> 
> PROVE that the Senate ignored Howard. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.
> 
> PROVE that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to apply the Bill of the RIghts to the States. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.
> 
> I've got 3 explicit citations from the folks introducing the 14th to the 39th congress explicitly contradicting you. I've got 120 years of legal precedent, backed by the Supreme Court.
> 
> The burden of proof is on you to prove that Howard, Bingham, the Supreme Court and 120 years of legal precedent are all wrong, and that you must be right.
> 
> Start crackin'. This time with evidence.
Click to expand...


You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post was already systematically eviscerated. Worse, your post is just you citing you. And you're either a liar or an incompetent. As demonstrated here:
> 
> *
> And you knew damn well that that's not true. Or should have.*
> 
> Meanwhile, I've shown you three direct citations of the Congressional record demonstrating that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. *You've presented jack shit backing your claims.....only citing yourself.*
> 
> And you citing you is meaningless gibberish. As you're either a liar or an incompetent.
> 
> Show us. Don't tell us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go again. Your out of context quotes are addressed in my post. To understand that, you need to understand a certain clause in the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Prove they are out of context. *You've presented no evidence, no citation, nothing._ You've only cited yourself._ And I've demonstrated with your own words that either you don't know what you're talking about.....or you're lying.
> 
> *Prove your argument with evidence.* *Prove* that the my quotes are out of context. *Prove* that the Senate ignored Howard. _*Prove*_ that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. I've provided 3 quotes directly from the Congressional Record backing my claims and explicitly contradicting yours.
> *
> You've presented nothing.* Show me, don't tell me. As you're going against 120 years of precedent, the burden of proof is on you to prove that you're right....and the Supreme Court is wrong.
> 
> And you've failed _miserably. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the short version again regarding your out is context quotes, which you have aggressively avoided. And for the record, there is no 120 years of precedent.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it along with their statements regarding the Fourteenth Amendment was limited to the freed slaves only, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still not a single quote of *anyone but yourself.* And you've already demonstrated that you're utterly unreliable. You're gotta need to do some research, son. Just like I did.
> 
> PROVE my 3 citations from the Congressional Record were taken 'out of context'. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.
> 
> PROVE that the Senate ignored Howard. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.
> 
> PROVE that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to apply the Bill of the RIghts to the States. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.
> 
> I've got 3 explicit citations from the folks introducing the 14th to the 39th congress explicitly contradicting you. I've got 120 years of legal precedent, backed by the Supreme Court.
> 
> The burden of proof is on you to prove that Howard, Bingham, the Supreme Court and 120 years of legal precedent are all wrong, and that you must be right.
> 
> Start crackin'. This time with evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
Click to expand...


*I'm asking you to provide evidence to prove your assertions. *Just as I did when I cited Howard and Bingham explicitly affirming that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. 

And you've still got _jack shit. _


----------



## Skylar

BuckToothMoron said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not an answer to my question:
> 
> *What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage? *
> 
> Its obvious you have no reason. And that's why you fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What rational reason do you have for restriction on different species participation in marriage? Why can't a guy marry a horse, or 3 men marry 2 women and a goat. Hey, it's all about love. Let anybody marry anything. Fine with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The lack of capacity for consent. Animals can't offer it. People can.
> 
> I've answered your question. Now you answer mine:
> 
> *What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage?
> *
> .....or you could just save yourself time and admit what we both already know:
> 
> There is no rational reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None, all people can marry whoever and as many people as they want. 1 guy can marry 3 women and 2 guys, and those 3 women can marry each other. There should be zero "discrimination" towards any person when it comes to marriage. I used to believe that marriage was a union between a man and a woman, but you have convinced me it is a union between any person with any other person, or any persons with any other persons. Thanks for being so persistent and helping me understand. You're the greatest!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still haven't answered my question. You're just running from it.
> 
> *What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage? *
> 
> You obviously have no rational reason. And you're in excellent company. The Supreme Court couldn't find one either.
> 
> Which is exactly my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just conceded that there should be no restriction on any person or persons when it comes to marriage. Anybody can marry whomever they want and as many as they want. There is no rational reason to put any restriction on marriage, because you have shown the definition of marriage is simple a union of people. Again, thanks for your excellent insight.
Click to expand...


No, you threw a rhetorical tantrum, bringing in goats and polygamy. I've asked you specifically what the rational justification for restrictions on gender in marriage.

*And you have none, as there are none. *There's no rational reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry. Given that the right to marry is long recognized by the court, there needs to be a valid justification for withholding that right from same sex couples.

And the Court couldn't find any. Just as you couldn't find any. Which is exactly my point.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go again. Your out of context quotes are addressed in my post. To understand that, you need to understand a certain clause in the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Prove they are out of context. *You've presented no evidence, no citation, nothing._ You've only cited yourself._ And I've demonstrated with your own words that either you don't know what you're talking about.....or you're lying.
> 
> *Prove your argument with evidence.* *Prove* that the my quotes are out of context. *Prove* that the Senate ignored Howard. _*Prove*_ that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. I've provided 3 quotes directly from the Congressional Record backing my claims and explicitly contradicting yours.
> *
> You've presented nothing.* Show me, don't tell me. As you're going against 120 years of precedent, the burden of proof is on you to prove that you're right....and the Supreme Court is wrong.
> 
> And you've failed _miserably. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the short version again regarding your out is context quotes, which you have aggressively avoided. And for the record, there is no 120 years of precedent.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it along with their statements regarding the Fourteenth Amendment was limited to the freed slaves only, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still not a single quote of *anyone but yourself.* And you've already demonstrated that you're utterly unreliable. You're gotta need to do some research, son. Just like I did.
> 
> PROVE my 3 citations from the Congressional Record were taken 'out of context'. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.
> 
> PROVE that the Senate ignored Howard. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.
> 
> PROVE that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to apply the Bill of the RIghts to the States. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.
> 
> I've got 3 explicit citations from the folks introducing the 14th to the 39th congress explicitly contradicting you. I've got 120 years of legal precedent, backed by the Supreme Court.
> 
> The burden of proof is on you to prove that Howard, Bingham, the Supreme Court and 120 years of legal precedent are all wrong, and that you must be right.
> 
> Start crackin'. This time with evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I'm asking you to provide evidence to prove your assertions. *Just as I did when I cited Howard and Bingham explicitly affirming that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> And you've still got _jack shit. _
Click to expand...


You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Prove they are out of context. *You've presented no evidence, no citation, nothing._ You've only cited yourself._ And I've demonstrated with your own words that either you don't know what you're talking about.....or you're lying.
> 
> *Prove your argument with evidence.* *Prove* that the my quotes are out of context. *Prove* that the Senate ignored Howard. _*Prove*_ that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. I've provided 3 quotes directly from the Congressional Record backing my claims and explicitly contradicting yours.
> *
> You've presented nothing.* Show me, don't tell me. As you're going against 120 years of precedent, the burden of proof is on you to prove that you're right....and the Supreme Court is wrong.
> 
> And you've failed _miserably. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the short version again regarding your out is context quotes, which you have aggressively avoided. And for the record, there is no 120 years of precedent.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it along with their statements regarding the Fourteenth Amendment was limited to the freed slaves only, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still not a single quote of *anyone but yourself.* And you've already demonstrated that you're utterly unreliable. You're gotta need to do some research, son. Just like I did.
> 
> PROVE my 3 citations from the Congressional Record were taken 'out of context'. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.
> 
> PROVE that the Senate ignored Howard. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.
> 
> PROVE that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to apply the Bill of the RIghts to the States. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.
> 
> I've got 3 explicit citations from the folks introducing the 14th to the 39th congress explicitly contradicting you. I've got 120 years of legal precedent, backed by the Supreme Court.
> 
> The burden of proof is on you to prove that Howard, Bingham, the Supreme Court and 120 years of legal precedent are all wrong, and that you must be right.
> 
> Start crackin'. This time with evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I'm asking you to provide evidence to prove your assertions. *Just as I did when I cited Howard and Bingham explicitly affirming that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> And you've still got _jack shit. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
Click to expand...


You insist that my quotes were taken out of context. *Prove it. *

You insist that Howard was ignored by the Senate. *Prove it.*

You insist that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. *Prove it.*

*That you can't isn't my problem, its yours.* As with 120 years of precedent, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the Supreme Court is wrong, and you're right. 

And you can't.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the short version again regarding your out is context quotes, which you have aggressively avoided. And for the record, there is no 120 years of precedent.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it along with their statements regarding the Fourteenth Amendment was limited to the freed slaves only, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still not a single quote of *anyone but yourself.* And you've already demonstrated that you're utterly unreliable. You're gotta need to do some research, son. Just like I did.
> 
> PROVE my 3 citations from the Congressional Record were taken 'out of context'. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.
> 
> PROVE that the Senate ignored Howard. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.
> 
> PROVE that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to apply the Bill of the RIghts to the States. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.
> 
> I've got 3 explicit citations from the folks introducing the 14th to the 39th congress explicitly contradicting you. I've got 120 years of legal precedent, backed by the Supreme Court.
> 
> The burden of proof is on you to prove that Howard, Bingham, the Supreme Court and 120 years of legal precedent are all wrong, and that you must be right.
> 
> Start crackin'. This time with evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I'm asking you to provide evidence to prove your assertions. *Just as I did when I cited Howard and Bingham explicitly affirming that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> And you've still got _jack shit. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You insist that my quotes were taken out of context. *Prove it. *
> 
> You insist that Howard was ignored by the Senate. *Prove it.*
> 
> You insist that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. *Prove it.*
> 
> *That you can't isn't my problem, its yours.* As with 120 years of precedent, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the Supreme Court is wrong, and you're right.
> 
> And you can't.
Click to expand...


I have. The answer is in my post you have avoided. Here it is again. Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completly dismiss the House debates. 

Here is the short version again regarding your out is context quotes, which you have aggressively avoided. And for the record, there is no 120 years of precedent. 

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it along with their statements regarding the Fourteenth Amendment was limited to the freed slaves only, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still not a single quote of *anyone but yourself.* And you've already demonstrated that you're utterly unreliable. You're gotta need to do some research, son. Just like I did.
> 
> PROVE my 3 citations from the Congressional Record were taken 'out of context'. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.
> 
> PROVE that the Senate ignored Howard. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.
> 
> PROVE that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to apply the Bill of the RIghts to the States. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.
> 
> I've got 3 explicit citations from the folks introducing the 14th to the 39th congress explicitly contradicting you. I've got 120 years of legal precedent, backed by the Supreme Court.
> 
> The burden of proof is on you to prove that Howard, Bingham, the Supreme Court and 120 years of legal precedent are all wrong, and that you must be right.
> 
> Start crackin'. This time with evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I'm asking you to provide evidence to prove your assertions. *Just as I did when I cited Howard and Bingham explicitly affirming that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> And you've still got _jack shit. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You insist that my quotes were taken out of context. *Prove it. *
> 
> You insist that Howard was ignored by the Senate. *Prove it.*
> 
> You insist that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. *Prove it.*
> 
> *That you can't isn't my problem, its yours.* As with 120 years of precedent, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the Supreme Court is wrong, and you're right.
> 
> And you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have. The answer is in my post you have avoided. Here it is again. Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completly dismiss the House debates.
> 
> Here is the short version again regarding your out is context quotes, which you have aggressively avoided. And for the record, there is no 120 years of precedent.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it along with their statements regarding the Fourteenth Amendment was limited to the freed slaves only, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview
Click to expand...


No, you've made allegations.You haven't backed them up with....anything. Just you claiming it must be so.

And you're the same useless source* that insisted no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.*

*A *wildly* inaccurate claim*, as both Howard and Bingham who introduced the amendment to the Senate and House respectively, _did exactly that_. *Proving yourself a uselessly unreliable source.*

You insist that my statements are out of context. *Well, prove it. *You citing yourself proves nothing, as you're uselessly unreliable.

You insisted that HOward was ignored by the Senate. *Well, prove that too. *You citing yourself proves nothing, as you're laughably unreliable.

You insist that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. *Show us, don't tell us. *And you 'saying' it must be so is meaningless jibber jabber. Show us the Congressional Record where this is established.

*You can't. And you know you can't. *Which is why you only quote yourself.

While I've quoted the Congressional Record and the USSC explicitly contradicting you. I have the evidence. You've got jack shit.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I'm asking you to provide evidence to prove your assertions. *Just as I did when I cited Howard and Bingham explicitly affirming that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> And you've still got _jack shit. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You insist that my quotes were taken out of context. *Prove it. *
> 
> You insist that Howard was ignored by the Senate. *Prove it.*
> 
> You insist that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. *Prove it.*
> 
> *That you can't isn't my problem, its yours.* As with 120 years of precedent, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the Supreme Court is wrong, and you're right.
> 
> And you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have. The answer is in my post you have avoided. Here it is again. Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completly dismiss the House debates.
> 
> Here is the short version again regarding your out is context quotes, which you have aggressively avoided. And for the record, there is no 120 years of precedent.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it along with their statements regarding the Fourteenth Amendment was limited to the freed slaves only, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you've made allegations.You haven't backed them up with....anything. Just you claiming it must be so.
> 
> And you're the same useless source* that insisted no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.*
> 
> *A *wildly* inaccurate claim*, as both Howard and Bingham who introduced the amendment to the Senate and House respectively, _did exactly that_. *Proving yourself a uselessly unreliable source.*
> 
> You insist that my statements are out of context. *Well, prove it. *You citing yourself proves nothing, as you're uselessly unreliable.
> 
> You insisted that HOward was ignored by the Senate. *Well, prove that too. *You citing yourself proves nothing, as you're laughably unreliable.
> 
> You insist that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. *Show us, don't tell us. *And you 'saying' it must be so is meaningless jibber jabber. Show us the Congressional Record where this is established.
> 
> *You can't. And you know you can't. *Which is why you only quote yourself.
> 
> While I've quoted the Congressional Record and the USSC explicitly contradicting you. I have the evidence. You've got jack shit.
Click to expand...


All you have done so far is avoid my post, which answers all of your questions. Just in case you so not know how the study of history is conducted, here it is again:

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I'm asking you to provide evidence to prove your assertions. *Just as I did when I cited Howard and Bingham explicitly affirming that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> And you've still got _jack shit. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You insist that my quotes were taken out of context. *Prove it. *
> 
> You insist that Howard was ignored by the Senate. *Prove it.*
> 
> You insist that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. *Prove it.*
> 
> *That you can't isn't my problem, its yours.* As with 120 years of precedent, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the Supreme Court is wrong, and you're right.
> 
> And you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have. The answer is in my post you have avoided. Here it is again. Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completly dismiss the House debates.
> 
> Here is the short version again regarding your out is context quotes, which you have aggressively avoided. And for the record, there is no 120 years of precedent.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it along with their statements regarding the Fourteenth Amendment was limited to the freed slaves only, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you've made allegations.You haven't backed them up with....anything. Just you claiming it must be so.
> 
> And you're the same useless source* that insisted no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.*
> 
> *A *wildly* inaccurate claim*, as both Howard and Bingham who introduced the amendment to the Senate and House respectively, _did exactly that_. *Proving yourself a uselessly unreliable source.*
> 
> You insist that my statements are out of context. *Well, prove it. *You citing yourself proves nothing, as you're uselessly unreliable.
> 
> You insisted that HOward was ignored by the Senate. *Well, prove that too. *You citing yourself proves nothing, as you're laughably unreliable.
> 
> You insist that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. *Show us, don't tell us. *And you 'saying' it must be so is meaningless jibber jabber. Show us the Congressional Record where this is established.
> 
> *You can't. And you know you can't. *Which is why you only quote yourself.
> 
> While I've quoted the Congressional Record and the USSC explicitly contradicting you. I have the evidence. You've got jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you have done so far is avoid my post, which answers all of your questions. Just in case you so not know how the study of history is conducted, here it is again:
Click to expand...


*Your entire post is merely assertion....*that you have backed with absolutely nothing. That's the Begging the Question fallacy.

*Prove your claims are right with evidence. *And you citing yourself isn't evidence. As you've already demonstrated with *wildly* inaccurate claims that you are uselessly unreliable.

Show us. Don't tell us.

If you're unclear by what I mean by 'evidence', take a look at the quotes from the Congressional Record that I offered you* where Bingham and Howard both affirmed that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. *That's evidence.

You citing yourself? That's an excuse.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You insist that my quotes were taken out of context. *Prove it. *
> 
> You insist that Howard was ignored by the Senate. *Prove it.*
> 
> You insist that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. *Prove it.*
> 
> *That you can't isn't my problem, its yours.* As with 120 years of precedent, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the Supreme Court is wrong, and you're right.
> 
> And you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have. The answer is in my post you have avoided. Here it is again. Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completly dismiss the House debates.
> 
> Here is the short version again regarding your out is context quotes, which you have aggressively avoided. And for the record, there is no 120 years of precedent.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it along with their statements regarding the Fourteenth Amendment was limited to the freed slaves only, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you've made allegations.You haven't backed them up with....anything. Just you claiming it must be so.
> 
> And you're the same useless source* that insisted no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.*
> 
> *A *wildly* inaccurate claim*, as both Howard and Bingham who introduced the amendment to the Senate and House respectively, _did exactly that_. *Proving yourself a uselessly unreliable source.*
> 
> You insist that my statements are out of context. *Well, prove it. *You citing yourself proves nothing, as you're uselessly unreliable.
> 
> You insisted that HOward was ignored by the Senate. *Well, prove that too. *You citing yourself proves nothing, as you're laughably unreliable.
> 
> You insist that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. *Show us, don't tell us. *And you 'saying' it must be so is meaningless jibber jabber. Show us the Congressional Record where this is established.
> 
> *You can't. And you know you can't. *Which is why you only quote yourself.
> 
> While I've quoted the Congressional Record and the USSC explicitly contradicting you. I have the evidence. You've got jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you have done so far is avoid my post, which answers all of your questions. Just in case you so not know how the study of history is conducted, here it is again:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Your entire post is merely assertion....*that you have backed with absolutely nothing. That's the Begging the Question fallacy.
> 
> *Prove your claims are right with evidence. *And you citing yourself isn't evidence. As you've already demonstrated with *wildly* inaccurate claims that you are uselessly unreliable.
> 
> Show us. Don't tell us.
> 
> If you're unclear by what I mean by 'evidence', take a look at the quotes from the Congressional Record that I offered you* where Bingham and Howard both affirmed that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. *That's evidence.
> 
> You citing yourself? That's an excuse.
Click to expand...


Avoiding my post only diminished your credibility. 

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, I preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You insist that my quotes were taken out of context. *Prove it. *
> 
> You insist that Howard was ignored by the Senate. *Prove it.*
> 
> You insist that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. *Prove it.*
> 
> *That you can't isn't my problem, its yours.* As with 120 years of precedent, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the Supreme Court is wrong, and you're right.
> 
> And you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have. The answer is in my post you have avoided. Here it is again. Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completly dismiss the House debates.
> 
> Here is the short version again regarding your out is context quotes, which you have aggressively avoided. And for the record, there is no 120 years of precedent.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it along with their statements regarding the Fourteenth Amendment was limited to the freed slaves only, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you've made allegations.You haven't backed them up with....anything. Just you claiming it must be so.
> 
> And you're the same useless source* that insisted no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.*
> 
> *A *wildly* inaccurate claim*, as both Howard and Bingham who introduced the amendment to the Senate and House respectively, _did exactly that_. *Proving yourself a uselessly unreliable source.*
> 
> You insist that my statements are out of context. *Well, prove it. *You citing yourself proves nothing, as you're uselessly unreliable.
> 
> You insisted that HOward was ignored by the Senate. *Well, prove that too. *You citing yourself proves nothing, as you're laughably unreliable.
> 
> You insist that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. *Show us, don't tell us. *And you 'saying' it must be so is meaningless jibber jabber. Show us the Congressional Record where this is established.
> 
> *You can't. And you know you can't. *Which is why you only quote yourself.
> 
> While I've quoted the Congressional Record and the USSC explicitly contradicting you. I have the evidence. You've got jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you have done so far is avoid my post, which answers all of your questions. Just in case you so not know how the study of history is conducted, here it is again:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Your entire post is merely assertion....*that you have backed with absolutely nothing. That's the Begging the Question fallacy.
> 
> *Prove your claims are right with evidence. *And you citing yourself isn't evidence. As you've already demonstrated with *wildly* inaccurate claims that you are uselessly unreliable.
> 
> Show us. Don't tell us.
> 
> If you're unclear by what I mean by 'evidence', take a look at the quotes from the Congressional Record that I offered you* where Bingham and Howard both affirmed that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. *That's evidence.
> 
> You citing yourself? That's an excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Avoiding my post only diminished your credibility.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, I preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...


Your post is still you, citing only yourself. And you're uselessly unreliable.

*Show us the evidence to back your claims. *Not your Begging the Question fallacies.

Oh, and just FYI....preponderant isn't a verb. You can't 'preponderant' something. You're just trying too hard to sound like you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And you still can't back up *any* claim you've made.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have. The answer is in my post you have avoided. Here it is again. Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completly dismiss the House debates.
> 
> Here is the short version again regarding your out is context quotes, which you have aggressively avoided. And for the record, there is no 120 years of precedent.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it along with their statements regarding the Fourteenth Amendment was limited to the freed slaves only, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you've made allegations.You haven't backed them up with....anything. Just you claiming it must be so.
> 
> And you're the same useless source* that insisted no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.*
> 
> *A *wildly* inaccurate claim*, as both Howard and Bingham who introduced the amendment to the Senate and House respectively, _did exactly that_. *Proving yourself a uselessly unreliable source.*
> 
> You insist that my statements are out of context. *Well, prove it. *You citing yourself proves nothing, as you're uselessly unreliable.
> 
> You insisted that HOward was ignored by the Senate. *Well, prove that too. *You citing yourself proves nothing, as you're laughably unreliable.
> 
> You insist that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. *Show us, don't tell us. *And you 'saying' it must be so is meaningless jibber jabber. Show us the Congressional Record where this is established.
> 
> *You can't. And you know you can't. *Which is why you only quote yourself.
> 
> While I've quoted the Congressional Record and the USSC explicitly contradicting you. I have the evidence. You've got jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you have done so far is avoid my post, which answers all of your questions. Just in case you so not know how the study of history is conducted, here it is again:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Your entire post is merely assertion....*that you have backed with absolutely nothing. That's the Begging the Question fallacy.
> 
> *Prove your claims are right with evidence. *And you citing yourself isn't evidence. As you've already demonstrated with *wildly* inaccurate claims that you are uselessly unreliable.
> 
> Show us. Don't tell us.
> 
> If you're unclear by what I mean by 'evidence', take a look at the quotes from the Congressional Record that I offered you* where Bingham and Howard both affirmed that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. *That's evidence.
> 
> You citing yourself? That's an excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Avoiding my post only diminished your credibility.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, I preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is still you, citing only yourself. And you're uselessly unreliable.
> 
> *Show us the evidence to back your claims. *Not your Begging the Question fallacies.
> 
> Oh, and just FYI....preponderant isn't a verb. You can't 'preponderant' something. You're just trying too hard to sound like you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And you still can't back up *any* claim you've made.
Click to expand...


Avoiding my posts is not an argument. I have expanded each post with more evidence and you are still stuck avoiding why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment, why it was not debates or introduced in the House, etc., etc. 

Preponderant is adjective and was used correctly sans the typo before it. It is word  that you eschew.


----------



## Darkwind

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is not a right..
> 
> However since marriage licenses were born from racism, why do we still have them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Marriage is in fact a right.
Click to expand...

Wrong, it is in fact, not a right.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you've made allegations.You haven't backed them up with....anything. Just you claiming it must be so.
> 
> And you're the same useless source* that insisted no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.*
> 
> *A *wildly* inaccurate claim*, as both Howard and Bingham who introduced the amendment to the Senate and House respectively, _did exactly that_. *Proving yourself a uselessly unreliable source.*
> 
> You insist that my statements are out of context. *Well, prove it. *You citing yourself proves nothing, as you're uselessly unreliable.
> 
> You insisted that HOward was ignored by the Senate. *Well, prove that too. *You citing yourself proves nothing, as you're laughably unreliable.
> 
> You insist that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. *Show us, don't tell us. *And you 'saying' it must be so is meaningless jibber jabber. Show us the Congressional Record where this is established.
> 
> *You can't. And you know you can't. *Which is why you only quote yourself.
> 
> While I've quoted the Congressional Record and the USSC explicitly contradicting you. I have the evidence. You've got jack shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have done so far is avoid my post, which answers all of your questions. Just in case you so not know how the study of history is conducted, here it is again:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Your entire post is merely assertion....*that you have backed with absolutely nothing. That's the Begging the Question fallacy.
> 
> *Prove your claims are right with evidence. *And you citing yourself isn't evidence. As you've already demonstrated with *wildly* inaccurate claims that you are uselessly unreliable.
> 
> Show us. Don't tell us.
> 
> If you're unclear by what I mean by 'evidence', take a look at the quotes from the Congressional Record that I offered you* where Bingham and Howard both affirmed that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. *That's evidence.
> 
> You citing yourself? That's an excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Avoiding my post only diminished your credibility.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, I preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is still you, citing only yourself. And you're uselessly unreliable.
> 
> *Show us the evidence to back your claims. *Not your Begging the Question fallacies.
> 
> Oh, and just FYI....preponderant isn't a verb. You can't 'preponderant' something. You're just trying too hard to sound like you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And you still can't back up *any* claim you've made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Avoiding my posts is not an argument.
Click to expand...


Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.

Just you....citing yourself.

Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?

If so, that was easy.


----------



## Skylar

Darkwind said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is not a right..
> 
> However since marriage licenses were born from racism, why do we still have them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Marriage is in fact a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, it is in fact, not a right.
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court says otherwise. Why would I ignore them....and believe you?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Skylar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> What rational reason do you have for restriction on different species participation in marriage? Why can't a guy marry a horse, or 3 men marry 2 women and a goat. Hey, it's all about love. Let anybody marry anything. Fine with me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lack of capacity for consent. Animals can't offer it. People can.
> 
> I've answered your question. Now you answer mine:
> 
> *What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage?
> *
> .....or you could just save yourself time and admit what we both already know:
> 
> There is no rational reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None, all people can marry whoever and as many people as they want. 1 guy can marry 3 women and 2 guys, and those 3 women can marry each other. There should be zero "discrimination" towards any person when it comes to marriage. I used to believe that marriage was a union between a man and a woman, but you have convinced me it is a union between any person with any other person, or any persons with any other persons. Thanks for being so persistent and helping me understand. You're the greatest!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still haven't answered my question. You're just running from it.
> 
> *What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage? *
> 
> You obviously have no rational reason. And you're in excellent company. The Supreme Court couldn't find one either.
> 
> Which is exactly my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just conceded that there should be no restriction on any person or persons when it comes to marriage. Anybody can marry whomever they want and as many as they want. There is no rational reason to put any restriction on marriage, because you have shown the definition of marriage is simple a union of people. Again, thanks for your excellent insight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you threw a rhetorical tantrum, bringing in goats and polygamy. I've asked you specifically what the rational justification for restrictions on gender in marriage.
> 
> *And you have none, as there are none. *There's no rational reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry. Given that the right to marry is long recognized by the court, there needs to be a valid justification for withholding that right from same sex couples.
> 
> And the Court couldn't find any. Just as you couldn't find any. Which is exactly my point.
Click to expand...


Can your read? I am concealing that anybody can marry anybody. Sex, gender, race, number of spouses, it is all under the definition of marriage and I am ok with it. Why are you being such a sore winner? I don't care if you want to be married to 2 guys and a girl, or your mother or father, or if you want to marry your nephew or niece, or your son or daughter, it makes no difference to me. Marry whoever the hell you want to marry.


----------



## Skylar

BuckToothMoron said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lack of capacity for consent. Animals can't offer it. People can.
> 
> I've answered your question. Now you answer mine:
> 
> *What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage?
> *
> .....or you could just save yourself time and admit what we both already know:
> 
> There is no rational reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None, all people can marry whoever and as many people as they want. 1 guy can marry 3 women and 2 guys, and those 3 women can marry each other. There should be zero "discrimination" towards any person when it comes to marriage. I used to believe that marriage was a union between a man and a woman, but you have convinced me it is a union between any person with any other person, or any persons with any other persons. Thanks for being so persistent and helping me understand. You're the greatest!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still haven't answered my question. You're just running from it.
> 
> *What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage? *
> 
> You obviously have no rational reason. And you're in excellent company. The Supreme Court couldn't find one either.
> 
> Which is exactly my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just conceded that there should be no restriction on any person or persons when it comes to marriage. Anybody can marry whomever they want and as many as they want. There is no rational reason to put any restriction on marriage, because you have shown the definition of marriage is simple a union of people. Again, thanks for your excellent insight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you threw a rhetorical tantrum, bringing in goats and polygamy. I've asked you specifically what the rational justification for restrictions on gender in marriage.
> 
> *And you have none, as there are none. *There's no rational reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry. Given that the right to marry is long recognized by the court, there needs to be a valid justification for withholding that right from same sex couples.
> 
> And the Court couldn't find any. Just as you couldn't find any. Which is exactly my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can your read? I am concealing that anybody can marry anybody. Sex, gender, race, number of spouses, it is all under the definition of marriage and I am ok with it.
Click to expand...

Well, bigamy is still a crime. But beyond that, you're right.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Skylar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> None, all people can marry whoever and as many people as they want. 1 guy can marry 3 women and 2 guys, and those 3 women can marry each other. There should be zero "discrimination" towards any person when it comes to marriage. I used to believe that marriage was a union between a man and a woman, but you have convinced me it is a union between any person with any other person, or any persons with any other persons. Thanks for being so persistent and helping me understand. You're the greatest!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't answered my question. You're just running from it.
> 
> *What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage? *
> 
> You obviously have no rational reason. And you're in excellent company. The Supreme Court couldn't find one either.
> 
> Which is exactly my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just conceded that there should be no restriction on any person or persons when it comes to marriage. Anybody can marry whomever they want and as many as they want. There is no rational reason to put any restriction on marriage, because you have shown the definition of marriage is simple a union of people. Again, thanks for your excellent insight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you threw a rhetorical tantrum, bringing in goats and polygamy. I've asked you specifically what the rational justification for restrictions on gender in marriage.
> 
> *And you have none, as there are none. *There's no rational reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry. Given that the right to marry is long recognized by the court, there needs to be a valid justification for withholding that right from same sex couples.
> 
> And the Court couldn't find any. Just as you couldn't find any. Which is exactly my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can your read? I am concealing that anybody can marry anybody. Sex, gender, race, number of spouses, it is all under the definition of marriage and I am ok with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, bigamy is still a crime. But beyond that, you're right.
Click to expand...


Well that seems like a rather arbitrary place to draw the line. Why can't you have more than one spouse? I mean history is loaded with that being within the definition of marriage, certainly more so than same sex marriage. Why is it illegal?


----------



## Skylar

BuckToothMoron said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't answered my question. You're just running from it.
> 
> *What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage? *
> 
> You obviously have no rational reason. And you're in excellent company. The Supreme Court couldn't find one either.
> 
> Which is exactly my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just conceded that there should be no restriction on any person or persons when it comes to marriage. Anybody can marry whomever they want and as many as they want. There is no rational reason to put any restriction on marriage, because you have shown the definition of marriage is simple a union of people. Again, thanks for your excellent insight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you threw a rhetorical tantrum, bringing in goats and polygamy. I've asked you specifically what the rational justification for restrictions on gender in marriage.
> 
> *And you have none, as there are none. *There's no rational reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry. Given that the right to marry is long recognized by the court, there needs to be a valid justification for withholding that right from same sex couples.
> 
> And the Court couldn't find any. Just as you couldn't find any. Which is exactly my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can your read? I am concealing that anybody can marry anybody. Sex, gender, race, number of spouses, it is all under the definition of marriage and I am ok with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, bigamy is still a crime. But beyond that, you're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that seems like a rather arbitrary place to draw the line. Why can't you have more than one spouse? I mean history is loaded with that being within the definition of marriage, certainly more so than same sex marriage. Why is it illegal?
Click to expand...


Most likely because of issues of fraud. Plus its fundamentally incompatible with our caselaw surrounding marriage. Either one of those would likely be enough to keep it illegal.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have done so far is avoid my post, which answers all of your questions. Just in case you so not know how the study of history is conducted, here it is again:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Your entire post is merely assertion....*that you have backed with absolutely nothing. That's the Begging the Question fallacy.
> 
> *Prove your claims are right with evidence. *And you citing yourself isn't evidence. As you've already demonstrated with *wildly* inaccurate claims that you are uselessly unreliable.
> 
> Show us. Don't tell us.
> 
> If you're unclear by what I mean by 'evidence', take a look at the quotes from the Congressional Record that I offered you* where Bingham and Howard both affirmed that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. *That's evidence.
> 
> You citing yourself? That's an excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Avoiding my post only diminished your credibility.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, I preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is still you, citing only yourself. And you're uselessly unreliable.
> 
> *Show us the evidence to back your claims. *Not your Begging the Question fallacies.
> 
> Oh, and just FYI....preponderant isn't a verb. You can't 'preponderant' something. You're just trying too hard to sound like you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And you still can't back up *any* claim you've made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Avoiding my posts is not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.
> 
> Just you....citing yourself.
> 
> Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?
> 
> If so, that was easy.
Click to expand...


Let us recap what you have avoided so far:

Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completely dismiss the House debates.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights. 

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Skylar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just conceded that there should be no restriction on any person or persons when it comes to marriage. Anybody can marry whomever they want and as many as they want. There is no rational reason to put any restriction on marriage, because you have shown the definition of marriage is simple a union of people. Again, thanks for your excellent insight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you threw a rhetorical tantrum, bringing in goats and polygamy. I've asked you specifically what the rational justification for restrictions on gender in marriage.
> 
> *And you have none, as there are none. *There's no rational reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry. Given that the right to marry is long recognized by the court, there needs to be a valid justification for withholding that right from same sex couples.
> 
> And the Court couldn't find any. Just as you couldn't find any. Which is exactly my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can your read? I am concealing that anybody can marry anybody. Sex, gender, race, number of spouses, it is all under the definition of marriage and I am ok with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, bigamy is still a crime. But beyond that, you're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that seems like a rather arbitrary place to draw the line. Why can't you have more than one spouse? I mean history is loaded with that being within the definition of marriage, certainly more so than same sex marriage. Why is it illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most likely because of issues of fraud. Plus its fundamentally incompatible with our caselaw surrounding marriage. Either one of those would likely be enough to keep it illegal.
Click to expand...


Fraud? Don't really see that as a reason. Case law? Wasn't all the case law prior to same sex marriage that marriage was between opposite sexes. We didn't seem to have an issue changing it now. But you can still marry your mother, father, sister, nephew, or all your cousins, right?


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your entire post is merely assertion....*that you have backed with absolutely nothing. That's the Begging the Question fallacy.
> 
> *Prove your claims are right with evidence. *And you citing yourself isn't evidence. As you've already demonstrated with *wildly* inaccurate claims that you are uselessly unreliable.
> 
> Show us. Don't tell us.
> 
> If you're unclear by what I mean by 'evidence', take a look at the quotes from the Congressional Record that I offered you* where Bingham and Howard both affirmed that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. *That's evidence.
> 
> You citing yourself? That's an excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avoiding my post only diminished your credibility.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, I preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is still you, citing only yourself. And you're uselessly unreliable.
> 
> *Show us the evidence to back your claims. *Not your Begging the Question fallacies.
> 
> Oh, and just FYI....preponderant isn't a verb. You can't 'preponderant' something. You're just trying too hard to sound like you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And you still can't back up *any* claim you've made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Avoiding my posts is not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.
> 
> Just you....citing yourself.
> 
> Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?
> 
> If so, that was easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let us recap what you have avoided so far:
> 
> Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completely dismiss the House debates.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
Click to expand...


You just spammed the same exact post twice. 

And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself.  You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation. 

For example: 



			
				Tennyson said:
			
		

> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.



Prove he was ignored by the Senate. 



			
				Tennyson said:
			
		

> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship



Prove my quotations were out of context. 

You can't. You're done.


----------



## Skylar

BuckToothMoron said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you threw a rhetorical tantrum, bringing in goats and polygamy. I've asked you specifically what the rational justification for restrictions on gender in marriage.
> 
> *And you have none, as there are none. *There's no rational reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry. Given that the right to marry is long recognized by the court, there needs to be a valid justification for withholding that right from same sex couples.
> 
> And the Court couldn't find any. Just as you couldn't find any. Which is exactly my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can your read? I am concealing that anybody can marry anybody. Sex, gender, race, number of spouses, it is all under the definition of marriage and I am ok with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, bigamy is still a crime. But beyond that, you're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that seems like a rather arbitrary place to draw the line. Why can't you have more than one spouse? I mean history is loaded with that being within the definition of marriage, certainly more so than same sex marriage. Why is it illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most likely because of issues of fraud. Plus its fundamentally incompatible with our caselaw surrounding marriage. Either one of those would likely be enough to keep it illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fraud? Don't really see that as a reason.Case law? Wasn't all the case law prior to same sex marriage that marriage was between opposite sexes. We didn't seem to have an issue changing it now.
Click to expand...


Same sex marriage can use the exact same caselaw as opposite sex marriage. 

Polygamy can't. For example, lets say that there are three people that are married. And one wants a divorce. Does that mean that the entire union is dissolved or that the person that wants to divorce simply exists, leaving the other two still married?

I have no idea. No one does. As there is zero case law in any state to answer such questions. And there are a dozen just like it that our laws have no answer for.

There's your rational reason. 

What would be the rational reason for denying same sex couples access to marriage? You have none. Which is exactly my point.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avoiding my post only diminished your credibility.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, I preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is still you, citing only yourself. And you're uselessly unreliable.
> 
> *Show us the evidence to back your claims. *Not your Begging the Question fallacies.
> 
> Oh, and just FYI....preponderant isn't a verb. You can't 'preponderant' something. You're just trying too hard to sound like you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And you still can't back up *any* claim you've made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Avoiding my posts is not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.
> 
> Just you....citing yourself.
> 
> Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?
> 
> If so, that was easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let us recap what you have avoided so far:
> 
> Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completely dismiss the House debates.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just spammed the same exact post twice.
> 
> And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself.  You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove he was ignored by the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove my quotations were out of context.
> 
> You can't. You're done.
Click to expand...


It never came up again. The closest it came to being brought up as the re-writing of the amendment to make sure it did not infringe on federalism and to stay true to the civil rights act. 

Your out of context:

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is still you, citing only yourself. And you're uselessly unreliable.
> 
> *Show us the evidence to back your claims. *Not your Begging the Question fallacies.
> 
> Oh, and just FYI....preponderant isn't a verb. You can't 'preponderant' something. You're just trying too hard to sound like you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And you still can't back up *any* claim you've made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avoiding my posts is not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.
> 
> Just you....citing yourself.
> 
> Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?
> 
> If so, that was easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let us recap what you have avoided so far:
> 
> Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completely dismiss the House debates.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just spammed the same exact post twice.
> 
> And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself.  You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove he was ignored by the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove my quotations were out of context.
> 
> You can't. You're done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It never came up again. The closest it came to being brought up as the re-writing of the amendment to make sure it did not infringe on federalism and to stay true to the civil rights act.
Click to expand...


Prove it.

I've got 3 quotes from the Congressional record affirming that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. 

You've got you citing yourself. You lose again.



> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview



Then prove my quotes are out of context with evidence.

You can't. You're done.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avoiding my post only diminished your credibility.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, I preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is still you, citing only yourself. And you're uselessly unreliable.
> 
> *Show us the evidence to back your claims. *Not your Begging the Question fallacies.
> 
> Oh, and just FYI....preponderant isn't a verb. You can't 'preponderant' something. You're just trying too hard to sound like you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And you still can't back up *any* claim you've made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Avoiding my posts is not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.
> 
> Just you....citing yourself.
> 
> Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?
> 
> If so, that was easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let us recap what you have avoided so far:
> 
> Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completely dismiss the House debates.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just spammed the same exact post twice.
> 
> And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself.  You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove he was ignored by the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove my quotations were out of context.
> 
> You can't. You're done.
Click to expand...

I am so glad I am not a part of this


Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avoiding my post only diminished your credibility.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, I preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is still you, citing only yourself. And you're uselessly unreliable.
> 
> *Show us the evidence to back your claims. *Not your Begging the Question fallacies.
> 
> Oh, and just FYI....preponderant isn't a verb. You can't 'preponderant' something. You're just trying too hard to sound like you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And you still can't back up *any* claim you've made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Avoiding my posts is not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.
> 
> Just you....citing yourself.
> 
> Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?
> 
> If so, that was easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let us recap what you have avoided so far:
> 
> Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completely dismiss the House debates.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just spammed the same exact post twice.
> 
> And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself.  You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove he was ignored by the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove my quotations were out of context.
> 
> You can't. You're done.
Click to expand...


I am so glad I am not a part of this argument. You guys are so smart, 
nobody else can tell what you're arguing about.


Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avoiding my post only diminished your credibility.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, I preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is still you, citing only yourself. And you're uselessly unreliable.
> 
> *Show us the evidence to back your claims. *Not your Begging the Question fallacies.
> 
> Oh, and just FYI....preponderant isn't a verb. You can't 'preponderant' something. You're just trying too hard to sound like you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And you still can't back up *any* claim you've made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Avoiding my posts is not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.
> 
> Just you....citing yourself.
> 
> Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?
> 
> If so, that was easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let us recap what you have avoided so far:
> 
> Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completely dismiss the House debates.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just spammed the same exact post twice.
> 
> And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself.  You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove he was ignored by the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove my quotations were out of context.
> 
> You can't. You're done.
Click to expand...


I am so glad I am not a part of this argument. You guys are so smart, 
nobody else can tell what you're arguing about.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Skylar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can your read? I am concealing that anybody can marry anybody. Sex, gender, race, number of spouses, it is all under the definition of marriage and I am ok with it.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, bigamy is still a crime. But beyond that, you're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that seems like a rather arbitrary place to draw the line. Why can't you have more than one spouse? I mean history is loaded with that being within the definition of marriage, certainly more so than same sex marriage. Why is it illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most likely because of issues of fraud. Plus its fundamentally incompatible with our caselaw surrounding marriage. Either one of those would likely be enough to keep it illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fraud? Don't really see that as a reason.Case law? Wasn't all the case law prior to same sex marriage that marriage was between opposite sexes. We didn't seem to have an issue changing it now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same sex marriage can use the exact same caselaw as opposite sex marriage.
> 
> Polygamy can't. For example, lets say that there are three people that are married. And one wants a divorce. Does that mean that the entire union is dissolved or that the person that wants to divorce simply exists, leaving the other two still married?
> 
> I have no idea. No one does. As there is zero case law in any state to answer such questions. And there are a dozen just like it that our laws have no answer for.
> 
> There's your rational reason.
> 
> What would be the rational reason for denying same sex couples access to marriage? You have none. Which is exactly my point.
Click to expand...


So polygamy is bad and illegal because we don't know how to dissolve it if  one of the married people wants a divorce? Hmm....we don't want it to be legal because we don't know how to dissolve it when it doesn't work, is that what you're saying?
It's seems to me, that if a man marries a woman, and then he marries another woman, then the man is married to two woman separately. And if he or one of his wives wants a divorce, why does that divorce have any effective on the man's other wife? Let's assume of course, that the two women are only married to the one man, and not each other. I mean what is wrong with a man having 2 wives, 2 separate families?


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avoiding my posts is not an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.
> 
> Just you....citing yourself.
> 
> Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?
> 
> If so, that was easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let us recap what you have avoided so far:
> 
> Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completely dismiss the House debates.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just spammed the same exact post twice.
> 
> And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself.  You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove he was ignored by the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove my quotations were out of context.
> 
> You can't. You're done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It never came up again. The closest it came to being brought up as the re-writing of the amendment to make sure it did not infringe on federalism and to stay true to the civil rights act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> I've got 3 quotes from the Congressional record affirming that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> You've got you citing yourself. You lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then prove my quotes are out of context with evidence.
> 
> You can't. You're done.
Click to expand...


You have three out of context quotes. I probably need to make you aware that there was an entire Senate and and entire House, and the debated did not revolve around you out of context quotes or Bingham and Howard.

You keep using the same out of context quotes. I have no idea why you keep posting this quote as Howard’s thoughts on the Bill of Rights. Howard quoted from _Corfield vs. Coryell_ regarding the privileges and immunities in the context of the commerce clause. It has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights, but the privileges and immunity clause of Article IV.

_



			Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the *second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. *To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments...
		
Click to expand...

_
Again, you keep posting this same out of context quote as well, and is from the middle of a statement regarding
the privileges and immunities clause, not the Bill of Rights.



> The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees.


_
_
Why do you not add this statement by Bingham?



> Allow me, Mr. Speaker, in passing, to say that this amendment takes from no State any right that ever pertained to it.


_
_
I am not sure what you point is by avoiding my posts and posting out of context quotes by two people. 
_
_


_


_


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> You have three out of context quotes.



Begging the Question. Prove they are out of context. You merely saying it must be so is meaningless gibberish.

*Show us the evidence. You can't. Which is why you keep running every time I ask.*



> I probably need to make you aware that there was an entire Senate and and entire House, and the debated did not revolve around you out of context quotes or Bingham and Howard.



Like when you tried to tell us that *no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the bill of rights to the States?*

Bingham and Howard both put your silly load of rhetorical horseshit to bed.

*Laughing....dude, you don't know what you're talking about.* Which is why I'm asking you for actual quotes from the Congressional Record rather than your ignorant blather about what the record included. As you've demonstrated, unambiguously, that* you don't know what the Congressional Record included.*

Show us the quotes supporting your argument. Don't tell us about them.



> Again, you keep posting this same out of context quote as well, and is from the middle of a statement regarding
> the privileges and immunities clause, not the Bill of Rights.



Obvious bullshit. He says right there a sentence or so later,  '_* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*'_

_The first 8 amendments of the Bill of Rights are all enumerated rights in the constitution at that point. These were the fundamental rights that he insisted should be applied to the States._

And yet in defiance of all reason, you insist he wasn't referring to the Bill of Rights?!

_Laughing...really?. There's a reason why 120 years of judicial precedent is on one side of this issue and you on the other. Because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about._



> Why do you not add this statement by Bingham?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me, Mr. Speaker, in passing, to say that this amendment takes from no State any right that ever pertained to it.
Click to expand...


And who, pray tell, claims that the 14th takes away a right of the State?



> I am not sure what you point is by avoiding my posts and posting out of context quotes by two people.



*Prove they're out of context.* I'm not sure what the point of your Begging the Question fallacy is. But given your wildly inaccurate claims about the Congressional Record (remember your idiocy that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the bill of rights to the States), surely you understand why you citing yourself is meaningless gibber jabber.

Prove your claims. You can't. You're done.


----------



## Skylar

BuckToothMoron said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, bigamy is still a crime. But beyond that, you're right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that seems like a rather arbitrary place to draw the line. Why can't you have more than one spouse? I mean history is loaded with that being within the definition of marriage, certainly more so than same sex marriage. Why is it illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most likely because of issues of fraud. Plus its fundamentally incompatible with our caselaw surrounding marriage. Either one of those would likely be enough to keep it illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fraud? Don't really see that as a reason.Case law? Wasn't all the case law prior to same sex marriage that marriage was between opposite sexes. We didn't seem to have an issue changing it now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same sex marriage can use the exact same caselaw as opposite sex marriage.
> 
> Polygamy can't. For example, lets say that there are three people that are married. And one wants a divorce. Does that mean that the entire union is dissolved or that the person that wants to divorce simply exists, leaving the other two still married?
> 
> I have no idea. No one does. As there is zero case law in any state to answer such questions. And there are a dozen just like it that our laws have no answer for.
> 
> There's your rational reason.
> 
> What would be the rational reason for denying same sex couples access to marriage? You have none. Which is exactly my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So polygamy is bad and illegal because we don't know how to dissolve it if  one of the married people wants a divorce?
Click to expand...


Polygamy has a rational basis for denial: its complete incompatibility with our existing caselaw regarding marriage.

*What is the rational reason for the gender based discrimination in marriage?* As same sex couples use marriage law the exact same way that opposite sex couples do.

You've never once been able to answer that question.


----------



## Skylar

BuckToothMoron said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is still you, citing only yourself. And you're uselessly unreliable.
> 
> *Show us the evidence to back your claims. *Not your Begging the Question fallacies.
> 
> Oh, and just FYI....preponderant isn't a verb. You can't 'preponderant' something. You're just trying too hard to sound like you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And you still can't back up *any* claim you've made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avoiding my posts is not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.
> 
> Just you....citing yourself.
> 
> Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?
> 
> If so, that was easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let us recap what you have avoided so far:
> 
> Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completely dismiss the House debates.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just spammed the same exact post twice.
> 
> And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself.  You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove he was ignored by the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove my quotations were out of context.
> 
> You can't. You're done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am so glad I am not a part of this
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is still you, citing only yourself. And you're uselessly unreliable.
> 
> *Show us the evidence to back your claims. *Not your Begging the Question fallacies.
> 
> Oh, and just FYI....preponderant isn't a verb. You can't 'preponderant' something. You're just trying too hard to sound like you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And you still can't back up *any* claim you've made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Avoiding my posts is not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.
> 
> Just you....citing yourself.
> 
> Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?
> 
> If so, that was easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let us recap what you have avoided so far:
> 
> Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completely dismiss the House debates.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just spammed the same exact post twice.
> 
> And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself.  You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove he was ignored by the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove my quotations were out of context.
> 
> You can't. You're done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am so glad I am not a part of this argument. You guys are so smart,
> nobody else can tell what you're arguing about.
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is still you, citing only yourself. And you're uselessly unreliable.
> 
> *Show us the evidence to back your claims. *Not your Begging the Question fallacies.
> 
> Oh, and just FYI....preponderant isn't a verb. You can't 'preponderant' something. You're just trying too hard to sound like you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And you still can't back up *any* claim you've made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Avoiding my posts is not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.
> 
> Just you....citing yourself.
> 
> Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?
> 
> If so, that was easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let us recap what you have avoided so far:
> 
> Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completely dismiss the House debates.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just spammed the same exact post twice.
> 
> And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself.  You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove he was ignored by the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove my quotations were out of context.
> 
> You can't. You're done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am so glad I am not a part of this argument. You guys are so smart,
> nobody else can tell what you're arguing about.
Click to expand...

*
I've argued that the 14th amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the States.* A finding the Supreme Court agrees with and has for the last 120 years, as defined in their 'incorporation doctrine'.

*I've also argued that the 14th amendment was meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.* As demonstrated by Rep. John Bingham, the primary author of section 1 of the 14th amendment explicitly stating as much when introducing the 14th amendment to the House.

And Senator Jacob Howard saying the same thing when introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate. Both men were members of the joint committee tasked with writing the amendment.
*
Tenny insists that the Supreme Court is wrong, and that no one in the 39th Congress ever said that the 14th applies the Bill of Rights to the States. *This despite me having quoting both Bingham and Howard explicitly stating that the 14th did apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

Tenny insists that my two enormous quotes were taken 'out of context'. But when pressed to prove that claim.....he just says it must be so. 

That's pretty much our debate. I can show you the quotes if you'd like. There's no ambiguity.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Skylar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that seems like a rather arbitrary place to draw the line. Why can't you have more than one spouse? I mean history is loaded with that being within the definition of marriage, certainly more so than same sex marriage. Why is it illegal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most likely because of issues of fraud. Plus its fundamentally incompatible with our caselaw surrounding marriage. Either one of those would likely be enough to keep it illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fraud? Don't really see that as a reason.Case law? Wasn't all the case law prior to same sex marriage that marriage was between opposite sexes. We didn't seem to have an issue changing it now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same sex marriage can use the exact same caselaw as opposite sex marriage.
> 
> Polygamy can't. For example, lets say that there are three people that are married. And one wants a divorce. Does that mean that the entire union is dissolved or that the person that wants to divorce simply exists, leaving the other two still married?
> 
> I have no idea. No one does. As there is zero case law in any state to answer such questions. And there are a dozen just like it that our laws have no answer for.
> 
> There's your rational reason.
> 
> What would be the rational reason for denying same sex couples access to marriage? You have none. Which is exactly my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So polygamy is bad and illegal because we don't know how to dissolve it if  one of the married people wants a divorce?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polygamy has a rational basis for denial: its complete incompatibility with our existing caselaw regarding marriage.
> 
> *What is the rational reason for the gender based discrimination in marriage?* As same sex couples use marriage law the exact same way that opposite sex couples do.
> 
> You've never once been able to answer that question.
Click to expand...


I've conceded....for the third time. What case law was there for same sex that doesn't apply to polygamy?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Skylar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avoiding my posts is not an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.
> 
> Just you....citing yourself.
> 
> Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?
> 
> If so, that was easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let us recap what you have avoided so far:
> 
> Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completely dismiss the House debates.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just spammed the same exact post twice.
> 
> And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself.  You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove he was ignored by the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove my quotations were out of context.
> 
> You can't. You're done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am so glad I am not a part of this
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avoiding my posts is not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.
> 
> Just you....citing yourself.
> 
> Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?
> 
> If so, that was easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let us recap what you have avoided so far:
> 
> Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completely dismiss the House debates.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just spammed the same exact post twice.
> 
> And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself.  You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove he was ignored by the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove my quotations were out of context.
> 
> You can't. You're done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am so glad I am not a part of this argument. You guys are so smart,
> nobody else can tell what you're arguing about.
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avoiding my posts is not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.
> 
> Just you....citing yourself.
> 
> Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?
> 
> If so, that was easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let us recap what you have avoided so far:
> 
> Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completely dismiss the House debates.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just spammed the same exact post twice.
> 
> And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself.  You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove he was ignored by the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove my quotations were out of context.
> 
> You can't. You're done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am so glad I am not a part of this argument. You guys are so smart,
> nobody else can tell what you're arguing about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> I've argued that the 14th amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the States.* A finding the Supreme Court agrees with and has for the last 120 years, as defined in their 'incorporation doctrine'.
> 
> *I've also argued that the 14th amendment was meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.* As demonstrated by Rep. John Bingham, the primary author of section 1 of the 14th amendment explicitly stating as much when introducing the 14th amendment to the House.
> 
> And Senator Jacob Howard saying the same thing when introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate. Both men were members of the joint committee tasked with writing the amendment.
> *
> Tenny insists that the Supreme Court is wrong, and that no one in the 39th Congress ever said that the 14th applies the Bill of Rights to the States. *This despite me having quoting both Bingham and Howard explicitly stating that the 14th did apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> Tenny insists that my two enormous quotes were taken 'out of context'. But when pressed to prove that claim.....he just says it must be so.
> 
> That's pretty much our debate. I can show you the quotes if you'd like. There's no ambiguity.
Click to expand...


Uh, no thanks. I think I know all I need to know about you and your opinions


----------



## Skylar

BuckToothMoron said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.
> 
> Just you....citing yourself.
> 
> Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?
> 
> If so, that was easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let us recap what you have avoided so far:
> 
> Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completely dismiss the House debates.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just spammed the same exact post twice.
> 
> And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself.  You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove he was ignored by the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove my quotations were out of context.
> 
> You can't. You're done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am so glad I am not a part of this
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.
> 
> Just you....citing yourself.
> 
> Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?
> 
> If so, that was easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let us recap what you have avoided so far:
> 
> Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completely dismiss the House debates.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just spammed the same exact post twice.
> 
> And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself.  You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove he was ignored by the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove my quotations were out of context.
> 
> You can't. You're done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am so glad I am not a part of this argument. You guys are so smart,
> nobody else can tell what you're arguing about.
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.
> 
> Just you....citing yourself.
> 
> Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?
> 
> If so, that was easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let us recap what you have avoided so far:
> 
> Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completely dismiss the House debates.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.
> 
> You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.
> 
> What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to _Corfield v. Coryell_ in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.
> 
> What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.
> 
> What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.
> 
> Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.
> 
> If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.
> 
> You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just spammed the same exact post twice.
> 
> And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself.  You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove he was ignored by the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove my quotations were out of context.
> 
> You can't. You're done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am so glad I am not a part of this argument. You guys are so smart,
> nobody else can tell what you're arguing about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> I've argued that the 14th amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the States.* A finding the Supreme Court agrees with and has for the last 120 years, as defined in their 'incorporation doctrine'.
> 
> *I've also argued that the 14th amendment was meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.* As demonstrated by Rep. John Bingham, the primary author of section 1 of the 14th amendment explicitly stating as much when introducing the 14th amendment to the House.
> 
> And Senator Jacob Howard saying the same thing when introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate. Both men were members of the joint committee tasked with writing the amendment.
> *
> Tenny insists that the Supreme Court is wrong, and that no one in the 39th Congress ever said that the 14th applies the Bill of Rights to the States. *This despite me having quoting both Bingham and Howard explicitly stating that the 14th did apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> Tenny insists that my two enormous quotes were taken 'out of context'. But when pressed to prove that claim.....he just says it must be so.
> 
> That's pretty much our debate. I can show you the quotes if you'd like. There's no ambiguity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no thanks. I think I know all I need to know about you and your opinions
Click to expand...


Then don't read a single one of my opinions. Just read Senator Howard's statements when introducing the 14th amendment.....or the Supreme Court's findings for the last 120 years.

I'm gloriously irrelevant to the validity of the argument, being merely a messenger.


----------



## Skylar

BuckToothMoron said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most likely because of issues of fraud. Plus its fundamentally incompatible with our caselaw surrounding marriage. Either one of those would likely be enough to keep it illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fraud? Don't really see that as a reason.Case law? Wasn't all the case law prior to same sex marriage that marriage was between opposite sexes. We didn't seem to have an issue changing it now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same sex marriage can use the exact same caselaw as opposite sex marriage.
> 
> Polygamy can't. For example, lets say that there are three people that are married. And one wants a divorce. Does that mean that the entire union is dissolved or that the person that wants to divorce simply exists, leaving the other two still married?
> 
> I have no idea. No one does. As there is zero case law in any state to answer such questions. And there are a dozen just like it that our laws have no answer for.
> 
> There's your rational reason.
> 
> What would be the rational reason for denying same sex couples access to marriage? You have none. Which is exactly my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So polygamy is bad and illegal because we don't know how to dissolve it if  one of the married people wants a divorce?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polygamy has a rational basis for denial: its complete incompatibility with our existing caselaw regarding marriage.
> 
> *What is the rational reason for the gender based discrimination in marriage?* As same sex couples use marriage law the exact same way that opposite sex couples do.
> 
> You've never once been able to answer that question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've conceded....for the third time. What case law was there for same sex that doesn't apply to polygamy?
Click to expand...


The Oberfegell ruling, for one. There's no mention of polygamy anywhere in it. Nor has there been the slightest application of the Obergefell ruling in defense of polygamy by any court, anywhere.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Skylar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fraud? Don't really see that as a reason.Case law? Wasn't all the case law prior to same sex marriage that marriage was between opposite sexes. We didn't seem to have an issue changing it now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same sex marriage can use the exact same caselaw as opposite sex marriage.
> 
> Polygamy can't. For example, lets say that there are three people that are married. And one wants a divorce. Does that mean that the entire union is dissolved or that the person that wants to divorce simply exists, leaving the other two still married?
> 
> I have no idea. No one does. As there is zero case law in any state to answer such questions. And there are a dozen just like it that our laws have no answer for.
> 
> There's your rational reason.
> 
> What would be the rational reason for denying same sex couples access to marriage? You have none. Which is exactly my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So polygamy is bad and illegal because we don't know how to dissolve it if  one of the married people wants a divorce?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polygamy has a rational basis for denial: its complete incompatibility with our existing caselaw regarding marriage.
> 
> *What is the rational reason for the gender based discrimination in marriage?* As same sex couples use marriage law the exact same way that opposite sex couples do.
> 
> You've never once been able to answer that question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've conceded....for the third time. What case law was there for same sex that doesn't apply to polygamy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Oberfegell ruling, for one. There's no mention of polygamy anywhere in it. Nor has there been the slightest application of the Obergefell ruling in defense of polygamy by any court, anywhere.
Click to expand...

 
And when was the first case law for same sex?


----------



## Skylar

BuckToothMoron said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same sex marriage can use the exact same caselaw as opposite sex marriage.
> 
> Polygamy can't. For example, lets say that there are three people that are married. And one wants a divorce. Does that mean that the entire union is dissolved or that the person that wants to divorce simply exists, leaving the other two still married?
> 
> I have no idea. No one does. As there is zero case law in any state to answer such questions. And there are a dozen just like it that our laws have no answer for.
> 
> There's your rational reason.
> 
> What would be the rational reason for denying same sex couples access to marriage? You have none. Which is exactly my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So polygamy is bad and illegal because we don't know how to dissolve it if  one of the married people wants a divorce?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polygamy has a rational basis for denial: its complete incompatibility with our existing caselaw regarding marriage.
> 
> *What is the rational reason for the gender based discrimination in marriage?* As same sex couples use marriage law the exact same way that opposite sex couples do.
> 
> You've never once been able to answer that question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've conceded....for the third time. What case law was there for same sex that doesn't apply to polygamy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Oberfegell ruling, for one. There's no mention of polygamy anywhere in it. Nor has there been the slightest application of the Obergefell ruling in defense of polygamy by any court, anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when was the first case law for same sex?
Click to expand...


'For same sex'? You mean in favor of same sexes? Or simply in regard to same sex marriage? 

If the latter, that would probably be the Baker v. Nelson back in the 70s. 

If you mean in favor of same sex marriage, that would be Windsor v US in 2013. And if want to talk about the history of cases that led up to Windsor.......you'd probably start with Loving v. Virginia, then to Romer v. Evans, then Lawrence v. Texas. 

None of which, to the best of my knowledge, have been applied by the courts in defense of polygamy by any court.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Skylar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> So polygamy is bad and illegal because we don't know how to dissolve it if  one of the married people wants a divorce?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polygamy has a rational basis for denial: its complete incompatibility with our existing caselaw regarding marriage.
> 
> *What is the rational reason for the gender based discrimination in marriage?* As same sex couples use marriage law the exact same way that opposite sex couples do.
> 
> You've never once been able to answer that question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've conceded....for the third time. What case law was there for same sex that doesn't apply to polygamy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Oberfegell ruling, for one. There's no mention of polygamy anywhere in it. Nor has there been the slightest application of the Obergefell ruling in defense of polygamy by any court, anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when was the first case law for same sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'For same sex'? You mean in favor of same sexes? Or simply in regard to same sex marriage?
> 
> If the latter, that would probably be the Baker v. Nelson back in the 70s.
> 
> If you mean in favor of same sex marriage, that would be Windsor v US in 2013. And if want to talk about the history of cases that led up to Windsor.......you'd probably start with Loving v. Virginia, then to Romer v. Evans, then Lawrence v. Texas.
> 
> None of which, to the best of my knowledge, have been applied by the courts in defense of polygamy by any court.
Click to expand...


And what did Baker V Nelson decide with regard to same sex?


----------



## Skylar

BuckToothMoron said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Polygamy has a rational basis for denial: its complete incompatibility with our existing caselaw regarding marriage.
> 
> *What is the rational reason for the gender based discrimination in marriage?* As same sex couples use marriage law the exact same way that opposite sex couples do.
> 
> You've never once been able to answer that question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've conceded....for the third time. What case law was there for same sex that doesn't apply to polygamy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Oberfegell ruling, for one. There's no mention of polygamy anywhere in it. Nor has there been the slightest application of the Obergefell ruling in defense of polygamy by any court, anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when was the first case law for same sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'For same sex'? You mean in favor of same sexes? Or simply in regard to same sex marriage?
> 
> If the latter, that would probably be the Baker v. Nelson back in the 70s.
> 
> If you mean in favor of same sex marriage, that would be Windsor v US in 2013. And if want to talk about the history of cases that led up to Windsor.......you'd probably start with Loving v. Virginia, then to Romer v. Evans, then Lawrence v. Texas.
> 
> None of which, to the best of my knowledge, have been applied by the courts in defense of polygamy by any court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what did Baker V Nelson decide with regard to same sex?
Click to expand...


It was a one sentence denial of writ of certiorari back when the law required that such denials of cert be formal replies. 

The court does the same thing hundreds of time a year now with no comment.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Skylar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've conceded....for the third time. What case law was there for same sex that doesn't apply to polygamy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Oberfegell ruling, for one. There's no mention of polygamy anywhere in it. Nor has there been the slightest application of the Obergefell ruling in defense of polygamy by any court, anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when was the first case law for same sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'For same sex'? You mean in favor of same sexes? Or simply in regard to same sex marriage?
> 
> If the latter, that would probably be the Baker v. Nelson back in the 70s.
> 
> If you mean in favor of same sex marriage, that would be Windsor v US in 2013. And if want to talk about the history of cases that led up to Windsor.......you'd probably start with Loving v. Virginia, then to Romer v. Evans, then Lawrence v. Texas.
> 
> None of which, to the best of my knowledge, have been applied by the courts in defense of polygamy by any court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what did Baker V Nelson decide with regard to same sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a one sentence denial of writ of certiorari back when the law required that such denials of cert be formal replies.
> 
> The court does the same thing hundreds of time a year now with no comment.
Click to expand...


Aside from the legal Latin, they said no to same sex?


----------



## Skylar

BuckToothMoron said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Oberfegell ruling, for one. There's no mention of polygamy anywhere in it. Nor has there been the slightest application of the Obergefell ruling in defense of polygamy by any court, anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when was the first case law for same sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'For same sex'? You mean in favor of same sexes? Or simply in regard to same sex marriage?
> 
> If the latter, that would probably be the Baker v. Nelson back in the 70s.
> 
> If you mean in favor of same sex marriage, that would be Windsor v US in 2013. And if want to talk about the history of cases that led up to Windsor.......you'd probably start with Loving v. Virginia, then to Romer v. Evans, then Lawrence v. Texas.
> 
> None of which, to the best of my knowledge, have been applied by the courts in defense of polygamy by any court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what did Baker V Nelson decide with regard to same sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a one sentence denial of writ of certiorari back when the law required that such denials of cert be formal replies.
> 
> The court does the same thing hundreds of time a year now with no comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aside from the legal Latin, they said no to same sex?
Click to expand...


They refused to hear the case.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Skylar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when was the first case law for same sex?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'For same sex'? You mean in favor of same sexes? Or simply in regard to same sex marriage?
> 
> If the latter, that would probably be the Baker v. Nelson back in the 70s.
> 
> If you mean in favor of same sex marriage, that would be Windsor v US in 2013. And if want to talk about the history of cases that led up to Windsor.......you'd probably start with Loving v. Virginia, then to Romer v. Evans, then Lawrence v. Texas.
> 
> None of which, to the best of my knowledge, have been applied by the courts in defense of polygamy by any court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what did Baker V Nelson decide with regard to same sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a one sentence denial of writ of certiorari back when the law required that such denials of cert be formal replies.
> 
> The court does the same thing hundreds of time a year now with no comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aside from the legal Latin, they said no to same sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They refused to hear the case.
Click to expand...

 
Who refused? Which court?


----------



## Skylar

BuckToothMoron said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'For same sex'? You mean in favor of same sexes? Or simply in regard to same sex marriage?
> 
> If the latter, that would probably be the Baker v. Nelson back in the 70s.
> 
> If you mean in favor of same sex marriage, that would be Windsor v US in 2013. And if want to talk about the history of cases that led up to Windsor.......you'd probably start with Loving v. Virginia, then to Romer v. Evans, then Lawrence v. Texas.
> 
> None of which, to the best of my knowledge, have been applied by the courts in defense of polygamy by any court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what did Baker V Nelson decide with regard to same sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a one sentence denial of writ of certiorari back when the law required that such denials of cert be formal replies.
> 
> The court does the same thing hundreds of time a year now with no comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aside from the legal Latin, they said no to same sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They refused to hear the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who refused? Which court?
Click to expand...


The _Supreme Court_. Of the United States? You....you get that's who we're talking about, right?

And if you want to know who specifically issued the denial of cert, look it up.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have three out of context quotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Begging the Question. Prove they are out of context. You merely saying it must be so is meaningless gibberish.
> 
> *Show us the evidence. You can't. Which is why you keep running every time I ask.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I probably need to make you aware that there was an entire Senate and and entire House, and the debated did not revolve around you out of context quotes or Bingham and Howard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like when you tried to tell us that *no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the bill of rights to the States?*
> 
> Bingham and Howard both put your silly load of rhetorical horseshit to bed.
> 
> *Laughing....dude, you don't know what you're talking about.* Which is why I'm asking you for actual quotes from the Congressional Record rather than your ignorant blather about what the record included. As you've demonstrated, unambiguously, that* you don't know what the Congressional Record included.*
> 
> Show us the quotes supporting your argument. Don't tell us about them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you keep posting this same out of context quote as well, and is from the middle of a statement regarding
> the privileges and immunities clause, not the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obvious bullshit. He says right there a sentence or so later,  '_* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*'_
> 
> _The first 8 amendments of the Bill of Rights are all enumerated rights in the constitution at that point. These were the fundamental rights that he insisted should be applied to the States._
> 
> And yet in defiance of all reason, you insist he wasn't referring to the Bill of Rights?!
> 
> _Laughing...really?. There's a reason why 120 years of judicial precedent is on one side of this issue and you on the other. Because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you not add this statement by Bingham?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me, Mr. Speaker, in passing, to say that this amendment takes from no State any right that ever pertained to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who, pray tell, claims that the 14th takes away a right of the State?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what you point is by avoiding my posts and posting out of context quotes by two people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Prove they're out of context.* I'm not sure what the point of your Begging the Question fallacy is. But given your wildly inaccurate claims about the Congressional Record (remember your idiocy that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the bill of rights to the States), surely you understand why you citing yourself is meaningless gibber jabber.
> 
> Prove your claims. You can't. You're done.
Click to expand...



I am pretty confident that I have sufficiently demonstrated that your quotes are out of context.  Just in case you are not familiar with what context may be, regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, it would be the very first words spoken to the very last words spoken of the 39th Congress regarding not only the Fourteenth Amendment, but the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The debates started on April 30, 1866 and culminated on July 9, 1868. That is almost a year of debates with the civil rights act and hundreds of pages of debates. Your entire argument rests on a couple of out of context quotes by Bingham and Howard. Not only are the quotes out of context with their full body of statements limiting the Fourteenth Amendment to an enforcement of the privileges and immunity act of Article IV, but are out of context with the totality of the debates. Even if there statements were in context and they did offer them up as debate, which did not happen, there sentiments were ignored and the body of the debates did not revolve around the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Your first fatal flaw, and the fatal flaw of all incorporation apologists, is if the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to incorporate the Bill of Rights, it would have stated that it was incorporating the Bill of Rights. The primary purpose and function would have been to overturn _Barron v Baltimore_, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833):



> Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.
> 
> In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.




Not only did the 39th Congress did not make the amendment overturn Barron, but the amendment did not mention incorporation the Bill of Rights. If you want to know how an amendment or the Bill of Rights would have been amended, then read the Eighteenth Amendment and how it was amended with the Twenty-First Amendment.



> * Amendment XXI*
> 
> Section 1.
> 
> The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
> 
> Section 2.
> 
> The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
> 
> Section 3.
> 
> This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.



The Twenty-First Amendment is how the Fourteenth Amendment would have read if it incorporated the Bill of Rights.

And again, this is why your out of context quotes have no value.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.



> Prove your claims. You can't. You're done.



What a petty little person you are.


----------



## Skylar

The Supreme Court decides which cases they want to hear by issuing a court order for the submission of documents of a lower court case known as a 'writ of certiorari.' They cherry pick which cases they want to hear. 

Now, if you want the Supreme Court to hear your case, you can file a petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari. Essentially a request for the court to issue the writ in an appellant capacity. They will either approve or deny your request. If they approve your request, then there's a hearing before the Supreme Court and a formal ruling.

If they deny the request (which is what almost always happens), then the ruling of the highest court to hear a case stands. The lower court ruling doesn't form binding precedent nation wide. 

On very rare occasion, the court can choose to issue a writ of cert on their own without an petition. This is crazy rare, but within the court's capacity.

In the case of Baker v. Nelson, a lower court had ruled on a request of two gay guys to marry. They lower denied them. The two dudes petitioned the court for a writ of cert. The Supreme Court denied the petition.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've conceded....for the third time. What case law was there for same sex that doesn't apply to polygamy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Oberfegell ruling, for one. There's no mention of polygamy anywhere in it. Nor has there been the slightest application of the Obergefell ruling in defense of polygamy by any court, anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when was the first case law for same sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'For same sex'? You mean in favor of same sexes? Or simply in regard to same sex marriage?
> 
> If the latter, that would probably be the Baker v. Nelson back in the 70s.
> 
> If you mean in favor of same sex marriage, that would be Windsor v US in 2013. And if want to talk about the history of cases that led up to Windsor.......you'd probably start with Loving v. Virginia, then to Romer v. Evans, then Lawrence v. Texas.
> 
> None of which, to the best of my knowledge, have been applied by the courts in defense of polygamy by any court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what did Baker V Nelson decide with regard to same sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a one sentence denial of writ of certiorari back when the law required that such denials of cert be formal replies.
> 
> The court does the same thing hundreds of time a year now with no comment.
Click to expand...


Baker was not a petitioned via a _writ of certiorari_. The Supreme Court operated under mandatory appellate review during the time of Baker.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fraud? Don't really see that as a reason.Case law? Wasn't all the case law prior to same sex marriage that marriage was between opposite sexes. We didn't seem to have an issue changing it now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same sex marriage can use the exact same caselaw as opposite sex marriage.
> 
> Polygamy can't. For example, lets say that there are three people that are married. And one wants a divorce. Does that mean that the entire union is dissolved or that the person that wants to divorce simply exists, leaving the other two still married?
> 
> I have no idea. No one does. As there is zero case law in any state to answer such questions. And there are a dozen just like it that our laws have no answer for.
> 
> There's your rational reason.
> 
> What would be the rational reason for denying same sex couples access to marriage? You have none. Which is exactly my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So polygamy is bad and illegal because we don't know how to dissolve it if  one of the married people wants a divorce?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polygamy has a rational basis for denial: its complete incompatibility with our existing caselaw regarding marriage.
> 
> *What is the rational reason for the gender based discrimination in marriage?* As same sex couples use marriage law the exact same way that opposite sex couples do.
> 
> You've never once been able to answer that question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've conceded....for the third time. What case law was there for same sex that doesn't apply to polygamy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Oberfegell ruling, for one. There's no mention of polygamy anywhere in it. Nor has there been the slightest application of the Obergefell ruling in defense of polygamy by any court, anywhere.
Click to expand...


Jonathan Turley used the Oberfegell  ruling for a defense of polygamy in Utah.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have three out of context quotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Begging the Question. Prove they are out of context. You merely saying it must be so is meaningless gibberish.
> 
> *Show us the evidence. You can't. Which is why you keep running every time I ask.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I probably need to make you aware that there was an entire Senate and and entire House, and the debated did not revolve around you out of context quotes or Bingham and Howard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like when you tried to tell us that *no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the bill of rights to the States?*
> 
> Bingham and Howard both put your silly load of rhetorical horseshit to bed.
> 
> *Laughing....dude, you don't know what you're talking about.* Which is why I'm asking you for actual quotes from the Congressional Record rather than your ignorant blather about what the record included. As you've demonstrated, unambiguously, that* you don't know what the Congressional Record included.*
> 
> Show us the quotes supporting your argument. Don't tell us about them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you keep posting this same out of context quote as well, and is from the middle of a statement regarding
> the privileges and immunities clause, not the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obvious bullshit. He says right there a sentence or so later,  '_* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*'_
> 
> _The first 8 amendments of the Bill of Rights are all enumerated rights in the constitution at that point. These were the fundamental rights that he insisted should be applied to the States._
> 
> And yet in defiance of all reason, you insist he wasn't referring to the Bill of Rights?!
> 
> _Laughing...really?. There's a reason why 120 years of judicial precedent is on one side of this issue and you on the other. Because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you not add this statement by Bingham?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me, Mr. Speaker, in passing, to say that this amendment takes from no State any right that ever pertained to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who, pray tell, claims that the 14th takes away a right of the State?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what you point is by avoiding my posts and posting out of context quotes by two people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Prove they're out of context.* I'm not sure what the point of your Begging the Question fallacy is. But given your wildly inaccurate claims about the Congressional Record (remember your idiocy that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the bill of rights to the States), surely you understand why you citing yourself is meaningless gibber jabber.
> 
> Prove your claims. You can't. You're done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am pretty confident that I have sufficiently demonstrated that your quotes are out of context.
Click to expand...


Nope. You haven't. As the only citation you've made from the entire congressional record...._is one sentence._ That doesn't contradict anything I've said.

You've TOLD us what you think the 39th congress said. But as demonstrated by your ludicrously inaccurate claims that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the Bill of Rights to the States......you don't know what the 39th congress said about the 14th amendment.

You'll need to prove, with evidence, that the 14th doesn't apply to the States. That my quotes of Bingham and Howard introducing the 14th amendment were 'out of context', or that Howard was ignored by the Senate.

As always, you citing yourself isn't evidence. Its an excuse for it.

You're not getting around this, Tenny. No one gives a fiddler's fuck what you _think_ the Congress said. Only what you can _prove_ the Congress said.



> Prove your claims. You can't. You're done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a petty little person you are.
Click to expand...

[/quote]

Laughing...because I demand you prove your claims *with evidence*, rather than just taking your word for it?

You've already proven what you word is worth with your absurdly inaccurate claims that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

I've quoted at least 2 people that did......both on the committee that wrote the amendment. *Demonstrating that you clearly have no idea what you're talking abou*t.

You've kinda painted yourself into a corner. As the harder you argue for your competence in the Congressional Record....the harder you argue that you knew about both Bingham and Howard *and intentionally lied about them. *

Its incompetence or dishonesty. Pick one.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> The Supreme Court decides which cases they want to hear by issuing a court order for the submission of documents of a lower court case known as a 'writ of certiorari.' They cherry pick which cases they want to hear.
> 
> Now, if you want the Supreme Court to hear your case, you can file a petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari. Essentially a request for the court to issue the writ in an appellant capacity. They will either approve or deny your request. If they approve your request, then there's a hearing before the Supreme Court and a formal ruling.
> 
> If they deny the request (which is what almost always happens), then the ruling of the highest court to hear a case stands. The lower court ruling doesn't form binding precedent nation wide.
> 
> On very rare occasion, the court can choose to issue a writ of cert on their own without an petition. This is crazy rare, but within the court's capacity.
> 
> In the case of Baker v. Nelson, a lower court had ruled on a request of two gay guys to marry. They lower denied them. The two dudes petitioned the court for a writ of cert. The Supreme Court denied the petition.



Baker was a binding Supreme Court ruling because it was not a petition for a _writ of certiorari. _That is how  mandatory appellate review worked, and that was why the Supreme Court had to overturn Baker. The _writ of certiorari _as it is known today did not exist until the _Supreme Court Case Selections Act _was codified with 28 U.S. Code § 1257.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same sex marriage can use the exact same caselaw as opposite sex marriage.
> 
> Polygamy can't. For example, lets say that there are three people that are married. And one wants a divorce. Does that mean that the entire union is dissolved or that the person that wants to divorce simply exists, leaving the other two still married?
> 
> I have no idea. No one does. As there is zero case law in any state to answer such questions. And there are a dozen just like it that our laws have no answer for.
> 
> There's your rational reason.
> 
> What would be the rational reason for denying same sex couples access to marriage? You have none. Which is exactly my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So polygamy is bad and illegal because we don't know how to dissolve it if  one of the married people wants a divorce?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polygamy has a rational basis for denial: its complete incompatibility with our existing caselaw regarding marriage.
> 
> *What is the rational reason for the gender based discrimination in marriage?* As same sex couples use marriage law the exact same way that opposite sex couples do.
> 
> You've never once been able to answer that question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've conceded....for the third time. What case law was there for same sex that doesn't apply to polygamy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Oberfegell ruling, for one. There's no mention of polygamy anywhere in it. Nor has there been the slightest application of the Obergefell ruling in defense of polygamy by any court, anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jonathan Turley used the Oberfegell  ruling for a defense of polygamy in Utah.
Click to expand...


Turley isn't the courts. He's a defense attorney. And anyone can argue anything they'd like. Whether or not the court finds their arguments compelling is a completely different story.

*The court never cited any applicability of Obergefell in the Brown case.* Nor did the court overturn polygamy law. Merely laws recognizing cohabitation *as* polygamy. Bigamy (which is what polygamy legally is) is still quite illegal. With the court explicitly holding such when they ruled.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have three out of context quotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Begging the Question. Prove they are out of context. You merely saying it must be so is meaningless gibberish.
> 
> *Show us the evidence. You can't. Which is why you keep running every time I ask.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I probably need to make you aware that there was an entire Senate and and entire House, and the debated did not revolve around you out of context quotes or Bingham and Howard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like when you tried to tell us that *no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the bill of rights to the States?*
> 
> Bingham and Howard both put your silly load of rhetorical horseshit to bed.
> 
> *Laughing....dude, you don't know what you're talking about.* Which is why I'm asking you for actual quotes from the Congressional Record rather than your ignorant blather about what the record included. As you've demonstrated, unambiguously, that* you don't know what the Congressional Record included.*
> 
> Show us the quotes supporting your argument. Don't tell us about them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you keep posting this same out of context quote as well, and is from the middle of a statement regarding
> the privileges and immunities clause, not the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obvious bullshit. He says right there a sentence or so later,  '_* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*'_
> 
> _The first 8 amendments of the Bill of Rights are all enumerated rights in the constitution at that point. These were the fundamental rights that he insisted should be applied to the States._
> 
> And yet in defiance of all reason, you insist he wasn't referring to the Bill of Rights?!
> 
> _Laughing...really?. There's a reason why 120 years of judicial precedent is on one side of this issue and you on the other. Because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you not add this statement by Bingham?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me, Mr. Speaker, in passing, to say that this amendment takes from no State any right that ever pertained to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who, pray tell, claims that the 14th takes away a right of the State?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what you point is by avoiding my posts and posting out of context quotes by two people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Prove they're out of context.* I'm not sure what the point of your Begging the Question fallacy is. But given your wildly inaccurate claims about the Congressional Record (remember your idiocy that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the bill of rights to the States), surely you understand why you citing yourself is meaningless gibber jabber.
> 
> Prove your claims. You can't. You're done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am pretty confident that I have sufficiently demonstrated that your quotes are out of context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You haven't. As the only citation you've made from the entire congressional record...._is one sentence._ That doesn't contradict anything I've said.
> 
> You've TOLD us what you think the 39th congress said. But as demonstrated by your ludicrously inaccurate claims that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the Bill of Rights to the States......you don't know what the 39th congress said about the 14th amendment.
> 
> You'll need to prove, with evidence, that the 14th doesn't apply to the States. That my quotes of Bingham and Howard introducing the 14th amendment were 'out of context', or that Howard was ignored by the Senate.
> 
> As always, you citing yourself isn't evidence. Its an excuse for it.
> 
> You're not getting around this, Tenny. No one gives a fiddler's fuck what you _think_ the Congress said. Only what you can _prove_ the Congress said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just in case you are not familiar with what context may be, regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, it would be the very first words spoken to the very last words spoken of the 39th Congress regarding not only the Fourteenth Amendment, but the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The debates started on April 30, 1866 and culminated on July 9, 1868. That is almost a year of debates with the civil rights act and hundreds of pages of debates. Your entire argument rests on a couple of out of context quotes by Bingham and Howard. Not only are the quotes out of context with their full body of statements limiting the Fourteenth Amendment to an enforcement of the privileges and immunity act of Article IV, but are out of context with the totality of the debates. Even if there statements were in context and they did offer them up as debate, which did not happen, there sentiments were ignored and the body of the debates did not revolve around the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Your first fatal flaw, and the fatal flaw of all incorporation apologists, is if the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to incorporate the Bill of Rights, it would have stated that it was incorporating the Bill of Rights. The primary purpose and function would have been to overturn _Barron v Baltimore_, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.
> 
> In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not only did the 39th Congress did not make the amendment overturn Barron, but the amendment did not mention incorporation the Bill of Rights. If you want to know how an amendment or the Bill of Rights would have been amended, then read the Eighteenth Amendment and how it was amended with the Twenty-First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Amendment XXI*
> 
> Section 1.
> 
> The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
> 
> Section 2.
> 
> The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
> 
> Section 3.
> 
> This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Twenty-First Amendment is how the Fourteenth Amendment would have read if it incorporated the Bill of Rights.
> 
> And again, this is why your out of context quotes have no value.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove your claims. You can't. You're done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a petty little person you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I am pretty confident that I have sufficiently demonstrated that your quotes are out of context.  Just in case you are not familiar with what context may be, regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, it would be the very first words spoken to the very last words spoken of the 39th Congress regarding not only the Fourteenth Amendment, but the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The debates started on April 30, 1866 and culminated on July 9, 1868. That is almost a year of debates with the civil rights act and hundreds of pages of debates. Your entire argument rests on a couple of out of context quotes by Bingham and Howard. Not only are the quotes out of context with their full body of statements limiting the Fourteenth Amendment to an enforcement of the privileges and immunity act of Article IV, but are out of context with the totality of the debates. Even if there statements were in context and they did offer them up as debate, which did not happen, there sentiments were ignored and the body of the debates did not revolve around the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Your first fatal flaw, and the fatal flaw of all incorporation apologists, is if the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to incorporate the Bill of Rights, it would have stated that it was incorporating the Bill of Rights. The primary purpose and function would have been to overturn _Barron v Baltimore_, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833):



> Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.
> 
> In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.




Not only did the 39th Congress did not make the amendment overturn Barron, but the amendment did not mention incorporation the Bill of Rights. If you want to know how an amendment or the Bill of Rights would have been amended, then read the Eighteenth Amendment and how it was amended with the Twenty-First Amendment.



> * Amendment XXI*
> 
> Section 1.
> 
> The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
> 
> Section 2.
> 
> The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
> 
> Section 3.
> 
> This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.



The Twenty-First Amendment is how the Fourteenth Amendment would have read if it incorporated the Bill of Rights.

And again, this is why your out of context quotes have no value.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.



> Prove your claims. You can't. You're done.



What a petty little person you are.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have three out of context quotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Begging the Question. Prove they are out of context. You merely saying it must be so is meaningless gibberish.
> 
> *Show us the evidence. You can't. Which is why you keep running every time I ask.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I probably need to make you aware that there was an entire Senate and and entire House, and the debated did not revolve around you out of context quotes or Bingham and Howard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like when you tried to tell us that *no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the bill of rights to the States?*
> 
> Bingham and Howard both put your silly load of rhetorical horseshit to bed.
> 
> *Laughing....dude, you don't know what you're talking about.* Which is why I'm asking you for actual quotes from the Congressional Record rather than your ignorant blather about what the record included. As you've demonstrated, unambiguously, that* you don't know what the Congressional Record included.*
> 
> Show us the quotes supporting your argument. Don't tell us about them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you keep posting this same out of context quote as well, and is from the middle of a statement regarding
> the privileges and immunities clause, not the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obvious bullshit. He says right there a sentence or so later,  '_* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*'_
> 
> _The first 8 amendments of the Bill of Rights are all enumerated rights in the constitution at that point. These were the fundamental rights that he insisted should be applied to the States._
> 
> And yet in defiance of all reason, you insist he wasn't referring to the Bill of Rights?!
> 
> _Laughing...really?. There's a reason why 120 years of judicial precedent is on one side of this issue and you on the other. Because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you not add this statement by Bingham?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me, Mr. Speaker, in passing, to say that this amendment takes from no State any right that ever pertained to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who, pray tell, claims that the 14th takes away a right of the State?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what you point is by avoiding my posts and posting out of context quotes by two people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Prove they're out of context.* I'm not sure what the point of your Begging the Question fallacy is. But given your wildly inaccurate claims about the Congressional Record (remember your idiocy that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the bill of rights to the States), surely you understand why you citing yourself is meaningless gibber jabber.
> 
> Prove your claims. You can't. You're done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am pretty confident that I have sufficiently demonstrated that your quotes are out of context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You haven't. As the only citation you've made from the entire congressional record...._is one sentence._ That doesn't contradict anything I've said.
> 
> You've TOLD us what you think the 39th congress said. But as demonstrated by your ludicrously inaccurate claims that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the Bill of Rights to the States......you don't know what the 39th congress said about the 14th amendment.
> 
> You'll need to prove, with evidence, that the 14th doesn't apply to the States. That my quotes of Bingham and Howard introducing the 14th amendment were 'out of context', or that Howard was ignored by the Senate.
> 
> As always, you citing yourself isn't evidence. Its an excuse for it.
> 
> You're not getting around this, Tenny. No one gives a fiddler's fuck what you _think_ the Congress said. Only what you can _prove_ the Congress said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just in case you are not familiar with what context may be, regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, it would be the very first words spoken to the very last words spoken of the 39th Congress regarding not only the Fourteenth Amendment, but the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The debates started on April 30, 1866 and culminated on July 9, 1868. That is almost a year of debates with the civil rights act and hundreds of pages of debates. Your entire argument rests on a couple of out of context quotes by Bingham and Howard. Not only are the quotes out of context with their full body of statements limiting the Fourteenth Amendment to an enforcement of the privileges and immunity act of Article IV, but are out of context with the totality of the debates. Even if there statements were in context and they did offer them up as debate, which did not happen, there sentiments were ignored and the body of the debates did not revolve around the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Your first fatal flaw, and the fatal flaw of all incorporation apologists, is if the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to incorporate the Bill of Rights, it would have stated that it was incorporating the Bill of Rights. The primary purpose and function would have been to overturn _Barron v Baltimore_, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.
> 
> In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not only did the 39th Congress did not make the amendment overturn Barron, but the amendment did not mention incorporation the Bill of Rights. If you want to know how an amendment or the Bill of Rights would have been amended, then read the Eighteenth Amendment and how it was amended with the Twenty-First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Amendment XXI*
> 
> Section 1.
> 
> The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
> 
> Section 2.
> 
> The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
> 
> Section 3.
> 
> This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Twenty-First Amendment is how the Fourteenth Amendment would have read if it incorporated the Bill of Rights.
> 
> And again, this is why your out of context quotes have no value.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove your claims. You can't. You're done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a petty little person you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pretty confident that I have sufficiently demonstrated that your quotes are out of context.  Just in case you are not familiar with what context may be, regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, it would be the very first words spoken to the very last words spoken of the 39th Congress regarding not only the Fourteenth Amendment, but the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The debates started on April 30, 1866 and culminated on July 9, 1868. That is almost a year of debates with the civil rights act and hundreds of pages of debates. Your entire argument rests on a couple of out of context quotes by Bingham and Howard. Not only are the quotes out of context with their full body of statements limiting the Fourteenth Amendment to an enforcement of the privileges and immunity act of Article IV, but are out of context with the totality of the debates. Even if there statements were in context and they did offer them up as debate, which did not happen, there sentiments were ignored and the body of the debates did not revolve around the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Your first fatal flaw, and the fatal flaw of all incorporation apologists, is if the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to incorporate the Bill of Rights, it would have stated that it was incorporating the Bill of Rights. The primary purpose and function would have been to overturn _Barron v Baltimore_, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.
> 
> In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not only did the 39th Congress did not make the amendment overturn Barron, but the amendment did not mention incorporation the Bill of Rights. If you want to know how an amendment or the Bill of Rights would have been amended, then read the Eighteenth Amendment and how it was amended with the Twenty-First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Amendment XXI*
> 
> Section 1.
> 
> The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
> 
> Section 2.
> 
> The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
> 
> Section 3.
> 
> This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Twenty-First Amendment is how the Fourteenth Amendment would have read if it incorporated the Bill of Rights.
> 
> And again, this is why your out of context quotes have no value.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove your claims. You can't. You're done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a petty little person you are.
Click to expand...


You're just spamming again.

*You citing yourself isn't evidence. Its an excuse for evidence.* ANything you 'tell' us about what the Congress argued is meaningless. As you've demonstrated you don't know what you're talking about.

SHOW us with actual citations. As I did when I quoted both Bingham and Howard explicitly arguing that the intent of the 14th amendment was the application of the Bill of Rights on the States.

That's evidence. Now you try.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> So polygamy is bad and illegal because we don't know how to dissolve it if  one of the married people wants a divorce?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polygamy has a rational basis for denial: its complete incompatibility with our existing caselaw regarding marriage.
> 
> *What is the rational reason for the gender based discrimination in marriage?* As same sex couples use marriage law the exact same way that opposite sex couples do.
> 
> You've never once been able to answer that question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've conceded....for the third time. What case law was there for same sex that doesn't apply to polygamy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Oberfegell ruling, for one. There's no mention of polygamy anywhere in it. Nor has there been the slightest application of the Obergefell ruling in defense of polygamy by any court, anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jonathan Turley used the Oberfegell  ruling for a defense of polygamy in Utah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley isn't the courts. He's a defense attorney. And anyone can argue anything they'd like. Whether or not the court finds their arguments compelling is a completely different story.
> 
> *The court never cited any applicability of Obergefell in the Brown case.* Nor did the court overturn polygamy law. Merely laws recognizing cohabitation *as* polygamy. Bigamy (which is what polygamy legally is) is still quite illegal. With the court explicitly holding such when they ruled.
Click to expand...

Turley won using Obergefell.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Polygamy has a rational basis for denial: its complete incompatibility with our existing caselaw regarding marriage.
> 
> *What is the rational reason for the gender based discrimination in marriage?* As same sex couples use marriage law the exact same way that opposite sex couples do.
> 
> You've never once been able to answer that question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've conceded....for the third time. What case law was there for same sex that doesn't apply to polygamy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Oberfegell ruling, for one. There's no mention of polygamy anywhere in it. Nor has there been the slightest application of the Obergefell ruling in defense of polygamy by any court, anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jonathan Turley used the Oberfegell  ruling for a defense of polygamy in Utah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley isn't the courts. He's a defense attorney. And anyone can argue anything they'd like. Whether or not the court finds their arguments compelling is a completely different story.
> 
> *The court never cited any applicability of Obergefell in the Brown case.* Nor did the court overturn polygamy law. Merely laws recognizing cohabitation *as* polygamy. Bigamy (which is what polygamy legally is) is still quite illegal. With the court explicitly holding such when they ruled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Turley won using Obergefell.
Click to expand...


Show us the court citing Obergefell's applicability in overturning polygamy laws.

You can't. As the court didn't cite Obergefell in their legal justification. Nor did they overturn polygamy bans. Merely cohabitation laws. Bigamy laws still stand. And bigamy is what polygamy legally is.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have three out of context quotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Begging the Question. Prove they are out of context. You merely saying it must be so is meaningless gibberish.
> 
> *Show us the evidence. You can't. Which is why you keep running every time I ask.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I probably need to make you aware that there was an entire Senate and and entire House, and the debated did not revolve around you out of context quotes or Bingham and Howard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like when you tried to tell us that *no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the bill of rights to the States?*
> 
> Bingham and Howard both put your silly load of rhetorical horseshit to bed.
> 
> *Laughing....dude, you don't know what you're talking about.* Which is why I'm asking you for actual quotes from the Congressional Record rather than your ignorant blather about what the record included. As you've demonstrated, unambiguously, that* you don't know what the Congressional Record included.*
> 
> Show us the quotes supporting your argument. Don't tell us about them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you keep posting this same out of context quote as well, and is from the middle of a statement regarding
> the privileges and immunities clause, not the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obvious bullshit. He says right there a sentence or so later,  '_* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*'_
> 
> _The first 8 amendments of the Bill of Rights are all enumerated rights in the constitution at that point. These were the fundamental rights that he insisted should be applied to the States._
> 
> And yet in defiance of all reason, you insist he wasn't referring to the Bill of Rights?!
> 
> _Laughing...really?. There's a reason why 120 years of judicial precedent is on one side of this issue and you on the other. Because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you not add this statement by Bingham?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who, pray tell, claims that the 14th takes away a right of the State?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what you point is by avoiding my posts and posting out of context quotes by two people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Prove they're out of context.* I'm not sure what the point of your Begging the Question fallacy is. But given your wildly inaccurate claims about the Congressional Record (remember your idiocy that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the bill of rights to the States), surely you understand why you citing yourself is meaningless gibber jabber.
> 
> Prove your claims. You can't. You're done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am pretty confident that I have sufficiently demonstrated that your quotes are out of context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You haven't. As the only citation you've made from the entire congressional record...._is one sentence._ That doesn't contradict anything I've said.
> 
> You've TOLD us what you think the 39th congress said. But as demonstrated by your ludicrously inaccurate claims that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the Bill of Rights to the States......you don't know what the 39th congress said about the 14th amendment.
> 
> You'll need to prove, with evidence, that the 14th doesn't apply to the States. That my quotes of Bingham and Howard introducing the 14th amendment were 'out of context', or that Howard was ignored by the Senate.
> 
> As always, you citing yourself isn't evidence. Its an excuse for it.
> 
> You're not getting around this, Tenny. No one gives a fiddler's fuck what you _think_ the Congress said. Only what you can _prove_ the Congress said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just in case you are not familiar with what context may be, regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, it would be the very first words spoken to the very last words spoken of the 39th Congress regarding not only the Fourteenth Amendment, but the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The debates started on April 30, 1866 and culminated on July 9, 1868. That is almost a year of debates with the civil rights act and hundreds of pages of debates. Your entire argument rests on a couple of out of context quotes by Bingham and Howard. Not only are the quotes out of context with their full body of statements limiting the Fourteenth Amendment to an enforcement of the privileges and immunity act of Article IV, but are out of context with the totality of the debates. Even if there statements were in context and they did offer them up as debate, which did not happen, there sentiments were ignored and the body of the debates did not revolve around the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Your first fatal flaw, and the fatal flaw of all incorporation apologists, is if the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to incorporate the Bill of Rights, it would have stated that it was incorporating the Bill of Rights. The primary purpose and function would have been to overturn _Barron v Baltimore_, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.
> 
> In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not only did the 39th Congress did not make the amendment overturn Barron, but the amendment did not mention incorporation the Bill of Rights. If you want to know how an amendment or the Bill of Rights would have been amended, then read the Eighteenth Amendment and how it was amended with the Twenty-First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Amendment XXI*
> 
> Section 1.
> 
> The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
> 
> Section 2.
> 
> The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
> 
> Section 3.
> 
> This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Twenty-First Amendment is how the Fourteenth Amendment would have read if it incorporated the Bill of Rights.
> 
> And again, this is why your out of context quotes have no value.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove your claims. You can't. You're done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a petty little person you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pretty confident that I have sufficiently demonstrated that your quotes are out of context.  Just in case you are not familiar with what context may be, regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, it would be the very first words spoken to the very last words spoken of the 39th Congress regarding not only the Fourteenth Amendment, but the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The debates started on April 30, 1866 and culminated on July 9, 1868. That is almost a year of debates with the civil rights act and hundreds of pages of debates. Your entire argument rests on a couple of out of context quotes by Bingham and Howard. Not only are the quotes out of context with their full body of statements limiting the Fourteenth Amendment to an enforcement of the privileges and immunity act of Article IV, but are out of context with the totality of the debates. Even if there statements were in context and they did offer them up as debate, which did not happen, there sentiments were ignored and the body of the debates did not revolve around the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Your first fatal flaw, and the fatal flaw of all incorporation apologists, is if the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to incorporate the Bill of Rights, it would have stated that it was incorporating the Bill of Rights. The primary purpose and function would have been to overturn _Barron v Baltimore_, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.
> 
> In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not only did the 39th Congress did not make the amendment overturn Barron, but the amendment did not mention incorporation the Bill of Rights. If you want to know how an amendment or the Bill of Rights would have been amended, then read the Eighteenth Amendment and how it was amended with the Twenty-First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Amendment XXI*
> 
> Section 1.
> 
> The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
> 
> Section 2.
> 
> The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
> 
> Section 3.
> 
> This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Twenty-First Amendment is how the Fourteenth Amendment would have read if it incorporated the Bill of Rights.
> 
> And again, this is why your out of context quotes have no value.
> 
> Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove your claims. You can't. You're done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a petty little person you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just spamming again.
> 
> *You citing yourself isn't evidence. Its an excuse for evidence.* ANything you 'tell' us about what the Congress argued is meaningless. As you've demonstrated you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> SHOW us with actual citations. As I did when I quoted both Bingham and Howard explicitly arguing that the intent of the 14th amendment was the application of the Bill of Rights on the States.
> 
> That's evidence. Now you try.
Click to expand...


I am not spamming. I am only highlighting what you are running from. You are as boring as your are uneducated regarding the law and history. You have been running and ducking my posts from the onset. You have a three-pronged strategy: copy and paste out of contest quotes and dismiss the hundreds of other statements in the Senate and the House, avoiding, and petulant little philistine tantrums. All three add up to one who is woefully uneducated and imprisoned by ideology.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Skylar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what did Baker V Nelson decide with regard to same sex?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a one sentence denial of writ of certiorari back when the law required that such denials of cert be formal replies.
> 
> The court does the same thing hundreds of time a year now with no comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aside from the legal Latin, they said no to same sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They refused to hear the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who refused? Which court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The _Supreme Court_. Of the United States? You....you get that's who we're talking about, right?
> 
> And if you want to know who specifically issued the denial of cert, look it up.
Click to expand...


So SCOTUS of 1970's, by refusing to hear the case, essentially declared 
There was no conflict of law, the case was not important, the justices were not interested in the case, and there was no lower court disregarding previous Supreme Court rulings. Why else would they not hear the case?


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've conceded....for the third time. What case law was there for same sex that doesn't apply to polygamy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Oberfegell ruling, for one. There's no mention of polygamy anywhere in it. Nor has there been the slightest application of the Obergefell ruling in defense of polygamy by any court, anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jonathan Turley used the Oberfegell  ruling for a defense of polygamy in Utah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley isn't the courts. He's a defense attorney. And anyone can argue anything they'd like. Whether or not the court finds their arguments compelling is a completely different story.
> 
> *The court never cited any applicability of Obergefell in the Brown case.* Nor did the court overturn polygamy law. Merely laws recognizing cohabitation *as* polygamy. Bigamy (which is what polygamy legally is) is still quite illegal. With the court explicitly holding such when they ruled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Turley won using Obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show us the court citing Obergefell's applicability in overturning polygamy laws.
> 
> You can't. As the court didn't cite Obergefell in their legal justification. Nor did they overturn polygamy bans. Merely cohabitation laws. Bigamy laws still stand. And bigamy is what polygamy legally is.
Click to expand...


You are a boring waste of time. If you want to know, then find the transcript and briefs of the trial.


----------



## Skylar

Let me show you how evidence works. You've claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

I disagreed. And offered this quote from Senator Jacob Howard of the 39th Congress introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate explicitly contradicting you:

_"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the *second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. *To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

*The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "*_

_- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate


_
Now you try. Quote the Congressional Record backing your claims. As your paraphrases are evidence. They're an excuse for evidence.


----------



## Tennyson

BuckToothMoron said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a one sentence denial of writ of certiorari back when the law required that such denials of cert be formal replies.
> 
> The court does the same thing hundreds of time a year now with no comment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from the legal Latin, they said no to same sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They refused to hear the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who refused? Which court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The _Supreme Court_. Of the United States? You....you get that's who we're talking about, right?
> 
> And if you want to know who specifically issued the denial of cert, look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So SCOTUS of 1970's, by refusing to hear the case, essentially declared
> There was no conflict of law, the case was not important, the justices were not interested in the case, and there was no lower court disregarding previous Supreme Court rulings. Why else would they not hear the case?
Click to expand...


Prior to 1988, the Supreme Court knew that denying a case through mandatory appellate review was setting a precedent.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Let me show you how evidence works. You've claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> I disagreed. And offered this quote from Senator Jacob Howard of the 39th Congress introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate explicitly contradicting you:
> 
> _"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the *second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. *To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....
> 
> *The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "*_
> 
> _- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate
> 
> 
> _
> Now you try. Quote the Congressional Record backing your claims. As your paraphrases are evidence. They're an excuse for evidence.



I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me show you how evidence works. You've claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> I disagreed. And offered this quote from Senator Jacob Howard of the 39th Congress introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate explicitly contradicting you:
> 
> _"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the *second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. *To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....
> 
> *The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "*_
> 
> _- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate
> 
> 
> _
> Now you try. Quote the Congressional Record backing your claims. As your paraphrases are evidence. They're an excuse for evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.
Click to expand...


Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Oberfegell ruling, for one. There's no mention of polygamy anywhere in it. Nor has there been the slightest application of the Obergefell ruling in defense of polygamy by any court, anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jonathan Turley used the Oberfegell  ruling for a defense of polygamy in Utah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley isn't the courts. He's a defense attorney. And anyone can argue anything they'd like. Whether or not the court finds their arguments compelling is a completely different story.
> 
> *The court never cited any applicability of Obergefell in the Brown case.* Nor did the court overturn polygamy law. Merely laws recognizing cohabitation *as* polygamy. Bigamy (which is what polygamy legally is) is still quite illegal. With the court explicitly holding such when they ruled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Turley won using Obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show us the court citing Obergefell's applicability in overturning polygamy laws.
> 
> You can't. As the court didn't cite Obergefell in their legal justification. Nor did they overturn polygamy bans. Merely cohabitation laws. Bigamy laws still stand. And bigamy is what polygamy legally is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a boring waste of time. If you want to know, then find the transcript and briefs of the trial.
Click to expand...


Laughing......and once again, you expect us to take your word for it.

Here's the initial Brown v. Buhman decision

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?211cv0652-78

*Show us the Obergefell ruling being used to justify overturning bigamy bans.*

Here's the 10th circuit follow up.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-4117.pdf
*
Show us the Obergefell ruling being used to justify overturning bigamy bans.*

Laughing.....I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Tennyson

BuckToothMoron said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me show you how evidence works. You've claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> I disagreed. And offered this quote from Senator Jacob Howard of the 39th Congress introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate explicitly contradicting you:
> 
> _"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the *second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. *To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....
> 
> *The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "*_
> 
> _- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate
> 
> 
> _
> Now you try. Quote the Congressional Record backing your claims. As your paraphrases are evidence. They're an excuse for evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.
Click to expand...


Good advise. I can see why no one would want to engage this character: no education in the law, no education in history or how history works, and no clue what context means. A couple of Google searches, a few out of context quotes that support his worldview, and nothing else matters.


----------



## Skylar

BuckToothMoron said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me show you how evidence works. You've claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> I disagreed. And offered this quote from Senator Jacob Howard of the 39th Congress introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate explicitly contradicting you:
> 
> _"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the *second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. *To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....
> 
> *The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "*_
> 
> _- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate
> 
> 
> _
> Now you try. Quote the Congressional Record backing your claims. As your paraphrases are evidence. They're an excuse for evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.
Click to expand...

Don't get butt hurt just because I've done the research you've never bothered to do on the topic. 

Or because I have the evidence to back up my arguments.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jonathan Turley used the Oberfegell  ruling for a defense of polygamy in Utah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turley isn't the courts. He's a defense attorney. And anyone can argue anything they'd like. Whether or not the court finds their arguments compelling is a completely different story.
> 
> *The court never cited any applicability of Obergefell in the Brown case.* Nor did the court overturn polygamy law. Merely laws recognizing cohabitation *as* polygamy. Bigamy (which is what polygamy legally is) is still quite illegal. With the court explicitly holding such when they ruled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Turley won using Obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show us the court citing Obergefell's applicability in overturning polygamy laws.
> 
> You can't. As the court didn't cite Obergefell in their legal justification. Nor did they overturn polygamy bans. Merely cohabitation laws. Bigamy laws still stand. And bigamy is what polygamy legally is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a boring waste of time. If you want to know, then find the transcript and briefs of the trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing......and once again, you expect us to take your word for it.
> 
> Here's the initial Brown v. Buhman decision
> 
> https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?211cv0652-78
> 
> Show us the Obergefell ruling being used to justify overturning bigamy bans. .
> 
> Here's the 10th circuit follow up.
> 
> https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-4117.pdf
> 
> Show us the Obergefell ruling being used to justify overturning bigamy bans.
> 
> Laughing.....I won't hold my breath.
Click to expand...


Do you have a point? Why don't you post up the briefs filed by Turley.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turley isn't the courts. He's a defense attorney. And anyone can argue anything they'd like. Whether or not the court finds their arguments compelling is a completely different story.
> 
> *The court never cited any applicability of Obergefell in the Brown case.* Nor did the court overturn polygamy law. Merely laws recognizing cohabitation *as* polygamy. Bigamy (which is what polygamy legally is) is still quite illegal. With the court explicitly holding such when they ruled.
> 
> 
> 
> Turley won using Obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show us the court citing Obergefell's applicability in overturning polygamy laws.
> 
> You can't. As the court didn't cite Obergefell in their legal justification. Nor did they overturn polygamy bans. Merely cohabitation laws. Bigamy laws still stand. And bigamy is what polygamy legally is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a boring waste of time. If you want to know, then find the transcript and briefs of the trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing......and once again, you expect us to take your word for it.
> 
> Here's the initial Brown v. Buhman decision
> 
> https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?211cv0652-78
> 
> Show us the Obergefell ruling being used to justify overturning bigamy bans. .
> 
> Here's the 10th circuit follow up.
> 
> https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-4117.pdf
> 
> Show us the Obergefell ruling being used to justify overturning bigamy bans.
> 
> Laughing.....I won't hold my breath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a point? Why don't you post up the briefs filed by Turley.
Click to expand...

My point is simple: that *Obergfell hasn't been used by any court to overturn any polygamy bans. *

Which I just demonstrated....twice. As Obergefell isn't even mentioned in either ruling. Let alone cited to overturn bigamy laws. 

But don't let the evidence get in the way of a good rant. You never have before.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turley won using Obergefell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show us the court citing Obergefell's applicability in overturning polygamy laws.
> 
> You can't. As the court didn't cite Obergefell in their legal justification. Nor did they overturn polygamy bans. Merely cohabitation laws. Bigamy laws still stand. And bigamy is what polygamy legally is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a boring waste of time. If you want to know, then find the transcript and briefs of the trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing......and once again, you expect us to take your word for it.
> 
> Here's the initial Brown v. Buhman decision
> 
> https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?211cv0652-78
> 
> Show us the Obergefell ruling being used to justify overturning bigamy bans. .
> 
> Here's the 10th circuit follow up.
> 
> https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-4117.pdf
> 
> Show us the Obergefell ruling being used to justify overturning bigamy bans.
> 
> Laughing.....I won't hold my breath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a point? Why don't you post up the briefs filed by Turley.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point is simple: that *Obergfell hasn't been used by any court to overturn any polygamy bans. *
> 
> Which I just demonstrated....twice. As Obergefell isn't even mentioned in either ruling. Let alone cited to overturn bigamy laws.
> 
> But don't let the evidence get in the way of a good rant. You never have before.
Click to expand...


Obergfell was used by Turley regardless of what you can find on Google or you inadequacy and lack of resources to be able to find the briefs.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us the court citing Obergefell's applicability in overturning polygamy laws.
> 
> You can't. As the court didn't cite Obergefell in their legal justification. Nor did they overturn polygamy bans. Merely cohabitation laws. Bigamy laws still stand. And bigamy is what polygamy legally is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a boring waste of time. If you want to know, then find the transcript and briefs of the trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing......and once again, you expect us to take your word for it.
> 
> Here's the initial Brown v. Buhman decision
> 
> https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?211cv0652-78
> 
> Show us the Obergefell ruling being used to justify overturning bigamy bans. .
> 
> Here's the 10th circuit follow up.
> 
> https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-4117.pdf
> 
> Show us the Obergefell ruling being used to justify overturning bigamy bans.
> 
> Laughing.....I won't hold my breath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a point? Why don't you post up the briefs filed by Turley.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point is simple: that *Obergfell hasn't been used by any court to overturn any polygamy bans. *
> 
> Which I just demonstrated....twice. As Obergefell isn't even mentioned in either ruling. Let alone cited to overturn bigamy laws.
> 
> But don't let the evidence get in the way of a good rant. You never have before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obergfell was used by Turley regardless of what you can find on Google or you inadequacy and lack of resources to be able to find the briefs.
Click to expand...


Laughing.....and the court didn't agree with any of his reasoning, never once citing Obergefell in any of their rulings.

Exactly as I said.* And the ban on bigamy stood. *

Try to move the goal posts all you like. My point remains gloriously and pristinely unchallenged: *That no court has ever used Obergefell to overturn any polygamy law. 
*
And we both know I'm right.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Tennyson said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me show you how evidence works. You've claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> I disagreed. And offered this quote from Senator Jacob Howard of the 39th Congress introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate explicitly contradicting you:
> 
> _"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the *second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. *To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....
> 
> *The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "*_
> 
> _- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate
> 
> 
> _
> Now you try. Quote the Congressional Record backing your claims. As your paraphrases are evidence. They're an excuse for evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good advise. I can see why no one would want to engage this character: no education in the law, no education in history or how history works, and no clue what context means. A couple of Google searches, a few out of context quotes that support his worldview, and nothing else matters.
Click to expand...


Wait a second, is Skylar a dude? I assumed she was a woman based on her debate style. Maybe she is a dude who identifies as a woman when she post, not that there is anything wrong with that.


----------



## Skylar

BuckToothMoron said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me show you how evidence works. You've claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> I disagreed. And offered this quote from Senator Jacob Howard of the 39th Congress introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate explicitly contradicting you:
> 
> _"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the *second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. *To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....
> 
> *The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "*_
> 
> _- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate
> 
> 
> _
> Now you try. Quote the Congressional Record backing your claims. As your paraphrases are evidence. They're an excuse for evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good advise. I can see why no one would want to engage this character: no education in the law, no education in history or how history works, and no clue what context means. A couple of Google searches, a few out of context quotes that support his worldview, and nothing else matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a second, is Skylar a dude? I assumed she was a woman based on her debate style. Maybe she is a dude who identifies as a woman when she post, not that there is anything wrong with that.
Click to expand...



My debate style being to be....factual? And demand the same from those I talk with?

I use evidence. And I research my claims *before* I make them. Which is what separates me from you. Me from Tenny.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Skylar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me show you how evidence works. You've claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> I disagreed. And offered this quote from Senator Jacob Howard of the 39th Congress introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate explicitly contradicting you:
> 
> _"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the *second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. *To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....
> 
> *The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "*_
> 
> _- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate
> 
> 
> _
> Now you try. Quote the Congressional Record backing your claims. As your paraphrases are evidence. They're an excuse for evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't get butt hurt just because I've done the research you've never bothered to do on the topic.
> 
> Or because I have the evidence to back up my arguments.
Click to expand...


Ok, I have done the research-

In Hughes V Criswell it was decided that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, but the court stipulated in Zimmerman V Horshell that if either a man or a woman decides to have a sex change while married, they must continue to identify as their original sex when married. In other words, if a married woman changes her sex to become a man, she is still responsible for cooking and cleaning.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Skylar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me show you how evidence works. You've claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> I disagreed. And offered this quote from Senator Jacob Howard of the 39th Congress introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate explicitly contradicting you:
> 
> _"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the *second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. *To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....
> 
> *The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "*_
> 
> _- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate
> 
> 
> _
> Now you try. Quote the Congressional Record backing your claims. As your paraphrases are evidence. They're an excuse for evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good advise. I can see why no one would want to engage this character: no education in the law, no education in history or how history works, and no clue what context means. A couple of Google searches, a few out of context quotes that support his worldview, and nothing else matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a second, is Skylar a dude? I assumed she was a woman based on her debate style. Maybe she is a dude who identifies as a woman when she post, not that there is anything wrong with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My debate style being to be....factual? And demand the same from those I talk with?
> 
> I use evidence. And I research my claims *before* I make them. Which is what separates me from you. Me from Tenny.
Click to expand...


You know you better keep a hanky with you at all times, because with your nose so high in the air a runny nostril can be real embarrassing.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a boring waste of time. If you want to know, then find the transcript and briefs of the trial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laughing......and once again, you expect us to take your word for it.
> 
> Here's the initial Brown v. Buhman decision
> 
> https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?211cv0652-78
> 
> Show us the Obergefell ruling being used to justify overturning bigamy bans. .
> 
> Here's the 10th circuit follow up.
> 
> https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-4117.pdf
> 
> Show us the Obergefell ruling being used to justify overturning bigamy bans.
> 
> Laughing.....I won't hold my breath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a point? Why don't you post up the briefs filed by Turley.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point is simple: that *Obergfell hasn't been used by any court to overturn any polygamy bans. *
> 
> Which I just demonstrated....twice. As Obergefell isn't even mentioned in either ruling. Let alone cited to overturn bigamy laws.
> 
> But don't let the evidence get in the way of a good rant. You never have before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obergfell was used by Turley regardless of what you can find on Google or you inadequacy and lack of resources to be able to find the briefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing.....and the court didn't agree with any of his reasoning, never once citing Obergefell in any of their rulings.
> 
> Exactly as I said.* And the ban on bigamy stood. *
> 
> Try to move the goal posts all you like. My point remains gloriously and pristinely unchallenged: *That no court has ever used Obergefell to overturn any polygamy law.
> *
> And we both know I'm right.
Click to expand...

And no court ever will, the notion is ignorant and ridiculous.

_Obergefell_ is the progeny of long-standing 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation, and denying citizens their right to due process and equal protection of the law for no other reason than who they are, in this case being gay.

The case law guiding the _Obergefell_ Court has nothing whatsoever to do with laws prohibiting bigamy, which are perfectly appropriate and Constitutional, as the state’s desire to prevent fraud with regard to marriage contracts is rational and justified.

Last, prior to _Obergefell_, the courts already invalidated the Nation’s only law prohibiting polygamy in Utah; citizens in all 50 states are at liberty to live in a polygamous relationship if they so desire.


----------



## Skylar

BuckToothMoron said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me show you how evidence works. You've claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> I disagreed. And offered this quote from Senator Jacob Howard of the 39th Congress introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate explicitly contradicting you:
> 
> _"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the *second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. *To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....
> 
> *The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "*_
> 
> _- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate
> 
> 
> _
> Now you try. Quote the Congressional Record backing your claims. As your paraphrases are evidence. They're an excuse for evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't get butt hurt just because I've done the research you've never bothered to do on the topic.
> 
> Or because I have the evidence to back up my arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, I have done the research-
> 
> In Hughes V Criswell it was decided that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, but the court stipulated in Zimmerman V Horshell that if either a man or a woman decides to have a sex change while married, they must continue to identify as their original sex when married. In other words, if a married woman changes her sex to become a man, she is still responsible for cooking and cleaning.
Click to expand...


Hughes v. Criswell.....from the Arkansas State Court of Appeals?

If so, I don't mean to burst your bubble.....but the federal judiciary would overrule them as it pertains to the 14th amendment's due process clause and equal protection clause and the right to marry.


----------



## Skylar

BuckToothMoron said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good advise. I can see why no one would want to engage this character: no education in the law, no education in history or how history works, and no clue what context means. A couple of Google searches, a few out of context quotes that support his worldview, and nothing else matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a second, is Skylar a dude? I assumed she was a woman based on her debate style. Maybe she is a dude who identifies as a woman when she post, not that there is anything wrong with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My debate style being to be....factual? And demand the same from those I talk with?
> 
> I use evidence. And I research my claims *before* I make them. Which is what separates me from you. Me from Tenny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know you better keep a hanky with you at all times, because with your nose so high in the air a runny nostril can be real embarrassing.
Click to expand...


I'll stick with the facts, thank you. You can enjoy that hanky.


----------



## Tennyson

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laughing......and once again, you expect us to take your word for it.
> 
> Here's the initial Brown v. Buhman decision
> 
> https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?211cv0652-78
> 
> Show us the Obergefell ruling being used to justify overturning bigamy bans. .
> 
> Here's the 10th circuit follow up.
> 
> https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-4117.pdf
> 
> Show us the Obergefell ruling being used to justify overturning bigamy bans.
> 
> Laughing.....I won't hold my breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a point? Why don't you post up the briefs filed by Turley.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point is simple: that *Obergfell hasn't been used by any court to overturn any polygamy bans. *
> 
> Which I just demonstrated....twice. As Obergefell isn't even mentioned in either ruling. Let alone cited to overturn bigamy laws.
> 
> But don't let the evidence get in the way of a good rant. You never have before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obergfell was used by Turley regardless of what you can find on Google or you inadequacy and lack of resources to be able to find the briefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing.....and the court didn't agree with any of his reasoning, never once citing Obergefell in any of their rulings.
> 
> Exactly as I said.* And the ban on bigamy stood. *
> 
> Try to move the goal posts all you like. My point remains gloriously and pristinely unchallenged: *That no court has ever used Obergefell to overturn any polygamy law.
> *
> And we both know I'm right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And no court ever will, the notion is ignorant and ridiculous.
> 
> _Obergefell_ is the progeny of long-standing 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation, and denying citizens their right to due process and equal protection of the law for no other reason than who they are, in this case being gay.
> 
> The case law guiding the _Obergefell_ Court has nothing whatsoever to do with laws prohibiting bigamy, which are perfectly appropriate and Constitutional, as the state’s desire to prevent fraud with regard to marriage contracts is rational and justified.
> 
> Last, prior to _Obergefell_, the courts already invalidated the Nation’s only law prohibiting polygamy in Utah; citizens in all 50 states are at liberty to live in a polygamous relationship if they so desire.
Click to expand...



There was nothing in the Obergefell ruling that was based on long-standing Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence. Kennedy had to re-defined what a fundemental right was and re-wright history regarding substantive due process. What was the reason  for the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments?

The Oberhefell ruling and principle was used in a polygamy case and will be used again.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Skylar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me show you how evidence works. You've claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> I disagreed. And offered this quote from Senator Jacob Howard of the 39th Congress introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate explicitly contradicting you:
> 
> _"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the *second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. *To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....
> 
> *The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "*_
> 
> _- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate
> 
> 
> _
> Now you try. Quote the Congressional Record backing your claims. As your paraphrases are evidence. They're an excuse for evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't get butt hurt just because I've done the research you've never bothered to do on the topic.
> 
> Or because I have the evidence to back up my arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, I have done the research-
> 
> In Hughes V Criswell it was decided that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, but the court stipulated in Zimmerman V Horshell that if either a man or a woman decides to have a sex change while married, they must continue to identify as their original sex when married. In other words, if a married woman changes her sex to become a man, she is still responsible for cooking and cleaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hughes v. Criswell.....from the Arkansas State Court of Appeals?
> 
> If so, I don't mean to burst your bubble.....but the federal judiciary would overrule them as it pertains to the 14th amendment's due process clause and equal protection clause and the right to marry.
Click to expand...


Wow, it worked. I picked 2 names randomly and you went and researched it like a dog chasing a ball. How about Mcgriff V Swink?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Tennyson said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a point? Why don't you post up the briefs filed by Turley.
> 
> 
> 
> My point is simple: that *Obergfell hasn't been used by any court to overturn any polygamy bans. *
> 
> Which I just demonstrated....twice. As Obergefell isn't even mentioned in either ruling. Let alone cited to overturn bigamy laws.
> 
> But don't let the evidence get in the way of a good rant. You never have before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obergfell was used by Turley regardless of what you can find on Google or you inadequacy and lack of resources to be able to find the briefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing.....and the court didn't agree with any of his reasoning, never once citing Obergefell in any of their rulings.
> 
> Exactly as I said.* And the ban on bigamy stood. *
> 
> Try to move the goal posts all you like. My point remains gloriously and pristinely unchallenged: *That no court has ever used Obergefell to overturn any polygamy law.
> *
> And we both know I'm right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And no court ever will, the notion is ignorant and ridiculous.
> 
> _Obergefell_ is the progeny of long-standing 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation, and denying citizens their right to due process and equal protection of the law for no other reason than who they are, in this case being gay.
> 
> The case law guiding the _Obergefell_ Court has nothing whatsoever to do with laws prohibiting bigamy, which are perfectly appropriate and Constitutional, as the state’s desire to prevent fraud with regard to marriage contracts is rational and justified.
> 
> Last, prior to _Obergefell_, the courts already invalidated the Nation’s only law prohibiting polygamy in Utah; citizens in all 50 states are at liberty to live in a polygamous relationship if they so desire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing in the Obergefell ruling that was based on long-standing Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence. Kennedy had to re-defined what a fundemental right was and re-wright history regarding substantive due process. What was the reason  for the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments?
> 
> The Oberhefell ruling and principle was used in a polygamy case and will be used again.
Click to expand...


I'll bet skylar insults you in her response to your post, she can't help it.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> The Oberhefell ruling and principle was used in a polygamy case and will be used again.



Obergefell has *never once* been used or accepted as justification by any court for the overturning of any polygamy law.

*And we both know it. *I've shown you both of the Brown rulings. Neither even mentions Obergefell. Let alone uses it to justify the overturn of any polygamy law. But keep polishing that rhetorical turd if you'd like.

Its still gloriously irrelevant to any court decision.

Get used to the idea.


----------



## Skylar

BuckToothMoron said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't get butt hurt just because I've done the research you've never bothered to do on the topic.
> 
> Or because I have the evidence to back up my arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, I have done the research-
> 
> In Hughes V Criswell it was decided that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, but the court stipulated in Zimmerman V Horshell that if either a man or a woman decides to have a sex change while married, they must continue to identify as their original sex when married. In other words, if a married woman changes her sex to become a man, she is still responsible for cooking and cleaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hughes v. Criswell.....from the Arkansas State Court of Appeals?
> 
> If so, I don't mean to burst your bubble.....but the federal judiciary would overrule them as it pertains to the 14th amendment's due process clause and equal protection clause and the right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, it worked. I picked 2 names randomly and you went and researched it like a dog chasing a ball. How about Mcgriff V Swink?
Click to expand...


So by 'research', you mean you just making shit up?


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Oberhefell ruling and principle was used in a polygamy case and will be used again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell has *never once* been used or accepted as justification by any court for the overturning of any polygamy law.
> 
> *And we both know it. *I've shown you both of the Brown rulings. Neither even mentions Obergefell. Let alone uses it to justify the overturn of any polygamy law. But keep polishing that rhetorical turd if you'd like.
> 
> Its still gloriously irrelevant to any court decision.
> 
> Get used to the idea.
Click to expand...


It was used my Turley.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Oberhefell ruling and principle was used in a polygamy case and will be used again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell has *never once* been used or accepted as justification by any court for the overturning of any polygamy law.
> 
> *And we both know it. *I've shown you both of the Brown rulings. Neither even mentions Obergefell. Let alone uses it to justify the overturn of any polygamy law. But keep polishing that rhetorical turd if you'd like.
> 
> Its still gloriously irrelevant to any court decision.
> 
> Get used to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was used my Turley.
Click to expand...


And rejected by the court, which never so much as mentions Obergefell in any ruling. With every bigamy law surviving judicial review untouched. 

You're stuck in your little feedback loop, ignoring the very cases you're referring to. You fail, because you can't make us ignore them.

Or the law. Or any court.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Skylar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get butt hurt just because I've done the research you've never bothered to do on the topic.
> 
> Or because I have the evidence to back up my arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, I have done the research-
> 
> In Hughes V Criswell it was decided that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, but the court stipulated in Zimmerman V Horshell that if either a man or a woman decides to have a sex change while married, they must continue to identify as their original sex when married. In other words, if a married woman changes her sex to become a man, she is still responsible for cooking and cleaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hughes v. Criswell.....from the Arkansas State Court of Appeals?
> 
> If so, I don't mean to burst your bubble.....but the federal judiciary would overrule them as it pertains to the 14th amendment's due process clause and equal protection clause and the right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, it worked. I picked 2 names randomly and you went and researched it like a dog chasing a ball. How about Mcgriff V Swink?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So by 'research', you mean you just making shit up?
Click to expand...


Yep, and then you chase it like a dog chasing a ball. It's fun!


----------



## Skylar

BuckToothMoron said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get butt hurt just because I've done the research you've never bothered to do on the topic.
> 
> Or because I have the evidence to back up my arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I have done the research-
> 
> In Hughes V Criswell it was decided that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, but the court stipulated in Zimmerman V Horshell that if either a man or a woman decides to have a sex change while married, they must continue to identify as their original sex when married. In other words, if a married woman changes her sex to become a man, she is still responsible for cooking and cleaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hughes v. Criswell.....from the Arkansas State Court of Appeals?
> 
> If so, I don't mean to burst your bubble.....but the federal judiciary would overrule them as it pertains to the 14th amendment's due process clause and equal protection clause and the right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, it worked. I picked 2 names randomly and you went and researched it like a dog chasing a ball. How about Mcgriff V Swink?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So by 'research', you mean you just making shit up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, and then you chase it like a dog chasing a ball. It's fun!
Click to expand...


Well, if you ever manage more than 'just making shit up', give me a hollar. I'm always open to actual evidence.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Skylar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I have done the research-
> 
> In Hughes V Criswell it was decided that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, but the court stipulated in Zimmerman V Horshell that if either a man or a woman decides to have a sex change while married, they must continue to identify as their original sex when married. In other words, if a married woman changes her sex to become a man, she is still responsible for cooking and cleaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hughes v. Criswell.....from the Arkansas State Court of Appeals?
> 
> If so, I don't mean to burst your bubble.....but the federal judiciary would overrule them as it pertains to the 14th amendment's due process clause and equal protection clause and the right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, it worked. I picked 2 names randomly and you went and researched it like a dog chasing a ball. How about Mcgriff V Swink?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So by 'research', you mean you just making shit up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, and then you chase it like a dog chasing a ball. It's fun!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you ever manage more than 'just making shit up', give me a hollar. I'm always open to actual evidence.
Click to expand...


how about Curry v Smith?


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Oberhefell ruling and principle was used in a polygamy case and will be used again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell has *never once* been used or accepted as justification by any court for the overturning of any polygamy law.
> 
> *And we both know it. *I've shown you both of the Brown rulings. Neither even mentions Obergefell. Let alone uses it to justify the overturn of any polygamy law. But keep polishing that rhetorical turd if you'd like.
> 
> Its still gloriously irrelevant to any court decision.
> 
> Get used to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was used my Turley.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And rejected by the court, which never so much as mentions Obergefell in any ruling. With every bigamy law surviving judicial review untouched.
> 
> You're stuck in your little feedback loop, ignoring the very cases you're referring to. You fail, because you can't make us ignore them.
> 
> Or the law. Or any court.
Click to expand...


It was used by Turley. Turley won. The court did not reject it.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Oberhefell ruling and principle was used in a polygamy case and will be used again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell has *never once* been used or accepted as justification by any court for the overturning of any polygamy law.
> 
> *And we both know it. *I've shown you both of the Brown rulings. Neither even mentions Obergefell. Let alone uses it to justify the overturn of any polygamy law. But keep polishing that rhetorical turd if you'd like.
> 
> Its still gloriously irrelevant to any court decision.
> 
> Get used to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was used my Turley.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And rejected by the court, which never so much as mentions Obergefell in any ruling. With every bigamy law surviving judicial review untouched.
> 
> You're stuck in your little feedback loop, ignoring the very cases you're referring to. You fail, because you can't make us ignore them.
> 
> Or the law. Or any court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was used by Turley. Turley won. The court did not reject it.
Click to expand...


 And the court rejected every argument Turley made regarding Obergefell, not so much as mentioning the case in any of their rulings.

*As we both know, not one court has ever used Obergefell to overturn any polygamy law. *You can't get around that.

Like your babble about the 14th, it really doesn't matter what you ignore. What is, is.

Oh, and Brown isn't appealing his case to the USSC because he won. But because bigamy laws remained pristinely untouched with polygamy still illegal.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Oberhefell ruling and principle was used in a polygamy case and will be used again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell has *never once* been used or accepted as justification by any court for the overturning of any polygamy law.
> 
> *And we both know it. *I've shown you both of the Brown rulings. Neither even mentions Obergefell. Let alone uses it to justify the overturn of any polygamy law. But keep polishing that rhetorical turd if you'd like.
> 
> Its still gloriously irrelevant to any court decision.
> 
> Get used to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was used my Turley.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And rejected by the court, which never so much as mentions Obergefell in any ruling. With every bigamy law surviving judicial review untouched.
> 
> You're stuck in your little feedback loop, ignoring the very cases you're referring to. You fail, because you can't make us ignore them.
> 
> Or the law. Or any court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was used by Turley. Turley won. The court did not reject it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bigamy laws remain untouched, with polygamy still illegal. And the court rejected every argument Turley made regarding Obergefell, not so much as mentioning the case in any of their rulings.
> 
> As we both know, not one court has ever used Obergefell to overturn any polygamy law. You can't get around that.
> 
> Like your babble about the 14th, it really doesn't matter what you ignore. What is, is.
Click to expand...


 Turley won. The court did not reject his arguments. The law was overturned using Obergefell. That was one of Turley's arguments.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell has *never once* been used or accepted as justification by any court for the overturning of any polygamy law.
> 
> *And we both know it. *I've shown you both of the Brown rulings. Neither even mentions Obergefell. Let alone uses it to justify the overturn of any polygamy law. But keep polishing that rhetorical turd if you'd like.
> 
> Its still gloriously irrelevant to any court decision.
> 
> Get used to the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was used my Turley.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And rejected by the court, which never so much as mentions Obergefell in any ruling. With every bigamy law surviving judicial review untouched.
> 
> You're stuck in your little feedback loop, ignoring the very cases you're referring to. You fail, because you can't make us ignore them.
> 
> Or the law. Or any court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was used by Turley. Turley won. The court did not reject it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bigamy laws remain untouched, with polygamy still illegal. And the court rejected every argument Turley made regarding Obergefell, not so much as mentioning the case in any of their rulings.
> 
> As we both know, not one court has ever used Obergefell to overturn any polygamy law. You can't get around that.
> 
> Like your babble about the 14th, it really doesn't matter what you ignore. What is, is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley won. The court did not reject his arguments. The law was overturned using Obergefell. That was one of Turley's arguments.
Click to expand...


Nope. Bigamy laws were unambiguously upheld, maintaining polygamy's criminal status. And every argument regarding Obergefell was rejected by every court.

_Exactly as I told you. _Ignore as you will. It won't matter.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was used my Turley.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And rejected by the court, which never so much as mentions Obergefell in any ruling. With every bigamy law surviving judicial review untouched.
> 
> You're stuck in your little feedback loop, ignoring the very cases you're referring to. You fail, because you can't make us ignore them.
> 
> Or the law. Or any court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was used by Turley. Turley won. The court did not reject it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bigamy laws remain untouched, with polygamy still illegal. And the court rejected every argument Turley made regarding Obergefell, not so much as mentioning the case in any of their rulings.
> 
> As we both know, not one court has ever used Obergefell to overturn any polygamy law. You can't get around that.
> 
> Like your babble about the 14th, it really doesn't matter what you ignore. What is, is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley won. The court did not reject his arguments. The law was overturned using Obergefell. That was one of Turley's arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Bigamy laws were unambiguously upheld, maintaining polygamy's criminal status. And every argument regarding Obergefell was rejected by every court.
> 
> _Exactly as I told you. _Ignore as you will. It won't matter.
Click to expand...


Turley won. His argument was not rejected by the court. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And rejected by the court, which never so much as mentions Obergefell in any ruling. With every bigamy law surviving judicial review untouched.
> 
> You're stuck in your little feedback loop, ignoring the very cases you're referring to. You fail, because you can't make us ignore them.
> 
> Or the law. Or any court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was used by Turley. Turley won. The court did not reject it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bigamy laws remain untouched, with polygamy still illegal. And the court rejected every argument Turley made regarding Obergefell, not so much as mentioning the case in any of their rulings.
> 
> As we both know, not one court has ever used Obergefell to overturn any polygamy law. You can't get around that.
> 
> Like your babble about the 14th, it really doesn't matter what you ignore. What is, is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley won. The court did not reject his arguments. The law was overturned using Obergefell. That was one of Turley's arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Bigamy laws were unambiguously upheld, maintaining polygamy's criminal status. And every argument regarding Obergefell was rejected by every court.
> 
> _Exactly as I told you. _Ignore as you will. It won't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley won. His argument was not rejected by the court. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.
Click to expand...


Brown sought to have bigamy laws overturned. He failed. He's appealing to the USSC as we speak on the exact same case.

And as we both know, all arguments regarding Obergefell were rejected by the court. As Obergefell was never mentioned in either ruling.

Your argument breaks in the exact same place every time: the courts.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was used by Turley. Turley won. The court did not reject it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bigamy laws remain untouched, with polygamy still illegal. And the court rejected every argument Turley made regarding Obergefell, not so much as mentioning the case in any of their rulings.
> 
> As we both know, not one court has ever used Obergefell to overturn any polygamy law. You can't get around that.
> 
> Like your babble about the 14th, it really doesn't matter what you ignore. What is, is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley won. The court did not reject his arguments. The law was overturned using Obergefell. That was one of Turley's arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Bigamy laws were unambiguously upheld, maintaining polygamy's criminal status. And every argument regarding Obergefell was rejected by every court.
> 
> _Exactly as I told you. _Ignore as you will. It won't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley won. His argument was not rejected by the court. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brown sought to have bigamy laws overturned. He failed. He's appealing to the USSC as we speak on the exact same case.
> 
> And as we both know, all arguments regarding Obergefell were rejected by the court. As Obergefell was never mentioned in either ruling.
> 
> Your argument breaks in the exact same place every time: the courts.
Click to expand...


Turley used Obergefell. Turley won. Utah will not prosecute polygamy laws. The appeal to the Supreme Court is not the exact same case that Turley won. Turley won on the merits using Obergefell; the appeal is regarding standing and the state of Utah not prosecuting polygamy.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bigamy laws remain untouched, with polygamy still illegal. And the court rejected every argument Turley made regarding Obergefell, not so much as mentioning the case in any of their rulings.
> 
> As we both know, not one court has ever used Obergefell to overturn any polygamy law. You can't get around that.
> 
> Like your babble about the 14th, it really doesn't matter what you ignore. What is, is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turley won. The court did not reject his arguments. The law was overturned using Obergefell. That was one of Turley's arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Bigamy laws were unambiguously upheld, maintaining polygamy's criminal status. And every argument regarding Obergefell was rejected by every court.
> 
> _Exactly as I told you. _Ignore as you will. It won't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley won. His argument was not rejected by the court. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brown sought to have bigamy laws overturned. He failed. He's appealing to the USSC as we speak on the exact same case.
> 
> And as we both know, all arguments regarding Obergefell were rejected by the court. As Obergefell was never mentioned in either ruling.
> 
> Your argument breaks in the exact same place every time: the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley used Obergefell. Turley won.
Click to expand...


And the court rejected his argument regarding Obergefell.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turley won. The court did not reject his arguments. The law was overturned using Obergefell. That was one of Turley's arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Bigamy laws were unambiguously upheld, maintaining polygamy's criminal status. And every argument regarding Obergefell was rejected by every court.
> 
> _Exactly as I told you. _Ignore as you will. It won't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley won. His argument was not rejected by the court. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brown sought to have bigamy laws overturned. He failed. He's appealing to the USSC as we speak on the exact same case.
> 
> And as we both know, all arguments regarding Obergefell were rejected by the court. As Obergefell was never mentioned in either ruling.
> 
> Your argument breaks in the exact same place every time: the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley used Obergefell. Turley won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the court rejected his argument regarding Obergefell.
Click to expand...


Turley won. The court did not reject Obergefell. Turley used Obergefell. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Bigamy laws were unambiguously upheld, maintaining polygamy's criminal status. And every argument regarding Obergefell was rejected by every court.
> 
> _Exactly as I told you. _Ignore as you will. It won't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turley won. His argument was not rejected by the court. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brown sought to have bigamy laws overturned. He failed. He's appealing to the USSC as we speak on the exact same case.
> 
> And as we both know, all arguments regarding Obergefell were rejected by the court. As Obergefell was never mentioned in either ruling.
> 
> Your argument breaks in the exact same place every time: the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley used Obergefell. Turley won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the court rejected his argument regarding Obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley won. The court did not reject Obergefell.
Click to expand...


The court did reject his every argument regarding Obergefell. No court has every used Obergefell to justify overturning any polygamy law.

Ever.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turley won. His argument was not rejected by the court. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brown sought to have bigamy laws overturned. He failed. He's appealing to the USSC as we speak on the exact same case.
> 
> And as we both know, all arguments regarding Obergefell were rejected by the court. As Obergefell was never mentioned in either ruling.
> 
> Your argument breaks in the exact same place every time: the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley used Obergefell. Turley won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the court rejected his argument regarding Obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley won. The court did not reject Obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The court did reject his every argument regarding Obergefell. No court has every used Obergefell to justify overturning any polygamy law.
> 
> Ever.
Click to expand...


Turley won. The court did not reject Obergefell. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brown sought to have bigamy laws overturned. He failed. He's appealing to the USSC as we speak on the exact same case.
> 
> And as we both know, all arguments regarding Obergefell were rejected by the court. As Obergefell was never mentioned in either ruling.
> 
> Your argument breaks in the exact same place every time: the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turley used Obergefell. Turley won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the court rejected his argument regarding Obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley won. The court did not reject Obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The court did reject his every argument regarding Obergefell. No court has every used Obergefell to justify overturning any polygamy law.
> 
> Ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley won. The court did not reject Obergefell. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.
Click to expand...


The court did reject Turley's every argument regarding Obergefell. In both rulings, they never so much as mentioned Obergefell.

Bigamy remained illegal. And Brown is appealing to the Supreme Court.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turley used Obergefell. Turley won.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the court rejected his argument regarding Obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley won. The court did not reject Obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The court did reject his every argument regarding Obergefell. No court has every used Obergefell to justify overturning any polygamy law.
> 
> Ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley won. The court did not reject Obergefell. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The court did reject Turley's every argument regarding Obergefell. In both rulings, they never so much as mentioned Obergefell.
> 
> Bigamy remained illegal. And Brown is appealing to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...


Turley won. Utah does not prosecute polygamy. The courts did not reject Obergefell. The district did not, and the appellate court would not made a determination on Obergefell.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the court rejected his argument regarding Obergefell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turley won. The court did not reject Obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The court did reject his every argument regarding Obergefell. No court has every used Obergefell to justify overturning any polygamy law.
> 
> Ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley won. The court did not reject Obergefell. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The court did reject Turley's every argument regarding Obergefell. In both rulings, they never so much as mentioned Obergefell.
> 
> Bigamy remained illegal. And Brown is appealing to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley won.
Click to expand...


Nope. Bigamy is still criminal. The State doesn't recognize polygamy. And Brown is appealing his case to the Supreme Court.

*As the court rejected every Obergfell argument Turley had. Without exception. *

No court has every recognized Obergefell as overturning any polygamy law.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turley won. The court did not reject Obergefell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The court did reject his every argument regarding Obergefell. No court has every used Obergefell to justify overturning any polygamy law.
> 
> Ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley won. The court did not reject Obergefell. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The court did reject Turley's every argument regarding Obergefell. In both rulings, they never so much as mentioned Obergefell.
> 
> Bigamy remained illegal. And Brown is appealing to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Bigamy is still criminal. The State doesn't recognize polygamy. And Brown is appealing his case to the Supreme Court.
> 
> *As the court rejected every Obergfell argument Turley had. Without exception. *
> 
> No court has every recognized Obergefell as overturning any polygamy law.
Click to expand...


Turley used Obergefell. Turley won. Utah will not prosecute polygamy laws. The appeal to the Supreme Court is not the exact same case that Turley won. Turley won on the merits using Obergefell; the appeal is regarding standing and the state of Utah not prosecuting polygamy.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The court did reject his every argument regarding Obergefell. No court has every used Obergefell to justify overturning any polygamy law.
> 
> Ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turley won. The court did not reject Obergefell. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The court did reject Turley's every argument regarding Obergefell. In both rulings, they never so much as mentioned Obergefell.
> 
> Bigamy remained illegal. And Brown is appealing to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Bigamy is still criminal. The State doesn't recognize polygamy. And Brown is appealing his case to the Supreme Court.
> 
> *As the court rejected every Obergfell argument Turley had. Without exception. *
> 
> No court has every recognized Obergefell as overturning any polygamy law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley used Obergefell.
Click to expand...


Turley *tried* to use Obergefell. The court rejected his every attempt. So thorough was their rejection of Turley's argument that they never so much as mentioned Obergefell or cited it in any capacity in any of their rulings.

Bigamy is still criminal, despite Turley's best efforts. Turley failed to get polygamy legally recognized. And Brown has appealed to his case to the Supreme Court.

Try again. This time without ignoring the actual Brown v. Buhman rulings. 

Turley won. Utah will not prosecute polygamy laws. The appeal to the Supreme Court is not the exact same case that Turley won. Turley won on the merits using Obergefell; the appeal is regarding standing and the state of Utah not prosecuting polygamy.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me show you how evidence works. You've claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> I disagreed. And offered this quote from Senator Jacob Howard of the 39th Congress introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate explicitly contradicting you:
> 
> _"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the *second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. *To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....
> 
> *The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "*_
> 
> _- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate
> 
> 
> _
> Now you try. Quote the Congressional Record backing your claims. As your paraphrases are evidence. They're an excuse for evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good advise. I can see why no one would want to engage this character: no education in the law, no education in history or how history works, and no clue what context means. A couple of Google searches, a few out of context quotes that support his worldview, and nothing else matters.
Click to expand...

Alas, the Supreme Court has sided with my claims for 120 years. As did Bingham. As did Howard. 

Remember, I actually cited the Congressional Record showing that John Bingham and Jacob Howard, both of whom were on the committe writing the 14th amendment, explicited stated that the purpose of the 14th was to extend the Bill of Rights to the States.

You cited yourself....ignored the Supreme Court, ignored Bingham, ignored Howard, and insisting you know better than all of them.

Smiling.....how's that working out for you?


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me show you how evidence works. You've claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> I disagreed. And offered this quote from Senator Jacob Howard of the 39th Congress introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate explicitly contradicting you:
> 
> _"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the *second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. *To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....
> 
> *The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "*_
> 
> _- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate
> 
> 
> _
> Now you try. Quote the Congressional Record backing your claims. As your paraphrases are evidence. They're an excuse for evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.
Click to expand...

No, you haven't.  

You claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

Jacob Howard was in the 39th Congress. He was on the committee writing the 14th amendment. And in his introduction of the 14th amendment to the Senate, he did exactly what you insisted no one did.


_"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the *second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. *To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

*The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "*_

_- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate_



*How could you possibly have missed this? *Easy.....you've never read the congressional record and you have no idea what you're talking about. 

But you expect me to accept your paraphrases of a record you've never read as evidence? 

Nope. Quote the record backing your claims. Not yourself. As you demonstrated for us, you don't know you're talking about.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turley won. The court did not reject Obergefell. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The court did reject Turley's every argument regarding Obergefell. In both rulings, they never so much as mentioned Obergefell.
> 
> Bigamy remained illegal. And Brown is appealing to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Bigamy is still criminal. The State doesn't recognize polygamy. And Brown is appealing his case to the Supreme Court.
> 
> *As the court rejected every Obergfell argument Turley had. Without exception. *
> 
> No court has every recognized Obergefell as overturning any polygamy law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley used Obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turley *tried* to use Obergefell. The court rejected his every attempt. So thorough was their rejection of Turley's argument that they never so much as mentioned Obergefell or cited it in any capacity in any of their rulings.
> 
> Bigamy is still criminal, despite Turley's best efforts. Turley failed to get polygamy legally recognized. And Brown has appealed to his case to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Try again. This time without ignoring the actual Brown v. Buhman rulings.
> 
> Turley won. Utah will not prosecute polygamy laws. The appeal to the Supreme Court is not the exact same case that Turley won. Turley won on the merits using Obergefell; the appeal is regarding standing and the state of Utah not prosecuting polygamy.
Click to expand...



Turley used Obergefell. Turley won. The court did not reject Turley’s use of Obergefell.

_Brown v. Buhman _was in the ruling of _Obergefell v. Hodges, _which is one of the reasons that Turley used it.

The state of Utah does not prosecute polygamy. The appeal to the Supreme Court is regarding standing, not the merits of the case.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me show you how evidence works. You've claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> I disagreed. And offered this quote from Senator Jacob Howard of the 39th Congress introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate explicitly contradicting you:
> 
> _"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the *second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. *To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....
> 
> *The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "*_
> 
> _- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate
> 
> 
> _
> Now you try. Quote the Congressional Record backing your claims. As your paraphrases are evidence. They're an excuse for evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you haven't.
> 
> You claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> Jacob Howard was in the 39th Congress. He was on the committee writing the 14th amendment. And in his introduction of the 14th amendment to the Senate, he did exactly what you insisted no one did.
> 
> 
> _"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the *second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. *To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....
> 
> *The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "*_
> 
> _- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate_
> 
> 
> 
> *How could you possibly have missed this? *Easy.....you've never read the congressional record and you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> But you expect me to accept your paraphrases of a record you've never read as evidence?
> 
> Nope. Quote the record backing your claims. Not yourself. As you demonstrated for us, you don't know you're talking about.
Click to expand...


Since you have avoided each post of mine and continue to post the same out of context quotes, I will just stick to asking you questions that you cannot answer.

Explain why fourty-seven justices over the course of seventy years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and many of them considered some of the greatest in history, ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights.

After you avoid answering this with a legitimate answer, I will produce some of the justices and you can explain how ignorant they were.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me show you how evidence works. You've claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> I disagreed. And offered this quote from Senator Jacob Howard of the 39th Congress introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate explicitly contradicting you:
> 
> _"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the *second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. *To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....
> 
> *The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "*_
> 
> _- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate
> 
> 
> _
> Now you try. Quote the Congressional Record backing your claims. As your paraphrases are evidence. They're an excuse for evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good advise. I can see why no one would want to engage this character: no education in the law, no education in history or how history works, and no clue what context means. A couple of Google searches, a few out of context quotes that support his worldview, and nothing else matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alas, the Supreme Court has sided with my claims for 120 years. As did Bingham. As did Howard.
> 
> Remember, I actually cited the Congressional Record showing that John Bingham and Jacob Howard, both of whom were on the committe writing the 14th amendment, explicited stated that the purpose of the 14th was to extend the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> You cited yourself....ignored the Supreme Court, ignored Bingham, ignored Howard, and insisting you know better than all of them.
> 
> Smiling.....how's that working out for you?
Click to expand...


You cited a couple of words by two men out of tens of thousand of words by two-hundred and forty-seven members of Congress. I cannot find any evidence that the debates only consisted of Howard and Bingham. That is not how evidence works. Evidence works off the preponderance of evidence, and you avoid the preponderance of evidence.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me show you how evidence works. You've claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> I disagreed. And offered this quote from Senator Jacob Howard of the 39th Congress introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate explicitly contradicting you:
> 
> _"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the *second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. *To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....
> 
> *The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "*_
> 
> _- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate
> 
> 
> _
> Now you try. Quote the Congressional Record backing your claims. As your paraphrases are evidence. They're an excuse for evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good advise. I can see why no one would want to engage this character: no education in the law, no education in history or how history works, and no clue what context means. A couple of Google searches, a few out of context quotes that support his worldview, and nothing else matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alas, the Supreme Court has sided with my claims for 120 years. As did Bingham. As did Howard.
> 
> Remember, I actually cited the Congressional Record showing that John Bingham and Jacob Howard, both of whom were on the committe writing the 14th amendment, explicited stated that the purpose of the 14th was to extend the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> You cited yourself....ignored the Supreme Court, ignored Bingham, ignored Howard, and insisting you know better than all of them.
> 
> Smiling.....how's that working out for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cited a couple of words by two men out of tens of thousand of words by two-hundred and forty-seven members of Congress. I cannot find any evidence that the debates only consisted of Howard and Bingham. That is not how evidence works. Evidence works off the preponderance of evidence, and you avoid the preponderance of evidence.
Click to expand...


She is really good at that, she also excels at ignoring others arguments which blast her to smithereens. She does like to repeat herself and make snarky remarks however.


----------



## Skylar

BuckToothMoron said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good advise. I can see why no one would want to engage this character: no education in the law, no education in history or how history works, and no clue what context means. A couple of Google searches, a few out of context quotes that support his worldview, and nothing else matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alas, the Supreme Court has sided with my claims for 120 years. As did Bingham. As did Howard.
> 
> Remember, I actually cited the Congressional Record showing that John Bingham and Jacob Howard, both of whom were on the committe writing the 14th amendment, explicited stated that the purpose of the 14th was to extend the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> You cited yourself....ignored the Supreme Court, ignored Bingham, ignored Howard, and insisting you know better than all of them.
> 
> Smiling.....how's that working out for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cited a couple of words by two men out of tens of thousand of words by two-hundred and forty-seven members of Congress. I cannot find any evidence that the debates only consisted of Howard and Bingham. That is not how evidence works. Evidence works off the preponderance of evidence, and you avoid the preponderance of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is really good at that, she also excels at ignoring others arguments which blast her to smithereens. She does like to repeat herself and make snarky remarks however.
Click to expand...


An argument without evidence isn't an argument. And both of you love to make shit up and call it evidence. All while ignoring the actual evidence.....like real court cases, actual citations, and genuine legal precedent.

Which might explain why the actual law is on one side of every issue we've discussed. And both of you are on the other.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me show you how evidence works. You've claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> I disagreed. And offered this quote from Senator Jacob Howard of the 39th Congress introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate explicitly contradicting you:
> 
> _"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the *second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. *To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -* to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution*; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....
> 
> *The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "*_
> 
> _- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate
> 
> 
> _
> Now you try. Quote the Congressional Record backing your claims. As your paraphrases are evidence. They're an excuse for evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good advise. I can see why no one would want to engage this character: no education in the law, no education in history or how history works, and no clue what context means. A couple of Google searches, a few out of context quotes that support his worldview, and nothing else matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alas, the Supreme Court has sided with my claims for 120 years. As did Bingham. As did Howard.
> 
> Remember, I actually cited the Congressional Record showing that John Bingham and Jacob Howard, both of whom were on the committe writing the 14th amendment, explicited stated that the purpose of the 14th was to extend the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> You cited yourself....ignored the Supreme Court, ignored Bingham, ignored Howard, and insisting you know better than all of them.
> 
> Smiling.....how's that working out for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cited a couple of words by two men out of tens of thousand of words by two-hundred and forty-seven members of Congress. I cannot find any evidence that the debates only consisted of Howard and Bingham. That is not how evidence works. Evidence works off the preponderance of evidence, and you avoid the preponderance of evidence.
Click to expand...


Then show us the 'preponderance of the evidence'. Back up your argument with evidence. * Instead, you *tell* us about 'evidence' you don't actually have.* Allude to arguments you can't factually back. All while ignoring the explicit contradiction by Bingham, Howard and 120 years of Supreme Court precedent. 

*Try again, this time with evidence.* Alas, Tenny......you citing yourself isn't evidence. Its an excuse for it. Without the begging the question fallacy, your posts would be little more than punctuation.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good advise. I can see why no one would want to engage this character: no education in the law, no education in history or how history works, and no clue what context means. A couple of Google searches, a few out of context quotes that support his worldview, and nothing else matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alas, the Supreme Court has sided with my claims for 120 years. As did Bingham. As did Howard.
> 
> Remember, I actually cited the Congressional Record showing that John Bingham and Jacob Howard, both of whom were on the committe writing the 14th amendment, explicited stated that the purpose of the 14th was to extend the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> You cited yourself....ignored the Supreme Court, ignored Bingham, ignored Howard, and insisting you know better than all of them.
> 
> Smiling.....how's that working out for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cited a couple of words by two men out of tens of thousand of words by two-hundred and forty-seven members of Congress. I cannot find any evidence that the debates only consisted of Howard and Bingham. That is not how evidence works. Evidence works off the preponderance of evidence, and you avoid the preponderance of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then show us the 'preponderance of the evidence'. Back up your argument with evidence. * Instead, you *tell* us about 'evidence' you don't actually have.* Allude to arguments you can't factually back. All while ignoring the explicit contradiction by Bingham, Howard and 120 years of Supreme Court precedent.
> 
> *Try again, this time with evidence.* Alas, Tenny......you citing yourself isn't evidence. Its an excuse for it. Without the begging the question fallacy, your posts would be little more than punctuation.
Click to expand...


As I predicted, you would not answer the question. 

I have already presented the preponderance of evidence. 

Now that you avoided the question, here is another for you to not answer. 

Why did the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose the Blaine Amendment?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Skylar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good advise. I can see why no one would want to engage this character: no education in the law, no education in history or how history works, and no clue what context means. A couple of Google searches, a few out of context quotes that support his worldview, and nothing else matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alas, the Supreme Court has sided with my claims for 120 years. As did Bingham. As did Howard.
> 
> Remember, I actually cited the Congressional Record showing that John Bingham and Jacob Howard, both of whom were on the committe writing the 14th amendment, explicited stated that the purpose of the 14th was to extend the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> You cited yourself....ignored the Supreme Court, ignored Bingham, ignored Howard, and insisting you know better than all of them.
> 
> Smiling.....how's that working out for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cited a couple of words by two men out of tens of thousand of words by two-hundred and forty-seven members of Congress. I cannot find any evidence that the debates only consisted of Howard and Bingham. That is not how evidence works. Evidence works off the preponderance of evidence, and you avoid the preponderance of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is really good at that, she also excels at ignoring others arguments which blast her to smithereens. She does like to repeat herself and make snarky remarks however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument without evidence isn't an argument. And both of you love to make shit up and call it evidence. All while ignoring the actual evidence.....like real court cases, actual citations, and genuine legal precedent.
> 
> Which might explain why the actual law is on one side of every issue we've discussed. And both of you are on the other.
Click to expand...


See what I mean!


----------



## Syriusly

The Professor said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?
> 
> Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?
> 
> If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?
> 
> Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?
> 
> If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be "hindu"....knock yourself out..... but Christianity does not condone homosexuality as it is offensive to God, the father and His son Jesus Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got news for you, but Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality.  Matter of fact, when He was asked what the greatest commandment is, He said "Love God above all else, and love one another as you love God".
> 
> Gender wasn't specified.
> 
> And.....................I also challenge you to show me in the Bible where it says that homosexuality is a sin.  Got news for you, you can't.
> 
> However....................you CAN find a place in the Bible (namely the Old Testament, which is a Jewish not a Christian book), where it states that if one man lies with another it's an abomination.  Got news for you, that is from the book that talks about the rules for JEWISH priests, not anything to do with Christianity.  Leviticus is actually a manual for those who are Jewish priests, not Christians.
> 
> And by the way.................if a man lies with a woman on the same Naval command, she gets pregnant, and they decide to get married, that is also considered an "abomination" to the U.S. Navy, and one of those who are in the union have to be transferred to another command.  You can't have a married couple serving in the same command in the Navy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that Christ never addressed the subject of homosexuality directly is a moot point. Christians believe the entire Bible is the Word of God, not just the red-letter words attributable to Christ. To Christians the words of Peter, John , Paul and others, including the Biblical Patriarchs, are also sacred. There can be no doubt that the Bible (in both the Old and New Testaments) condemns homosexuality.
> 
> First of all, here are verses from the Old Testament which clearly state that homosexuality is an abomination and those who engaged in such activities were to be put to death (all verses are from the KJV):
> 
> “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” (Leviticus 18:22).
> 
> “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13).
> n.
Click to expand...


Leviticus also says that it is a sin to eat shellfish. 

So if Leviticus is so sacred- why is eating shrimp practically a requirement in the Evangelical South?

Citing the Old Testament- Leviticus - is hardly a strong point in your argument- since Christians essentially ignore all of Leviticus- except condemning homosexuals.


----------



## jillian

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what to tell you or anyone else whose entire premise is based on and out of context quote by Hamilton in a document written for the state of New York. Federalist No. 78 only regarded the seperation of powers in the context of the congress of the United States.
> 
> Says you. Hamilton says differently:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist Paper 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law.* It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. *If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, *the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With your own quote of the Federalist Papers reaffirming the same point: that the judiciary should put the constitution above legislative statutes that violate it.
> 
> You say differently. You're nobody. Hamilton wins.
> 
> [quote
> The substantive due process did not exist in the 19th century and the Bill of Rights were not incorporated with the Fourteenth Amendment and it was twentieth century activist courts that created the concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment wasn't even ratified until nearly 1870. So your reference to the '19th century' and the 14th amendment is already nearly 70% irrelevant.
> 
> The courts ignored the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment from the 1870s to the 1890s. From about 1900 until the present day, they recognized the purpose of the 14th amendment as being the application of the bill of rights to the States.
> 
> Which is *exactly* what Bingham and Howard said it was to do.
> 
> Judicial precedent affirming the 14th amendment's application to the States has existed for about 115 years. It was rejected for about 30.  *Meaning that the weight of judicial precedent affirms the current interpretation by a ratio of about 4 to 1. *
> 
> Worse for you, the current interpretation is aligned with the intent of the writers of the 14th, which was clearly to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> *You lose utterly. Twice*. There's a reason your interpretations are legally irrelevant and have no bearing on the outcome of Obergefell or any other case the court is hearing.
> 
> You simply don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can draw any conclusion they want it they start with a premise, go to Google, and work backwards to find an out of context quote to support their worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it was as easy as you claim, you'd have done it. You already tried....and failed comically. As we both know my conclusions are in context and accurately conveyed.
> 
> Try again. Remembering of course that I have the rulings, Papers, Bingham and Howard quotes right here that contradict your fallacious paraphrases and vague allusions o 'being out of context'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment started in 1866 and was ratified in 1868.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which might explain why the courts didn't apply the 14th amendment BEFORE 1868....or during the overwhelming majority of the 19th century.
> 
> They applied an interpretation that ignored Bingham and Howard for about 30 years. Then, starting in around 1900, began applying the amendment in a manner consistent with its intent: to Apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> And have done so ever since, for the last 115 years or so. The weight of precedent contradicting out out strips what you think supports you by a factor of nearly 4 to 1.
> 
> With the court's current interpretation inline with the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment: the application of Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The courts did not ignore anything. The courts used the intent and  they use procedural due process of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure they did. They argued, straight out, that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. When Bingham and Howard made it ludicrously clear that that was exactly what the 14th amendment was designed to do.
> 
> For crying out loud, Howard actually took the time to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th was intended to apply to the States when he introduced the amendment to the Senate.
> 
> It wasn't until 1900 that the courts returned to what the primary proponents of the 14th amendment obviously intended. And we've been there ever since.
> 
> 30 years......to 115 years. With the 115 years matching the intent of the amendment.
> 
> You lose again. Twice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you do have every out of context quote by Bingham and  Howard at your disposal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing...anything that contradicts you you insist is 'out of context'. Despite you being laughably unable to establish any other context than the one I presented.
> 
> You're alluding to an argument you can't factually support. While ignoring the evidence that explicitly contradicts you. Like say, Federalist Paper 78.....which makes it ludicriously clear that its the role of the judiciary to interpret the meaning of the constitution and place the constitution above legislative acts that violate it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. *It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. *If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; *or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.*
> Good luck with all that when you write your next law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't make the Federalist Papers disappear. Or Obergefell, Bingham, Howard, of the 14th amendment magically change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> review or write your next appellate brief. And be sure to use that unsophisticated and jenjune rhetoric of yours, it will alert the court or review that you have superior knowledge of the Constitution. They look for things such as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing....um, slick? My interpretations ARE the court's interpretations. As Obegefell makes ludicriously clear:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you insist that the Supreme Court is wrong, and _you're right?_
> 
> Make sure to include that in your next appellant brief. I'm sure the judges will get a good belly laugh. And please, misspell 'jejune' again when you do it. Its like frosting on your fail cake.
Click to expand...


the federalist papers are not law. and what hamilton set forth was his opinion and that opinion certainly came into conflict with jefferson's vision.

conversely, supreme court decisions are law.

the high court is the final arbiter of the interpretation of the constitution.

see: Marbury v Madison, and its sequelae


----------



## regent

I have always referred to the The Federalist Papers as simply letters to the editor.


----------



## Skylar

jillian said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what to tell you or anyone else whose entire premise is based on and out of context quote by Hamilton in a document written for the state of New York. Federalist No. 78 only regarded the seperation of powers in the context of the congress of the United States.
> 
> Says you. Hamilton says differently:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist Paper 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law.* It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. *If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, *the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With your own quote of the Federalist Papers reaffirming the same point: that the judiciary should put the constitution above legislative statutes that violate it.
> 
> You say differently. You're nobody. Hamilton wins.
> 
> [quote
> The substantive due process did not exist in the 19th century and the Bill of Rights were not incorporated with the Fourteenth Amendment and it was twentieth century activist courts that created the concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment wasn't even ratified until nearly 1870. So your reference to the '19th century' and the 14th amendment is already nearly 70% irrelevant.
> 
> The courts ignored the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment from the 1870s to the 1890s. From about 1900 until the present day, they recognized the purpose of the 14th amendment as being the application of the bill of rights to the States.
> 
> Which is *exactly* what Bingham and Howard said it was to do.
> 
> Judicial precedent affirming the 14th amendment's application to the States has existed for about 115 years. It was rejected for about 30.  *Meaning that the weight of judicial precedent affirms the current interpretation by a ratio of about 4 to 1. *
> 
> Worse for you, the current interpretation is aligned with the intent of the writers of the 14th, which was clearly to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> *You lose utterly. Twice*. There's a reason your interpretations are legally irrelevant and have no bearing on the outcome of Obergefell or any other case the court is hearing.
> 
> You simply don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can draw any conclusion they want it they start with a premise, go to Google, and work backwards to find an out of context quote to support their worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it was as easy as you claim, you'd have done it. You already tried....and failed comically. As we both know my conclusions are in context and accurately conveyed.
> 
> Try again. Remembering of course that I have the rulings, Papers, Bingham and Howard quotes right here that contradict your fallacious paraphrases and vague allusions o 'being out of context'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment started in 1866 and was ratified in 1868.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which might explain why the courts didn't apply the 14th amendment BEFORE 1868....or during the overwhelming majority of the 19th century.
> 
> They applied an interpretation that ignored Bingham and Howard for about 30 years. Then, starting in around 1900, began applying the amendment in a manner consistent with its intent: to Apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> And have done so ever since, for the last 115 years or so. The weight of precedent contradicting out out strips what you think supports you by a factor of nearly 4 to 1.
> 
> With the court's current interpretation inline with the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment: the application of Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The courts did not ignore anything. The courts used the intent and  they use procedural due process of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure they did. They argued, straight out, that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. When Bingham and Howard made it ludicrously clear that that was exactly what the 14th amendment was designed to do.
> 
> For crying out loud, Howard actually took the time to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th was intended to apply to the States when he introduced the amendment to the Senate.
> 
> It wasn't until 1900 that the courts returned to what the primary proponents of the 14th amendment obviously intended. And we've been there ever since.
> 
> 30 years......to 115 years. With the 115 years matching the intent of the amendment.
> 
> You lose again. Twice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you do have every out of context quote by Bingham and  Howard at your disposal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing...anything that contradicts you you insist is 'out of context'. Despite you being laughably unable to establish any other context than the one I presented.
> 
> You're alluding to an argument you can't factually support. While ignoring the evidence that explicitly contradicts you. Like say, Federalist Paper 78.....which makes it ludicriously clear that its the role of the judiciary to interpret the meaning of the constitution and place the constitution above legislative acts that violate it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist 78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. *It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. *If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; *or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.*
> Good luck with all that when you write your next law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't make the Federalist Papers disappear. Or Obergefell, Bingham, Howard, of the 14th amendment magically change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> review or write your next appellate brief. And be sure to use that unsophisticated and jenjune rhetoric of yours, it will alert the court or review that you have superior knowledge of the Constitution. They look for things such as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing....um, slick? My interpretations ARE the court's interpretations. As Obegefell makes ludicriously clear:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you insist that the Supreme Court is wrong, and _you're right?_
> 
> Make sure to include that in your next appellant brief. I'm sure the judges will get a good belly laugh. And please, misspell 'jejune' again when you do it. Its like frosting on your fail cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the federalist papers are not law. and what hamilton set forth was his opinion and that opinion certainly came into conflict with jefferson's vision.
Click to expand...


The federalist papers give us a clear picture of what the federalists meant by the terms that they used. Federalist 78, for example, describes the judicial power. This is relevant, as the Federalists where the overwhelmingly dominant force in the writing of the Constitution. 

Jefferson is probably one of the least relevant founders you could cite in the writing of the constitution. He didn't write even one of the federalist papers, wasn't a representative for any state at the constitutional congress, didn't attend a single session, wasn't even in the country.

Hamilton, however.....was one of the three writers of the Federalist Papers. And the Federalist Papers give an excellent view into what the constitution means according to those that wrote it.



> conversely, supreme court decisions are law.



The Supreme Court is also on my side. Or more accurately, I'm with them. With 120 years of precedent in favor of the 14th applying the Bill of Rights to the States. And the Obergefell decision in 2015 affirming that same sex marriage is constitutionally protected. 



> the high court is the final arbiter of the interpretation of the constitution.
> 
> see: Marbury v Madison, and its sequelae



You're preaching to the choir. I'm the one arguing in favor of the Supreme Court's authority, and with the USSC's rulings.

Its Tenny and Moron that insist that the Supreme Court is wrong and that they know better.


----------



## Skylar

regent said:


> I have always referred to the The Federalist Papers as simply letters to the editor.



I've found them useful in understanding what the founders were going for in writing the constitution. The degree of its utility depends on how much of an originalist you are. 

As most of the people challenging judicial authority claim to be 'originalists', I find the Federalist papers an excellent foil for shutting down their arguments with evidence.


----------



## Tennyson

The Federalist Papers are the least reliable. They were written by three men primarily for New York. The notes of the Philadelphia convention, the state's ratifying conventions, and the personal writings and speeches of the founders are the most reliable.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> The Federalist Papers are the least reliable.



Says you, citing yourself. And as you demonstrated in your meltdown in our conversations regarding the 14th amendment.....you really don't know what you're talking about.

Back in reality, the Federalist papers stand as one of the clearest, most cogent, and most transparent windows into what the logic behind the constitution was meant to be.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Federalist Papers are the least reliable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you, citing yourself. And as you demonstrated in your meltdown in our conversations regarding the 14th amendment.....you really don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> Back in reality, the Federalist papers stand as one of the clearest, most cogent, and most transparent windows into what the logic behind the constitution was meant to be.
Click to expand...


How about that Blaine Amendment?


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Federalist Papers are the least reliable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you, citing yourself. And as you demonstrated in your meltdown in our conversations regarding the 14th amendment.....you really don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> Back in reality, the Federalist papers stand as one of the clearest, most cogent, and most transparent windows into what the logic behind the constitution was meant to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about that Blaine Amendment?
Click to expand...


If you have an argument to make, make it. But you're gonna need evidence. As you citing you is woefully unreliable.

As you demonstrated when you laughably and fallaciously claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

Show us. Don't tell us.


----------



## dpr112yme

Gay marriage is not a constitutional right but having the opportunity of taking your case all the way up to the Supreme Court is.  LBGT was being funded by someone or some groups to have them go from State to Supreme Court rulings.


----------



## dpr112yme

dpr112yme said:


> Gay marriage is not a constitutional right but having the opportunity of taking your case all the way up to the Supreme Court is.  LBGT was being funded by someone or some groups to have them go from State to Supreme Court rulings.



In 2001, the Netherlands[nb 3] became the first country to permit same-sex marriages.[82] Since then same-sex marriages have been permitted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003),[83] Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010),[84] Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010),[85] Denmark (2012),[nb 1] Brazil (2013), France (2013), Uruguay (2013), New Zealand[nb 4] (2013), the United Kingdom[nb 5] (2014), Luxembourg (2015), the United States[nb 6] (2015), Ireland (2015) and Colombia (2016).[86] Same-sex marriage is to become legal in Finland on 1 March 2017. In Mexico, same-sex marriages are performed in a number of states and recognised in all thirty-one states. In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated.[87]

Yes, even France is gay marriage friendly.   Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dpr112yme

dpr112yme said:


> dpr112yme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage is not a constitutional right but having the opportunity of taking your case all the way up to the Supreme Court is.  LBGT was being funded by someone or some groups to have them go from State to Supreme Court rulings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2001, the Netherlands[nb 3] became the first country to permit same-sex marriages.[82] Since then same-sex marriages have been permitted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003),[83] Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010),[84] Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010),[85] Denmark (2012),[nb 1] Brazil (2013), France (2013), Uruguay (2013), New Zealand[nb 4] (2013), the United Kingdom[nb 5] (2014), Luxembourg (2015), the United States[nb 6] (2015), Ireland (2015) and Colombia (2016).[86] Same-sex marriage is to become legal in Finland on 1 March 2017. In Mexico, same-sex marriages are performed in a number of states and recognised in all thirty-one states. In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated.[87]
> 
> Yes, even France is gay marriage friendly.   Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


If governments are more interested in allowing persons to decide what they want to do with their lives in regards to their sexuality, where would government come in?  Which sectors in daily living would the government be needed in?  If each Constitution is being reworked and regrounded, then why even need a government?  Probably for the international trades and international monetary necessities.  So maybe the government will soon turn into a body which helps the individual people of the nation be able to have unrestricted fun, per se and the government will be doing the international monetary transactions.  And so if someone does not want to partake in the governmental 'freedoms' to society, the person is allowed to not participate and should seek another place to live if what is occurring around their neighborhood is becoming too offensive for some reason.  Noise pollution can be seen as offensive also.  But here is the flip side.  If Government wants to allow all freedoms to be unrestricted with protective bodies and legalities, why are they infringing their ideas into the school systems where children to other adults attend?  What people do, after the age of majority is reached, is then considered an adult decision.  But children under the age of 18 cannot have things forced upon them, in schools or in other institutions without giving their parents a way to continue providing for their children's welfare, if the parents should decide to not agree with the system.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Federalist Papers are the least reliable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you, citing yourself. And as you demonstrated in your meltdown in our conversations regarding the 14th amendment.....you really don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> Back in reality, the Federalist papers stand as one of the clearest, most cogent, and most transparent windows into what the logic behind the constitution was meant to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about that Blaine Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have an argument to make, make it. But you're gonna need evidence. As you citing you is woefully unreliable.
> 
> As you demonstrated when you laughably and fallaciously claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> Show us. Don't tell us.
Click to expand...



How about that Blaine Amendment?


----------



## dpr112yme

dpr112yme said:


> dpr112yme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dpr112yme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage is not a constitutional right but having the opportunity of taking your case all the way up to the Supreme Court is.  LBGT was being funded by someone or some groups to have them go from State to Supreme Court rulings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2001, the Netherlands[nb 3] became the first country to permit same-sex marriages.[82] Since then same-sex marriages have been permitted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003),[83] Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010),[84] Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010),[85] Denmark (2012),[nb 1] Brazil (2013), France (2013), Uruguay (2013), New Zealand[nb 4] (2013), the United Kingdom[nb 5] (2014), Luxembourg (2015), the United States[nb 6] (2015), Ireland (2015) and Colombia (2016).[86] Same-sex marriage is to become legal in Finland on 1 March 2017. In Mexico, same-sex marriages are performed in a number of states and recognised in all thirty-one states. In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated.[87]
> 
> Yes, even France is gay marriage friendly.   Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If governments are more interested in allowing persons to decide what they want to do with their lives in regards to their sexuality, where would government come in?  Which sectors in daily living would the government be needed in?  If each Constitution is being reworked and regrounded, then why even need a government?  Probably for the international trades and international monetary necessities.  So maybe the government will soon turn into a body which helps the individual people of the nation be able to have unrestricted fun, per se and the government will be doing the international monetary transactions.  And so if someone does not want to partake in the governmental 'freedoms' to society, the person is allowed to not participate and should seek another place to live if what is occurring around their neighborhood is becoming too offensive for some reason.  Noise pollution can be seen as offensive also.  But here is the flip side.  If Government wants to allow all freedoms to be unrestricted with protective bodies and legalities, why are they infringing their ideas into the school systems where children to other adults attend?  What people do, after the age of majority is reached, is then considered an adult decision.  But children under the age of 18 cannot have things forced upon them, in schools or in other institutions without giving their parents a way to continue providing for their children's welfare, if the parents should decide to not agree with the system.
Click to expand...


Children in schools should not be forced into reciting a muslim prayer or a muslim statement.  Just as the children should not be forced to learn about any other thing their parents do not want them to learn.  STD'S and sex ED is a private matter between parents and their children and parents have just as much right to have their children taught what they want instead of having muslim prayers taught to them


----------



## dpr112yme

dpr112yme said:


> dpr112yme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dpr112yme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dpr112yme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage is not a constitutional right but having the opportunity of taking your case all the way up to the Supreme Court is.  LBGT was being funded by someone or some groups to have them go from State to Supreme Court rulings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2001, the Netherlands[nb 3] became the first country to permit same-sex marriages.[82] Since then same-sex marriages have been permitted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003),[83] Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010),[84] Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010),[85] Denmark (2012),[nb 1] Brazil (2013), France (2013), Uruguay (2013), New Zealand[nb 4] (2013), the United Kingdom[nb 5] (2014), Luxembourg (2015), the United States[nb 6] (2015), Ireland (2015) and Colombia (2016).[86] Same-sex marriage is to become legal in Finland on 1 March 2017. In Mexico, same-sex marriages are performed in a number of states and recognised in all thirty-one states. In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated.[87]
> 
> Yes, even France is gay marriage friendly.   Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If governments are more interested in allowing persons to decide what they want to do with their lives in regards to their sexuality, where would government come in?  Which sectors in daily living would the government be needed in?  If each Constitution is being reworked and regrounded, then why even need a government?  Probably for the international trades and international monetary necessities.  So maybe the government will soon turn into a body which helps the individual people of the nation be able to have unrestricted fun, per se and the government will be doing the international monetary transactions.  And so if someone does not want to partake in the governmental 'freedoms' to society, the person is allowed to not participate and should seek another place to live if what is occurring around their neighborhood is becoming too offensive for some reason.  Noise pollution can be seen as offensive also.  But here is the flip side.  If Government wants to allow all freedoms to be unrestricted with protective bodies and legalities, why are they infringing their ideas into the school systems where children to other adults attend?  What people do, after the age of majority is reached, is then considered an adult decision.  But children under the age of 18 cannot have things forced upon them, in schools or in other institutions without giving their parents a way to continue providing for their children's welfare, if the parents should decide to not agree with the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children in schools should not be forced into reciting a muslim prayer or a muslim statement.  Just as the children should not be forced to learn about any other thing their parents do not want them to learn.  STD'S and sex ED is a private matter between parents and their children and parents have just as much right to have their children taught what they want instead of having muslim prayers taught to them
Click to expand...


Just as certain persons can get hired and fired for meeting and not meeting certain criteria, this same hire/fire process is applicable in all agencies of employment.  And the only place where you cannot get fired by your boss is if you run your own business.  All else, including governmental agencies are public businesses that can be checked and balanced, even audited.  To be honest, it just seems that no one wants to fire anyone right now.

I'd be quick to fire an employee who didn't know how to make shoes if I owned a shoe manufacturing store.


----------



## Skylar

dpr112yme said:


> Gay marriage is not a constitutional right but having the opportunity of taking your case all the way up to the Supreme Court is.  LBGT was being funded by someone or some groups to have them go from State to Supreme Court rulings.



And when the Supreme Court affirms that laws denying same sex couples access to marriage violate the 14th amendment, that invalidates any such laws.


----------



## Skylar

dpr112yme said:


> dpr112yme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dpr112yme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dpr112yme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage is not a constitutional right but having the opportunity of taking your case all the way up to the Supreme Court is.  LBGT was being funded by someone or some groups to have them go from State to Supreme Court rulings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2001, the Netherlands[nb 3] became the first country to permit same-sex marriages.[82] Since then same-sex marriages have been permitted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003),[83] Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010),[84] Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010),[85] Denmark (2012),[nb 1] Brazil (2013), France (2013), Uruguay (2013), New Zealand[nb 4] (2013), the United Kingdom[nb 5] (2014), Luxembourg (2015), the United States[nb 6] (2015), Ireland (2015) and Colombia (2016).[86] Same-sex marriage is to become legal in Finland on 1 March 2017. In Mexico, same-sex marriages are performed in a number of states and recognised in all thirty-one states. In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated.[87]
> 
> Yes, even France is gay marriage friendly.   Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If governments are more interested in allowing persons to decide what they want to do with their lives in regards to their sexuality, where would government come in?  Which sectors in daily living would the government be needed in?  If each Constitution is being reworked and regrounded, then why even need a government?  Probably for the international trades and international monetary necessities.  So maybe the government will soon turn into a body which helps the individual people of the nation be able to have unrestricted fun, per se and the government will be doing the international monetary transactions.  And so if someone does not want to partake in the governmental 'freedoms' to society, the person is allowed to not participate and should seek another place to live if what is occurring around their neighborhood is becoming too offensive for some reason.  Noise pollution can be seen as offensive also.  But here is the flip side.  If Government wants to allow all freedoms to be unrestricted with protective bodies and legalities, why are they infringing their ideas into the school systems where children to other adults attend?  What people do, after the age of majority is reached, is then considered an adult decision.  But children under the age of 18 cannot have things forced upon them, in schools or in other institutions without giving their parents a way to continue providing for their children's welfare, if the parents should decide to not agree with the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children in schools should not be forced into reciting a muslim prayer or a muslim statement.  Just as the children should not be forced to learn about any other thing their parents do not want them to learn.  STD'S and sex ED is a private matter between parents and their children and parents have just as much right to have their children taught what they want instead of having muslim prayers taught to them
Click to expand...


Why are you responding to yourself?


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Federalist Papers are the least reliable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you, citing yourself. And as you demonstrated in your meltdown in our conversations regarding the 14th amendment.....you really don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> Back in reality, the Federalist papers stand as one of the clearest, most cogent, and most transparent windows into what the logic behind the constitution was meant to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about that Blaine Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have an argument to make, make it. But you're gonna need evidence. As you citing you is woefully unreliable.
> 
> As you demonstrated when you laughably and fallaciously claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> Show us. Don't tell us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How about that Blaine Amendment?
Click to expand...


How about that Blaine Amendment.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Federalist Papers are the least reliable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you, citing yourself. And as you demonstrated in your meltdown in our conversations regarding the 14th amendment.....you really don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> Back in reality, the Federalist papers stand as one of the clearest, most cogent, and most transparent windows into what the logic behind the constitution was meant to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about that Blaine Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have an argument to make, make it. But you're gonna need evidence. As you citing you is woefully unreliable.
> 
> As you demonstrated when you laughably and fallaciously claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> Show us. Don't tell us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How about that Blaine Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about that Blaine Amendment.
Click to expand...


Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says you, citing yourself. And as you demonstrated in your meltdown in our conversations regarding the 14th amendment.....you really don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> Back in reality, the Federalist papers stand as one of the clearest, most cogent, and most transparent windows into what the logic behind the constitution was meant to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about that Blaine Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have an argument to make, make it. But you're gonna need evidence. As you citing you is woefully unreliable.
> 
> As you demonstrated when you laughably and fallaciously claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> Show us. Don't tell us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How about that Blaine Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about that Blaine Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?
Click to expand...


You're claiming that the 39th congress proposed the Blaine Amendment? 

Are you sure you want hang your hat on that?


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about that Blaine Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have an argument to make, make it. But you're gonna need evidence. As you citing you is woefully unreliable.
> 
> As you demonstrated when you laughably and fallaciously claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> Show us. Don't tell us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How about that Blaine Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about that Blaine Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're claiming that the 39th congress proposed the Blaine Amendment?
> 
> Are you sure you want hang your hat on that?
Click to expand...


I did not say that.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have an argument to make, make it. But you're gonna need evidence. As you citing you is woefully unreliable.
> 
> As you demonstrated when you laughably and fallaciously claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.
> 
> Show us. Don't tell us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about that Blaine Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about that Blaine Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're claiming that the 39th congress proposed the Blaine Amendment?
> 
> Are you sure you want hang your hat on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say that.
Click to expand...

You said the members of the 39th congress proposed the Blaine amendment.

*But they didn't. *This is why I demand evidence to back your claims. Because you're wildly unreliable. At best, you don't know what you're talking about. At worst, you're lying. 

Sigh.....Tenny, you're pointlessly burning credibility now.


----------



## dpr112yme

Skylar said:


> dpr112yme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dpr112yme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dpr112yme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dpr112yme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage is not a constitutional right but having the opportunity of taking your case all the way up to the Supreme Court is.  LBGT was being funded by someone or some groups to have them go from State to Supreme Court rulings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2001, the Netherlands[nb 3] became the first country to permit same-sex marriages.[82] Since then same-sex marriages have been permitted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003),[83] Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010),[84] Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010),[85] Denmark (2012),[nb 1] Brazil (2013), France (2013), Uruguay (2013), New Zealand[nb 4] (2013), the United Kingdom[nb 5] (2014), Luxembourg (2015), the United States[nb 6] (2015), Ireland (2015) and Colombia (2016).[86] Same-sex marriage is to become legal in Finland on 1 March 2017. In Mexico, same-sex marriages are performed in a number of states and recognised in all thirty-one states. In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated.[87]
> 
> Yes, even France is gay marriage friendly.   Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If governments are more interested in allowing persons to decide what they want to do with their lives in regards to their sexuality, where would government come in?  Which sectors in daily living would the government be needed in?  If each Constitution is being reworked and regrounded, then why even need a government?  Probably for the international trades and international monetary necessities.  So maybe the government will soon turn into a body which helps the individual people of the nation be able to have unrestricted fun, per se and the government will be doing the international monetary transactions.  And so if someone does not want to partake in the governmental 'freedoms' to society, the person is allowed to not participate and should seek another place to live if what is occurring around their neighborhood is becoming too offensive for some reason.  Noise pollution can be seen as offensive also.  But here is the flip side.  If Government wants to allow all freedoms to be unrestricted with protective bodies and legalities, why are they infringing their ideas into the school systems where children to other adults attend?  What people do, after the age of majority is reached, is then considered an adult decision.  But children under the age of 18 cannot have things forced upon them, in schools or in other institutions without giving their parents a way to continue providing for their children's welfare, if the parents should decide to not agree with the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children in schools should not be forced into reciting a muslim prayer or a muslim statement.  Just as the children should not be forced to learn about any other thing their parents do not want them to learn.  STD'S and sex ED is a private matter between parents and their children and parents have just as much right to have their children taught what they want instead of having muslim prayers taught to them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you responding to yourself?
Click to expand...



not really responding to myself.  More like continuing the thought.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about that Blaine Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about that Blaine Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're claiming that the 39th congress proposed the Blaine Amendment?
> 
> Are you sure you want hang your hat on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said the members of the 39th congress proposed the Blaine amendment.
> 
> *But they didn't. *This is why I demand evidence to back your claims. Because you're wildly unreliable. At best, you don't know what you're talking about. At worst, you're lying.
> 
> Sigh.....Tenny, you're pointlessly burning credibility now.
Click to expand...


I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment. 



> Why did the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose the Blaine Amendment?



The same congressmen from. James Blairs was from the 39th Congress. 

Again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress  propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about that Blaine Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're claiming that the 39th congress proposed the Blaine Amendment?
> 
> Are you sure you want hang your hat on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said the members of the 39th congress proposed the Blaine amendment.
> 
> *But they didn't. *This is why I demand evidence to back your claims. Because you're wildly unreliable. At best, you don't know what you're talking about. At worst, you're lying.
> 
> Sigh.....Tenny, you're pointlessly burning credibility now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment.
Click to expand...


Except when you did:



			
				Tennyson said:
			
		

> Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?



Again, we can all read what you wrote. There's no point in denying it. And you demonstrate again why you citing you is meaningless gibber jabber.



> Again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress  propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?



Tell us, when was the Blair Amendment proposed? Give us the year. It will clue you in rapidly to your folly.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're claiming that the 39th congress proposed the Blaine Amendment?
> 
> Are you sure you want hang your hat on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said the members of the 39th congress proposed the Blaine amendment.
> 
> *But they didn't. *This is why I demand evidence to back your claims. Because you're wildly unreliable. At best, you don't know what you're talking about. At worst, you're lying.
> 
> Sigh.....Tenny, you're pointlessly burning credibility now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when you did:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, we can all read what you wrote. There's no point in denying it. And you demonstrate again why you citing you is meaningless gibber jabber.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress  propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us, when was the Blair Amendment proposed? Give us the year. It will clue you in rapidly to your folly.
Click to expand...



Again, I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment. I asked why the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose the Blaine Amendment. So again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?

As I predicted, you have dodged the last two questions. The second dodge was a fantastic evasive trick under the guise of sophomoric semantics.

Now for a third question you will not answer:

 Why would a congressman from the 39th Congress propose a 16th amendment applying the First Amendment to the states four years before the Blaine Amendment and three years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're claiming that the 39th congress proposed the Blaine Amendment?
> 
> Are you sure you want hang your hat on that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said the members of the 39th congress proposed the Blaine amendment.
> 
> *But they didn't. *This is why I demand evidence to back your claims. Because you're wildly unreliable. At best, you don't know what you're talking about. At worst, you're lying.
> 
> Sigh.....Tenny, you're pointlessly burning credibility now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when you did:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, we can all read what you wrote. There's no point in denying it. And you demonstrate again why you citing you is meaningless gibber jabber.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress  propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us, when was the Blair Amendment proposed? Give us the year. It will clue you in rapidly to your folly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment. I asked why the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose the Blaine Amendment.
Click to expand...


Of course you did:



			
				Tennyson said:
			
		

> Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?



Every time you deny it, I just quote you. The 39th congress did not propose the Blaine Amendment. That would be the 44th Congress.



> As I predicted, you have dodged the last two questions. The second dodge was a fantastic evasive trick under the guise of sophomoric semantics.



My question is the answer to your own: *When was the Blaine amendment proposed? *The date is significant....and you know why. Which is why you're avoiding it.

And on a related note, when were the Slaughter House cases decided? You know, the case generally regarded as one of the worst rulings the US Supreme Court ever made?

You know the answer to both questions. But you'll keep running.....because you know they thoroughly answer your question.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say that.
> 
> 
> 
> You said the members of the 39th congress proposed the Blaine amendment.
> 
> *But they didn't. *This is why I demand evidence to back your claims. Because you're wildly unreliable. At best, you don't know what you're talking about. At worst, you're lying.
> 
> Sigh.....Tenny, you're pointlessly burning credibility now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when you did:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, we can all read what you wrote. There's no point in denying it. And you demonstrate again why you citing you is meaningless gibber jabber.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress  propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us, when was the Blair Amendment proposed? Give us the year. It will clue you in rapidly to your folly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment. I asked why the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose the Blaine Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you did:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time you deny it, I just quote you. The 39th congress did not propose the Blaine Amendment. That would be the 44th Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I predicted, you have dodged the last two questions. The second dodge was a fantastic evasive trick under the guise of sophomoric semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My question is the answer to your own: *When was the Blaine amendment proposed? *The date is significant....and you know why. Which is why you're avoiding it.
> 
> And on a related note, when were the Slaughter House cases decided? You know, the case generally regarded as one of the worst rulings the US Supreme Court ever made?
> 
> You know the answer to both questions. But you'll keep running.....because you know they thoroughly answer your question.
Click to expand...


You can play your jejune semantics game with the unsophisticated regarding American history and law. They will not work with me and your attempt to shift the dialogue away from the substance of my posts will not work either.

Again, I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment. I asked why the same congressmen from the 39th Congress proposed the Blaine Amendment.

You seem to be deficient in history. Blaine, Stewart, Lawrence, Banks, Frelinghuysen, et al. were all members of the 39th Congress.

As I predicted, you have dodged all my questions. The second and third dodges were fantastic evasive tricks under the guise of sophomoric semantics.

When the Blaine Amendment was proposed is irrelevant for two reasons: It is a carbon copy of the proposed 16th Amendment, and the Blaine Amendment was proposed because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights.

Here is a recap of the last two questions you have avoided:

Why would a congressman from the 39th Congress propose a 16th amendment applying the First Amendment to the states four years before the Blaine Amendment and three years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?

Again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?

Here is another question you will not answer:

What were Saulsbury’s and other Senators reactions when Wilson introduced S.R. 3 regarding disarming the state’s militias and what two Supreme Court cases in the 19th century supported Saulsbury’s resistance?


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said the members of the 39th congress proposed the Blaine amendment.
> 
> *But they didn't. *This is why I demand evidence to back your claims. Because you're wildly unreliable. At best, you don't know what you're talking about. At worst, you're lying.
> 
> Sigh.....Tenny, you're pointlessly burning credibility now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when you did:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, we can all read what you wrote. There's no point in denying it. And you demonstrate again why you citing you is meaningless gibber jabber.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress  propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us, when was the Blair Amendment proposed? Give us the year. It will clue you in rapidly to your folly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment. I asked why the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose the Blaine Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you did:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time you deny it, I just quote you. The 39th congress did not propose the Blaine Amendment. That would be the 44th Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I predicted, you have dodged the last two questions. The second dodge was a fantastic evasive trick under the guise of sophomoric semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My question is the answer to your own: *When was the Blaine amendment proposed? *The date is significant....and you know why. Which is why you're avoiding it.
> 
> And on a related note, when were the Slaughter House cases decided? You know, the case generally regarded as one of the worst rulings the US Supreme Court ever made?
> 
> You know the answer to both questions. But you'll keep running.....because you know they thoroughly answer your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can play your jejune semantics game with the unsophisticated regarding American history and law. They will not work with me and your attempt to shift the dialogue away from the substance of my posts will not work either.
Click to expand...


Sequence is immediately relevant. *What came first.....the Slaughter House cases or the Blaine Amendment?*

You know what the answer is. You know why its relevant. And you know why you're running.

Spoiler Alert: I know why you're running too. 



> Again, I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment. I asked why the same congressmen from the 39th Congress proposed the Blaine Amendment.
> 
> You seem to be deficient in history. Blaine, Stewart, Lawrence, Banks, Frelinghuysen, et al. were all members of the 39th Congress.
> 
> As I predicted, you have dodged all my questions. The second and third dodges were fantastic evasive tricks under the guise of sophomoric semantics.
> 
> When the Blaine Amendment was proposed is irrelevant for two reasons: It is a carbon copy of the proposed 16th Amendment, and the Blaine Amendment was proposed because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Here is a recap of the last two questions you have avoided:
> 
> Why would a congressman from the 39th Congress propose a 16th amendment applying the First Amendment to the states four years before the Blaine Amendment and three years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Here is another question you will not answer:
> 
> What were Saulsbury’s and other Senators reactions when Wilson introduced S.R. 3 regarding disarming the state’s militias and what two Supreme Court cases in the 19th century supported Saulsbury’s resistance?



You asked this: 



			
				Tennyson said:
			
		

> Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?



Every time you deny it...I just quote you. And the 39th congress didn't propose the Blaine Amendment. That didn't happen until the 44th Congress.

Which you knew. But really hoped we didn't.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except when you did:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, we can all read what you wrote. There's no point in denying it. And you demonstrate again why you citing you is meaningless gibber jabber.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress  propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us, when was the Blair Amendment proposed? Give us the year. It will clue you in rapidly to your folly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment. I asked why the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose the Blaine Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you did:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time you deny it, I just quote you. The 39th congress did not propose the Blaine Amendment. That would be the 44th Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I predicted, you have dodged the last two questions. The second dodge was a fantastic evasive trick under the guise of sophomoric semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My question is the answer to your own: *When was the Blaine amendment proposed? *The date is significant....and you know why. Which is why you're avoiding it.
> 
> And on a related note, when were the Slaughter House cases decided? You know, the case generally regarded as one of the worst rulings the US Supreme Court ever made?
> 
> You know the answer to both questions. But you'll keep running.....because you know they thoroughly answer your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can play your jejune semantics game with the unsophisticated regarding American history and law. They will not work with me and your attempt to shift the dialogue away from the substance of my posts will not work either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sequence is immediately relevant. *What came first.....the Slaughter House cases or the Blaine Amendment?*
> 
> You know what the answer is. You know why its relevant. And you know why you're running.
> 
> Spoiler Alert: I know why you're running too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment. I asked why the same congressmen from the 39th Congress proposed the Blaine Amendment.
> 
> You seem to be deficient in history. Blaine, Stewart, Lawrence, Banks, Frelinghuysen, et al. were all members of the 39th Congress.
> 
> As I predicted, you have dodged all my questions. The second and third dodges were fantastic evasive tricks under the guise of sophomoric semantics.
> 
> When the Blaine Amendment was proposed is irrelevant for two reasons: It is a carbon copy of the proposed 16th Amendment, and the Blaine Amendment was proposed because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Here is a recap of the last two questions you have avoided:
> 
> Why would a congressman from the 39th Congress propose a 16th amendment applying the First Amendment to the states four years before the Blaine Amendment and three years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Here is another question you will not answer:
> 
> What were Saulsbury’s and other Senators reactions when Wilson introduced S.R. 3 regarding disarming the state’s militias and what two Supreme Court cases in the 19th century supported Saulsbury’s resistance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time you deny it...I just quote you. And the 39th congress didn't propose the Blaine Amendment. That didn't happen until the 44th Congress.
> 
> Which you knew. But really hoped we didn't.
Click to expand...


What is your point? 

The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's.  The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional  members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except when you did:
> 
> Again, we can all read what you wrote. There's no point in denying it. And you demonstrate again why you citing you is meaningless gibber jabber.
> 
> Tell us, when was the Blair Amendment proposed? Give us the year. It will clue you in rapidly to your folly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment. I asked why the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose the Blaine Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you did:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time you deny it, I just quote you. The 39th congress did not propose the Blaine Amendment. That would be the 44th Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I predicted, you have dodged the last two questions. The second dodge was a fantastic evasive trick under the guise of sophomoric semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My question is the answer to your own: *When was the Blaine amendment proposed? *The date is significant....and you know why. Which is why you're avoiding it.
> 
> And on a related note, when were the Slaughter House cases decided? You know, the case generally regarded as one of the worst rulings the US Supreme Court ever made?
> 
> You know the answer to both questions. But you'll keep running.....because you know they thoroughly answer your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can play your jejune semantics game with the unsophisticated regarding American history and law. They will not work with me and your attempt to shift the dialogue away from the substance of my posts will not work either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sequence is immediately relevant. *What came first.....the Slaughter House cases or the Blaine Amendment?*
> 
> You know what the answer is. You know why its relevant. And you know why you're running.
> 
> Spoiler Alert: I know why you're running too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment. I asked why the same congressmen from the 39th Congress proposed the Blaine Amendment.
> 
> You seem to be deficient in history. Blaine, Stewart, Lawrence, Banks, Frelinghuysen, et al. were all members of the 39th Congress.
> 
> As I predicted, you have dodged all my questions. The second and third dodges were fantastic evasive tricks under the guise of sophomoric semantics.
> 
> When the Blaine Amendment was proposed is irrelevant for two reasons: It is a carbon copy of the proposed 16th Amendment, and the Blaine Amendment was proposed because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Here is a recap of the last two questions you have avoided:
> 
> Why would a congressman from the 39th Congress propose a 16th amendment applying the First Amendment to the states four years before the Blaine Amendment and three years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Here is another question you will not answer:
> 
> What were Saulsbury’s and other Senators reactions when Wilson introduced S.R. 3 regarding disarming the state’s militias and what two Supreme Court cases in the 19th century supported Saulsbury’s resistance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time you deny it...I just quote you. And the 39th congress didn't propose the Blaine Amendment. That didn't happen until the 44th Congress.
> 
> Which you knew. But really hoped we didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your point?
Click to expand...


You know exactly what my point is. Now answer the question:

*Which came first....the Slaughter House cases or the Blaine Amendment? *



> The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's.  The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional  members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment.



The 39th congress wasn't in 1871. But ended in 1867. With the 14th ratified in 1868.

Now......riddle me this. *What happened between 1868 and 1875 when you indicate the Blaine Amendment was proposed?*

C'mon, say it. You know you wanna say it.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment. I asked why the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose the Blaine Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you did:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time you deny it, I just quote you. The 39th congress did not propose the Blaine Amendment. That would be the 44th Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I predicted, you have dodged the last two questions. The second dodge was a fantastic evasive trick under the guise of sophomoric semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My question is the answer to your own: *When was the Blaine amendment proposed? *The date is significant....and you know why. Which is why you're avoiding it.
> 
> And on a related note, when were the Slaughter House cases decided? You know, the case generally regarded as one of the worst rulings the US Supreme Court ever made?
> 
> You know the answer to both questions. But you'll keep running.....because you know they thoroughly answer your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can play your jejune semantics game with the unsophisticated regarding American history and law. They will not work with me and your attempt to shift the dialogue away from the substance of my posts will not work either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sequence is immediately relevant. *What came first.....the Slaughter House cases or the Blaine Amendment?*
> 
> You know what the answer is. You know why its relevant. And you know why you're running.
> 
> Spoiler Alert: I know why you're running too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment. I asked why the same congressmen from the 39th Congress proposed the Blaine Amendment.
> 
> You seem to be deficient in history. Blaine, Stewart, Lawrence, Banks, Frelinghuysen, et al. were all members of the 39th Congress.
> 
> As I predicted, you have dodged all my questions. The second and third dodges were fantastic evasive tricks under the guise of sophomoric semantics.
> 
> When the Blaine Amendment was proposed is irrelevant for two reasons: It is a carbon copy of the proposed 16th Amendment, and the Blaine Amendment was proposed because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Here is a recap of the last two questions you have avoided:
> 
> Why would a congressman from the 39th Congress propose a 16th amendment applying the First Amendment to the states four years before the Blaine Amendment and three years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Here is another question you will not answer:
> 
> What were Saulsbury’s and other Senators reactions when Wilson introduced S.R. 3 regarding disarming the state’s militias and what two Supreme Court cases in the 19th century supported Saulsbury’s resistance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time you deny it...I just quote you. And the 39th congress didn't propose the Blaine Amendment. That didn't happen until the 44th Congress.
> 
> Which you knew. But really hoped we didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know exactly what my point is. Now answer the question:
> 
> *Which came first....the Slaughter House cases or the Blaine Amendment? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's.  The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional  members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 39th congress wasn't in 1871. But ended in 1867. With the 14th ratified in 1868.
> 
> Now......riddle me this. *What happened between 1868 and 1875 when you indicate the Blaine Amendment was proposed?*
> 
> C'mon, say it. You know you wanna say it.
Click to expand...


All the answers are in my post.

The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you did:
> 
> Every time you deny it, I just quote you. The 39th congress did not propose the Blaine Amendment. That would be the 44th Congress.
> 
> My question is the answer to your own: *When was the Blaine amendment proposed? *The date is significant....and you know why. Which is why you're avoiding it.
> 
> And on a related note, when were the Slaughter House cases decided? You know, the case generally regarded as one of the worst rulings the US Supreme Court ever made?
> 
> You know the answer to both questions. But you'll keep running.....because you know they thoroughly answer your question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can play your jejune semantics game with the unsophisticated regarding American history and law. They will not work with me and your attempt to shift the dialogue away from the substance of my posts will not work either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sequence is immediately relevant. *What came first.....the Slaughter House cases or the Blaine Amendment?*
> 
> You know what the answer is. You know why its relevant. And you know why you're running.
> 
> Spoiler Alert: I know why you're running too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment. I asked why the same congressmen from the 39th Congress proposed the Blaine Amendment.
> 
> You seem to be deficient in history. Blaine, Stewart, Lawrence, Banks, Frelinghuysen, et al. were all members of the 39th Congress.
> 
> As I predicted, you have dodged all my questions. The second and third dodges were fantastic evasive tricks under the guise of sophomoric semantics.
> 
> When the Blaine Amendment was proposed is irrelevant for two reasons: It is a carbon copy of the proposed 16th Amendment, and the Blaine Amendment was proposed because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Here is a recap of the last two questions you have avoided:
> 
> Why would a congressman from the 39th Congress propose a 16th amendment applying the First Amendment to the states four years before the Blaine Amendment and three years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Here is another question you will not answer:
> 
> What were Saulsbury’s and other Senators reactions when Wilson introduced S.R. 3 regarding disarming the state’s militias and what two Supreme Court cases in the 19th century supported Saulsbury’s resistance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time you deny it...I just quote you. And the 39th congress didn't propose the Blaine Amendment. That didn't happen until the 44th Congress.
> 
> Which you knew. But really hoped we didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know exactly what my point is. Now answer the question:
> 
> *Which came first....the Slaughter House cases or the Blaine Amendment? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's.  The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional  members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 39th congress wasn't in 1871. But ended in 1867. With the 14th ratified in 1868.
> 
> Now......riddle me this. *What happened between 1868 and 1875 when you indicate the Blaine Amendment was proposed?*
> 
> C'mon, say it. You know you wanna say it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the answers are in my post.
> 
> The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment
Click to expand...

So according to you, the Slaughterhouse Cases were '_in between_ the proposed 16th amendment and the Blaine Amendment'?

Which means, per your interpretation, *the 'proposed 16th amendment' isn't the Blaine Amendment. *

Quote the 'proposed 16th amendment' for us, then. With evidence. And a verifiable date of introduction to the House.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can play your jejune semantics game with the unsophisticated regarding American history and law. They will not work with me and your attempt to shift the dialogue away from the substance of my posts will not work either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sequence is immediately relevant. *What came first.....the Slaughter House cases or the Blaine Amendment?*
> 
> You know what the answer is. You know why its relevant. And you know why you're running.
> 
> Spoiler Alert: I know why you're running too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment. I asked why the same congressmen from the 39th Congress proposed the Blaine Amendment.
> 
> You seem to be deficient in history. Blaine, Stewart, Lawrence, Banks, Frelinghuysen, et al. were all members of the 39th Congress.
> 
> As I predicted, you have dodged all my questions. The second and third dodges were fantastic evasive tricks under the guise of sophomoric semantics.
> 
> When the Blaine Amendment was proposed is irrelevant for two reasons: It is a carbon copy of the proposed 16th Amendment, and the Blaine Amendment was proposed because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Here is a recap of the last two questions you have avoided:
> 
> Why would a congressman from the 39th Congress propose a 16th amendment applying the First Amendment to the states four years before the Blaine Amendment and three years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Here is another question you will not answer:
> 
> What were Saulsbury’s and other Senators reactions when Wilson introduced S.R. 3 regarding disarming the state’s militias and what two Supreme Court cases in the 19th century supported Saulsbury’s resistance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time you deny it...I just quote you. And the 39th congress didn't propose the Blaine Amendment. That didn't happen until the 44th Congress.
> 
> Which you knew. But really hoped we didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know exactly what my point is. Now answer the question:
> 
> *Which came first....the Slaughter House cases or the Blaine Amendment? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's.  The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional  members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 39th congress wasn't in 1871. But ended in 1867. With the 14th ratified in 1868.
> 
> Now......riddle me this. *What happened between 1868 and 1875 when you indicate the Blaine Amendment was proposed?*
> 
> C'mon, say it. You know you wanna say it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the answers are in my post.
> 
> The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So according to you, the Slaughterhouse Cases were '_in between_ the proposed 16th amendment and the Blaine Amendment'?
> 
> Which means, per your interpretation, *the 'proposed 16th amendment' isn't the Blaine Amendment. *
> 
> Quote the 'proposed 16th amendment' for us, then.
Click to expand...


Nothing is according to me. It is a matter of historical record when the 16th Amendment was proposed in 1871 and the Blaine Amendment of 1875. The 1871 amendment attempted to apply the First Amendment to the states. The amendment was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress. The slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment and there was no mention of the slaughterhouse cases and no mention by Blaine, who was a member of the 39th Congress. The Blaine Amendment was started by a speech by Grant in 1875, and there was also no mention of the slaughterhouse cases or the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sequence is immediately relevant. *What came first.....the Slaughter House cases or the Blaine Amendment?*
> 
> You know what the answer is. You know why its relevant. And you know why you're running.
> 
> Spoiler Alert: I know why you're running too.
> 
> You asked this:
> 
> Every time you deny it...I just quote you. And the 39th congress didn't propose the Blaine Amendment. That didn't happen until the 44th Congress.
> 
> Which you knew. But really hoped we didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know exactly what my point is. Now answer the question:
> 
> *Which came first....the Slaughter House cases or the Blaine Amendment? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's.  The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional  members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 39th congress wasn't in 1871. But ended in 1867. With the 14th ratified in 1868.
> 
> Now......riddle me this. *What happened between 1868 and 1875 when you indicate the Blaine Amendment was proposed?*
> 
> C'mon, say it. You know you wanna say it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the answers are in my post.
> 
> The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So according to you, the Slaughterhouse Cases were '_in between_ the proposed 16th amendment and the Blaine Amendment'?
> 
> Which means, per your interpretation, *the 'proposed 16th amendment' isn't the Blaine Amendment. *
> 
> Quote the 'proposed 16th amendment' for us, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing is according to me. It is a matter of historical record when the 16th Amendment was proposed in 1871 and the Blaine Amendment of 1875. The 1871 amendment attempted to apply the First Amendment to the states. The amendment was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress. The slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment and there was no mention of the slaughterhouse cases and no mention by Blaine, who was a member of the 39th Congress. The Blaine Amendment was started by a speech by Grant in 1875, and there was also no mention of the slaughterhouse cases or the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...


Then it will be remarkably easy for you to quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871. 

_Please do so now. _

As the Blaine amendment wasn't proposed in 1871. Nor was it proposed by the 39th congress. You've moved your goal posts.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know exactly what my point is. Now answer the question:
> 
> *Which came first....the Slaughter House cases or the Blaine Amendment? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's.  The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional  members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 39th congress wasn't in 1871. But ended in 1867. With the 14th ratified in 1868.
> 
> Now......riddle me this. *What happened between 1868 and 1875 when you indicate the Blaine Amendment was proposed?*
> 
> C'mon, say it. You know you wanna say it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the answers are in my post.
> 
> The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So according to you, the Slaughterhouse Cases were '_in between_ the proposed 16th amendment and the Blaine Amendment'?
> 
> Which means, per your interpretation, *the 'proposed 16th amendment' isn't the Blaine Amendment. *
> 
> Quote the 'proposed 16th amendment' for us, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing is according to me. It is a matter of historical record when the 16th Amendment was proposed in 1871 and the Blaine Amendment of 1875. The 1871 amendment attempted to apply the First Amendment to the states. The amendment was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress. The slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment and there was no mention of the slaughterhouse cases and no mention by Blaine, who was a member of the 39th Congress. The Blaine Amendment was started by a speech by Grant in 1875, and there was also no mention of the slaughterhouse cases or the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it will be remarkably easy for you to quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.
> 
> _Please do so now. _
> 
> As the Blaine amendment wasn't proposed in 1871. Nor was it proposed by the 39th congress. You've moved your goal posts.
Click to expand...


I never said the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1871; I stated 1875. I never stated it was proposed by the 39th Congress either. I stated that it was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress, and that member was Blaine. 

It is remarkedly easy to produce the 1871 amendment. If you are asking, you shouldn't be engaging me on the subject.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know exactly what my point is. Now answer the question:
> 
> *Which came first....the Slaughter House cases or the Blaine Amendment? *
> 
> The 39th congress wasn't in 1871. But ended in 1867. With the 14th ratified in 1868.
> 
> Now......riddle me this. *What happened between 1868 and 1875 when you indicate the Blaine Amendment was proposed?*
> 
> C'mon, say it. You know you wanna say it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the answers are in my post.
> 
> The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So according to you, the Slaughterhouse Cases were '_in between_ the proposed 16th amendment and the Blaine Amendment'?
> 
> Which means, per your interpretation, *the 'proposed 16th amendment' isn't the Blaine Amendment. *
> 
> Quote the 'proposed 16th amendment' for us, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing is according to me. It is a matter of historical record when the 16th Amendment was proposed in 1871 and the Blaine Amendment of 1875. The 1871 amendment attempted to apply the First Amendment to the states. The amendment was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress. The slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment and there was no mention of the slaughterhouse cases and no mention by Blaine, who was a member of the 39th Congress. The Blaine Amendment was started by a speech by Grant in 1875, and there was also no mention of the slaughterhouse cases or the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it will be remarkably easy for you to quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.
> 
> _Please do so now. _
> 
> As the Blaine amendment wasn't proposed in 1871. Nor was it proposed by the 39th congress. You've moved your goal posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1871; I stated 1875. I never stated it was proposed by the 39th Congress either. I stated that it was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress, and that member was Blaine.
> 
> It is remarkedly easy to produce the 1871 amendment. If you are asking, you shouldn't be engaging me on the subject.
Click to expand...


If it was remarkably easy to produce the 1871 amendment, *you would have done so.* You didn't. You gave me excuses instead, insinuating an argument you clearly can't back factually.

Lets try this again:

*Quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.*

And as always, you citing yourself isn't evidence. Proceed.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the answers are in my post.
> 
> The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you, the Slaughterhouse Cases were '_in between_ the proposed 16th amendment and the Blaine Amendment'?
> 
> Which means, per your interpretation, *the 'proposed 16th amendment' isn't the Blaine Amendment. *
> 
> Quote the 'proposed 16th amendment' for us, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing is according to me. It is a matter of historical record when the 16th Amendment was proposed in 1871 and the Blaine Amendment of 1875. The 1871 amendment attempted to apply the First Amendment to the states. The amendment was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress. The slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment and there was no mention of the slaughterhouse cases and no mention by Blaine, who was a member of the 39th Congress. The Blaine Amendment was started by a speech by Grant in 1875, and there was also no mention of the slaughterhouse cases or the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it will be remarkably easy for you to quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.
> 
> _Please do so now. _
> 
> As the Blaine amendment wasn't proposed in 1871. Nor was it proposed by the 39th congress. You've moved your goal posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1871; I stated 1875. I never stated it was proposed by the 39th Congress either. I stated that it was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress, and that member was Blaine.
> 
> It is remarkedly easy to produce the 1871 amendment. If you are asking, you shouldn't be engaging me on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it was remarkably easy to produce the 1871 amendment, *you would have done so.* You didn't. You gave me excuses instead, insinuating an argument you clearly can't back factually.
> 
> Lets try this again:
> 
> *Quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.*
> 
> And as always, you citing yourself isn't evidence. Proceed.
Click to expand...


This is the easiest evidence.


Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the answers are in my post.
> 
> The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you, the Slaughterhouse Cases were '_in between_ the proposed 16th amendment and the Blaine Amendment'?
> 
> Which means, per your interpretation, *the 'proposed 16th amendment' isn't the Blaine Amendment. *
> 
> Quote the 'proposed 16th amendment' for us, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing is according to me. It is a matter of historical record when the 16th Amendment was proposed in 1871 and the Blaine Amendment of 1875. The 1871 amendment attempted to apply the First Amendment to the states. The amendment was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress. The slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment and there was no mention of the slaughterhouse cases and no mention by Blaine, who was a member of the 39th Congress. The Blaine Amendment was started by a speech by Grant in 1875, and there was also no mention of the slaughterhouse cases or the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it will be remarkably easy for you to quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.
> 
> _Please do so now. _
> 
> As the Blaine amendment wasn't proposed in 1871. Nor was it proposed by the 39th congress. You've moved your goal posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1871; I stated 1875. I never stated it was proposed by the 39th Congress either. I stated that it was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress, and that member was Blaine.
> 
> It is remarkedly easy to produce the 1871 amendment. If you are asking, you shouldn't be engaging me on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it was remarkably easy to produce the 1871 amendment, *you would have done so.* You didn't. You gave me excuses instead, insinuating an argument you clearly can't back factually.
> 
> Lets try this again:
> 
> *Quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.*
> 
> And as always, you citing yourself isn't evidence. Proceed.
Click to expand...


Do you want the December 19, 1871 proposed amendment by Stewart or the April 19, 1871 proposed amendment proposed by Burdett? 

Here are the two amendments attempting to apply the First Amendment to the states. Both are before the Slaughterhouse cases and both are identical to the Blaine Amendment in content, which was after the Slaughterhouse cases. 

*Burdett's April 19, 1870 proposed amendment:
*


> SECTION 1. No State or municipal corporation within any State of the United States shall levy or collect any tax for the support or aid of any sectarian, denominational, or religious school or educational establishment; nor shall the legislature of any State, or the corporate authorities of any municipality within any State, appropriate any money or make any donation from the public fund or property of such State or municipality for the support or aid of any sectarian, religious, or denominational schools or educational establishments.
> 
> SEC. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


*

Stewart's December 19, 1871 proposed amendment:*



> SECTION. 1. There shall be maintained in each State and Territory a system of free common schools, but neither the United States nor any State, Territory, county, or municipal corporation, shall aid in the support of any schools wherein the peculiar tenets of any denomination are taught.
> 
> SEC. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


----------



## Skylar

Tennyson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you, the Slaughterhouse Cases were '_in between_ the proposed 16th amendment and the Blaine Amendment'?
> 
> Which means, per your interpretation, *the 'proposed 16th amendment' isn't the Blaine Amendment. *
> 
> Quote the 'proposed 16th amendment' for us, then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is according to me. It is a matter of historical record when the 16th Amendment was proposed in 1871 and the Blaine Amendment of 1875. The 1871 amendment attempted to apply the First Amendment to the states. The amendment was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress. The slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment and there was no mention of the slaughterhouse cases and no mention by Blaine, who was a member of the 39th Congress. The Blaine Amendment was started by a speech by Grant in 1875, and there was also no mention of the slaughterhouse cases or the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it will be remarkably easy for you to quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.
> 
> _Please do so now. _
> 
> As the Blaine amendment wasn't proposed in 1871. Nor was it proposed by the 39th congress. You've moved your goal posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1871; I stated 1875. I never stated it was proposed by the 39th Congress either. I stated that it was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress, and that member was Blaine.
> 
> It is remarkedly easy to produce the 1871 amendment. If you are asking, you shouldn't be engaging me on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it was remarkably easy to produce the 1871 amendment, *you would have done so.* You didn't. You gave me excuses instead, insinuating an argument you clearly can't back factually.
> 
> Lets try this again:
> 
> *Quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.*
> 
> And as always, you citing yourself isn't evidence. Proceed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the easiest evidence.
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you, the Slaughterhouse Cases were '_in between_ the proposed 16th amendment and the Blaine Amendment'?
> 
> Which means, per your interpretation, *the 'proposed 16th amendment' isn't the Blaine Amendment. *
> 
> Quote the 'proposed 16th amendment' for us, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing is according to me. It is a matter of historical record when the 16th Amendment was proposed in 1871 and the Blaine Amendment of 1875. The 1871 amendment attempted to apply the First Amendment to the states. The amendment was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress. The slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment and there was no mention of the slaughterhouse cases and no mention by Blaine, who was a member of the 39th Congress. The Blaine Amendment was started by a speech by Grant in 1875, and there was also no mention of the slaughterhouse cases or the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it will be remarkably easy for you to quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.
> 
> _Please do so now. _
> 
> As the Blaine amendment wasn't proposed in 1871. Nor was it proposed by the 39th congress. You've moved your goal posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1871; I stated 1875. I never stated it was proposed by the 39th Congress either. I stated that it was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress, and that member was Blaine.
> 
> It is remarkedly easy to produce the 1871 amendment. If you are asking, you shouldn't be engaging me on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it was remarkably easy to produce the 1871 amendment, *you would have done so.* You didn't. You gave me excuses instead, insinuating an argument you clearly can't back factually.
> 
> Lets try this again:
> 
> *Quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.*
> 
> And as always, you citing yourself isn't evidence. Proceed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want the December 19, 1871 proposed amendment by Stewart or the April 19, 1871 proposed amendment proposed by Burdett?
> 
> Here are the two amendments attempting to apply the First Amendment to the states. Both are before the Slaughterhouse cases and both are identical to the Blaine Amendment in content, which was after the Slaughterhouse cases.
> 
> *Burdett's April 19, 1870 proposed amendment:
> *
> 
> 
> 
> SECTION 1. No State or municipal corporation within any State of the United States shall levy or collect any tax for the support or aid of any sectarian, denominational, or religious school or educational establishment; nor shall the legislature of any State, or the corporate authorities of any municipality within any State, appropriate any money or make any donation from the public fund or property of such State or municipality for the support or aid of any sectarian, religious, or denominational schools or educational establishments.
> 
> SEC. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> Stewart's December 19, 1871 proposed amendment:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SECTION. 1. There shall be maintained in each State and Territory a system of free common schools, but neither the United States nor any State, Territory, county, or municipal corporation, shall aid in the support of any schools wherein the peculiar tenets of any denomination are taught.
> 
> SEC. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Burdett wasn't a representative until 1869, _after_ the 14th amendment was proposed, written, introduced and ratified.  Your claim was that the proposed amendment was made by 'members of the 39th congress'. Which Burdett was not. Making him and his proposals irrelevant to your argument. 

Worse, I've reviewed the Congressional record for April 19th, 1870. There's no amendment proposed by Mr. Burdett. Nor any record of Rep. Burdett having said anything on that day. Nor the slightest mention of Burdett's 'intention' to apply the 1st Amendment to the States.

Worse still, there's no mention of 'incorporating the 1st amendment' in any of his proposals. Or those by Stewart in 1871. It wasn't until the Blaine Amendment in 1875.....2 years AFTER the Slaughter House cases, that there was any mention of incorporating the 1st amendment.

Nor did Stewart argue that his proposed amendment incorporated the 1st Amendment upon the States. That would be you....._citing yourself. 
_
Sigh....again.


----------



## Tennyson

Skylar said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is according to me. It is a matter of historical record when the 16th Amendment was proposed in 1871 and the Blaine Amendment of 1875. The 1871 amendment attempted to apply the First Amendment to the states. The amendment was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress. The slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment and there was no mention of the slaughterhouse cases and no mention by Blaine, who was a member of the 39th Congress. The Blaine Amendment was started by a speech by Grant in 1875, and there was also no mention of the slaughterhouse cases or the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it will be remarkably easy for you to quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.
> 
> _Please do so now. _
> 
> As the Blaine amendment wasn't proposed in 1871. Nor was it proposed by the 39th congress. You've moved your goal posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1871; I stated 1875. I never stated it was proposed by the 39th Congress either. I stated that it was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress, and that member was Blaine.
> 
> It is remarkedly easy to produce the 1871 amendment. If you are asking, you shouldn't be engaging me on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it was remarkably easy to produce the 1871 amendment, *you would have done so.* You didn't. You gave me excuses instead, insinuating an argument you clearly can't back factually.
> 
> Lets try this again:
> 
> *Quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.*
> 
> And as always, you citing yourself isn't evidence. Proceed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the easiest evidence.
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is according to me. It is a matter of historical record when the 16th Amendment was proposed in 1871 and the Blaine Amendment of 1875. The 1871 amendment attempted to apply the First Amendment to the states. The amendment was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress. The slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment and there was no mention of the slaughterhouse cases and no mention by Blaine, who was a member of the 39th Congress. The Blaine Amendment was started by a speech by Grant in 1875, and there was also no mention of the slaughterhouse cases or the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it will be remarkably easy for you to quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.
> 
> _Please do so now. _
> 
> As the Blaine amendment wasn't proposed in 1871. Nor was it proposed by the 39th congress. You've moved your goal posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1871; I stated 1875. I never stated it was proposed by the 39th Congress either. I stated that it was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress, and that member was Blaine.
> 
> It is remarkedly easy to produce the 1871 amendment. If you are asking, you shouldn't be engaging me on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it was remarkably easy to produce the 1871 amendment, *you would have done so.* You didn't. You gave me excuses instead, insinuating an argument you clearly can't back factually.
> 
> Lets try this again:
> 
> *Quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.*
> 
> And as always, you citing yourself isn't evidence. Proceed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want the December 19, 1871 proposed amendment by Stewart or the April 19, 1871 proposed amendment proposed by Burdett?
> 
> Here are the two amendments attempting to apply the First Amendment to the states. Both are before the Slaughterhouse cases and both are identical to the Blaine Amendment in content, which was after the Slaughterhouse cases.
> 
> *Burdett's April 19, 1870 proposed amendment:
> *
> 
> 
> 
> SECTION 1. No State or municipal corporation within any State of the United States shall levy or collect any tax for the support or aid of any sectarian, denominational, or religious school or educational establishment; nor shall the legislature of any State, or the corporate authorities of any municipality within any State, appropriate any money or make any donation from the public fund or property of such State or municipality for the support or aid of any sectarian, religious, or denominational schools or educational establishments.
> 
> SEC. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> Stewart's December 19, 1871 proposed amendment:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SECTION. 1. There shall be maintained in each State and Territory a system of free common schools, but neither the United States nor any State, Territory, county, or municipal corporation, shall aid in the support of any schools wherein the peculiar tenets of any denomination are taught.
> 
> SEC. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Burdett wasn't a representative until 1869, _after_ the 14th amendment was proposed, written, introduced and ratified.  Your claim was that the proposed amendment was made by 'members of the 39th congress'. Which Burdett was not. Making him and his proposals irrelevant to your argument.
> 
> Worse, I've reviewed the Congressional record for April 19th, 1870. There's no amendment proposed by Mr. Burdett. Nor any record of Rep. Burdett having said anything on that day. Nor the slightest mention of Burdett's 'intention' to apply the 1st Amendment to the States.
> 
> Worse still, there's no mention of 'incorporating the 1st amendment' in any of his proposals. Or those by Stewart in 1871. It wasn't until the Blaine Amendment in 1875.....2 years AFTER the Slaughter House cases, that there was any mention of incorporating the 1st amendment.
> 
> Nor did Stewart argue that his proposed amendment incorporated the 1st Amendment upon the States. That would be you....._citing yourself.
> _
> Sigh....again.
Click to expand...


How many questions have you dodged so far? I will have to list all of them in the next post.


> Burdett wasn't a representative until 1869, _after_ the 14th amendment was proposed, written, introduced and ratified. Your claim was that the proposed amendment was made by 'members of the 39th congress'. Which Burdett was not. Making him and his proposals irrelevant to your argument.



I never stated that Burdett was a member of the 39th Congress. Your comment is irrelevant and a dodge.



> Worse, I've reviewed the Congressional record for April 19th, 1870. There's no amendment proposed by Mr. Burdett. Nor any record of Rep. Burdett having said anything on that day. Nor the slightest mention of Burdett's 'intention' to apply the 1st Amendment to the States.



That is not my problem. The amendment applied the First Amendment to the states. It is not my problem that you do not know what the First Amendment is, what it means, its concept, or its limitation to the federal government.



> Worse still, there's no mention of 'incorporating the 1st amendment' in any of his proposals. Or those by Stewart in 1871. It wasn't until the Blaine Amendment in 1875.....2 years AFTER the Slaughter House cases, that there was any mention of incorporating the 1st amendment.



There is no mention of incorporation in the Blaine Amendment. And the Blaine Amendment was not even the final joint resolution. 

The Burdett amendment, the Stewart amendment, the Blaine amendment, and the other Blaine amendment all had the same language, concept, and intent of applying the First Amendment to the states. It is not my problem that you do not know what the First Amendment is, what it means, its concept, or its limitation to the federal government.

The amendment applied the First Amendment to the states. It is not my problem that you do not know what the First Amendment is, what it means, its concept, or its limitation to the federal government.



> Nor did Stewart argue that his proposed amendment incorporated the 1st Amendment upon the States. That would be you....._citing yourself._



There is no mention of incorporation in the Blaine Amendment. And the Blaine Amendment was not even the final joint resolution. 

The Burdett amendment, the Stewart amendment, the Blaine amendment, and the other Blaine amendment all had the same language, concept, and intent of applying the First Amendment to the states. It is not my problem that you do not know what the First Amendment is, what it means, its concept, or its limitation to the federal government.


----------



## DOTR

Skylar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?
> 
> All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.
> 
> But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
Click to expand...


    And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.


----------



## DOTR

Skylar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?
> 
> All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.
> 
> But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are boring. Primarily because all of your examples, be they children, different races, arranged, forced marriage, subservient or anything else, were always unions of the opposite sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.
> 
> And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. *Why not? *
> 
> You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.
> 
> Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're are correct, marriage is what we define it to be, and until the USSC decided differently, it was always defined as some type of union between members of the opposite sex. Ugh....you are like debating with a brick wall, unable to hear, only resist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.
> 
> You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.
> 
> Which is why you failed.
> 
> Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?
Click to expand...


  Explain to me, you bigot, why the 14 guys I work with in my unit cannot marry each other and just pay one insurance premium?


----------



## Wry Catcher

IndependantAce said:


> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.



Once again the ignorance of our Constitution is broadcast for the world to read.

Art. 1, sec. 8 clause 1 states in full:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts *and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States*; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States​Where in the COTUS is general Welfare defined?

If we are to consider the Preamble to COTUS as a mission/vision statement, the concept of a general Welfare along with a common defence (defense) are a guarantee of protection to each individual citizen of civil rights, not limited to those enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Thus, the congress via the taxing power can pass legislation to provide cradle to grave protection against disease to each of us, and a guarantee to each citizen that the civil rights (life, liberty, property and happiness) equally to all.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?
> 
> All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.
> 
> But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.
Click to expand...


It was a bit more than some judges, Hollywood and some billionaires.   I have seen polls showing as high as 55% of the population agreed with same sex marriages.

Personally, I don't think the gov't has a place in marriage at all.  But if you are going to offer 1,400 federal, state and local benefits for married couples, you should make it open to all couples in love.

And, as far as the "Always", you are leaving out some other conditions that have been applied to marriage.  Like requiring that they be the same race.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?
> 
> All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.
> 
> But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are boring. Primarily because all of your examples, be they children, different races, arranged, forced marriage, subservient or anything else, were always unions of the opposite sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.
> 
> And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. *Why not? *
> 
> You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.
> 
> Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're are correct, marriage is what we define it to be, and until the USSC decided differently, it was always defined as some type of union between members of the opposite sex. Ugh....you are like debating with a brick wall, unable to hear, only resist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.
> 
> You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.
> 
> Which is why you failed.
> 
> Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain to me, you bigot, why the 14 guys I work with in my unit cannot marry each other and just pay one insurance premium?
Click to expand...


They can.   Well, they can form 7 couples and marry.   But, lest you forget, marriage is about being in love with the other person.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

DOTR said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?
> 
> All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.
> 
> But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

DOTR said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?
> 
> All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.
> 
> But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are boring. Primarily because all of your examples, be they children, different races, arranged, forced marriage, subservient or anything else, were always unions of the opposite sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.
> 
> And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. *Why not? *
> 
> You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.
> 
> Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're are correct, marriage is what we define it to be, and until the USSC decided differently, it was always defined as some type of union between members of the opposite sex. Ugh....you are like debating with a brick wall, unable to hear, only resist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.
> 
> You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.
> 
> Which is why you failed.
> 
> Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain to me, you bigot, why the 14 guys I work with in my unit cannot marry each other and just pay one insurance premium?
Click to expand...

Again, because marriage contract law is written to accommodate two consenting adult partners only, not three or more.

That three or more persons cannot marry has nothing to do with ‘discrimination,’ it has to do with the fact that marriage contract law is not written to accommodate such a union.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> It was a bit more than some judges, Hollywood and some billionaires.   I have seen polls showing as high as 55% of the population agreed with same sex marriages.
> 
> Personally, I don't think the gov't has a place in marriage at all.  But if you are going to offer 1,400 federal, state and local benefits for married couples, you should make it open to all couples in love.
> 
> And, as far as the "Always", you are leaving out some other conditions that have been applied to marriage.  Like requiring that they be the same race.



   Your polls are wrong but its a moot point. Polls are to a liberal elitist what The Ten Commandments were to Moses. Enjoy, but we shouldn't be governed by what NBC says the people want.
  The liberal is a craven being. He apes Hollywood cebutards, the billionaires and the DC oligarchy. Somehow he finds it brave to stand with power and scream at the serfs.
   And the people manifestly didn't want it. The people defeated in their votes time after time. That isn't an arguable statement. When it was put to the people it lost. As in abortion and school prayer and feminism the elites move it eventually to the media, which they control, and to whichever courts they control. No wonder Podesta and billionaire Clinton supporters snicker at the idea of "democracy" in his emails. WikiLeaks - The Podesta Emails
  I dont care if you want the government in marriage. It is our culture and history and legal system which treats the family differently than the individual. No matter what any individual liberal bemoans that is simply another fact. At no time have our people decided to rise up and overthrow the legal sanction of marriage. We liked it the way it was.
   Yes there were always conditions on marriage. Race sometimes, age, degree of kinship, previous marital status, blood tests had to be performed at times. What matter is that? All were intended to strengthen the institution and help preserve the privileged position of a married couple.
   In the end the facts are we the people created marriage, wove it into every level of government and refused to bastardize it with homosexuals. And we the people were overturned. I'm not sure there is anything left to argue. Those are the facts. The argument wasn't lost...it is abrogated. And in a country where self government is abrogated the people need to decide what to do about it. I suggest looking to our founders and how they responded to having their voices ignored.


----------



## DOTR

Wry Catcher said:


> The New Right represents a great threat to our nation's traditions, values and democratic institutions. They have wrapped themselves in the American Flag, and while holding the cross of Christianity, they have soiled everything those symbols represent.



   What is "new" is that you don't get to define Christianity, or patriotism, any more. It really doesn't matter if Trump wins or loses. It is the wave Trump rides that is important. He is along for the ride but Trump isn't driving.


----------



## Tennyson

Wry Catcher said:


> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again the ignorance of our Constitution is broadcast for the world to read.
> 
> Art. 1, sec. 8 clause 1 states in full:
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts *and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States*; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States​Where in the COTUS is general Welfare defined?
> 
> If we are to consider the Preamble to COTUS as a mission/vision statement, the concept of a general Welfare along with a common defence (defense) are a guarantee of protection to each individual citizen of civil rights, not limited to those enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Thus, the congress via the taxing power can pass legislation to provide cradle to grave protection against disease to each of us, and a guarantee to each citizen that the civil rights (life, liberty, property and happiness) equally to all.
Click to expand...


The common defense and general welfare clauses are not grants of power. The grants of powers are enumerated and explicit. The general welfare clause was defined in the debates and writings and came from two articles in the Articles of Confederation, and the meaning and intent did not change with the Constitution.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are boring. Primarily because all of your examples, be they children, different races, arranged, forced marriage, subservient or anything else, were always unions of the opposite sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.
> 
> And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. *Why not? *
> 
> You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.
> 
> Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're are correct, marriage is what we define it to be, and until the USSC decided differently, it was always defined as some type of union between members of the opposite sex. Ugh....you are like debating with a brick wall, unable to hear, only resist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.
> 
> You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.
> 
> Which is why you failed.
> 
> Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain to me, you bigot, why the 14 guys I work with in my unit cannot marry each other and just pay one insurance premium?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can.   Well, they can form 7 couples and marry.   But, lest you forget, marriage is about being in love with the other person.
Click to expand...


  What a weird definition. I think you are a bigot who holds contempt for polyamorous joinings. But you still didn't answer the very simple question. Nor do I expect you to. What I do expect is that when the Supreme Court overturns the bans on plural marriage you will be here explaining why it is such a wonderful decision. Which of course will lead to the 14 men in my unit keeping their wives, marrying each other and asking to pay one premium for the family plan insurance.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are boring. Primarily because all of your examples, be they children, different races, arranged, forced marriage, subservient or anything else, were always unions of the opposite sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.
> 
> And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. *Why not? *
> 
> You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.
> 
> Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're are correct, marriage is what we define it to be, and until the USSC decided differently, it was always defined as some type of union between members of the opposite sex. Ugh....you are like debating with a brick wall, unable to hear, only resist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.
> 
> You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.
> 
> Which is why you failed.
> 
> Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain to me, you bigot, why the 14 guys I work with in my unit cannot marry each other and just pay one insurance premium?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can.   Well, they can form 7 couples and marry.   But, lest you forget, marriage is about being in love with the other person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a weird definition. I think you are a bigot who holds contempt for polyamorous joinings. But you still didn't answer the very simple question. Nor do I expect you to. What I do expect is that when the Supreme Court overturns the bans on plural marriage you will be here explaining why it is such a wonderful decision. Which of course will lead to the 14 men in my unit keeping their wives, marrying each other and asking to pay one premium for the family plan insurance.
Click to expand...


You are barking up the wrong tree.  I am not saying anything against polygamy.  In fact, as I have stated numerous times, I am polyamorous.  But the law currently is set up for two people.  If polygamy is legal, I am all for it.

Now, answer a question for me.  Why do you want the gov't involved in marriage at all?


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a bit more than some judges, Hollywood and some billionaires.   I have seen polls showing as high as 55% of the population agreed with same sex marriages.
> 
> Personally, I don't think the gov't has a place in marriage at all.  But if you are going to offer 1,400 federal, state and local benefits for married couples, you should make it open to all couples in love.
> 
> And, as far as the "Always", you are leaving out some other conditions that have been applied to marriage.  Like requiring that they be the same race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your polls are wrong but its a moot point. Polls are to a liberal elitist what The Ten Commandments were to Moses. Enjoy, but we shouldn't be governed by what NBC says the people want.
> The liberal is a craven being. He apes Hollywood cebutards, the billionaires and the DC oligarchy. Somehow he finds it brave to stand with power and scream at the serfs.
> And the people manifestly didn't want it. The people defeated in their votes time after time. That isn't an arguable statement. When it was put to the people it lost. As in abortion and school prayer and feminism the elites move it eventually to the media, which they control, and to whichever courts they control. No wonder Podesta and billionaire Clinton supporters snicker at the idea of "democracy" in his emails. WikiLeaks - The Podesta Emails
> I dont care if you want the government in marriage. It is our culture and history and legal system which treats the family differently than the individual. No matter what any individual liberal bemoans that is simply another fact. At no time have our people decided to rise up and overthrow the legal sanction of marriage. We liked it the way it was.
> Yes there were always conditions on marriage. Race sometimes, age, degree of kinship, previous marital status, blood tests had to be performed at times. What matter is that? All were intended to strengthen the institution and help preserve the privileged position of a married couple.
> In the end the facts are we the people created marriage, wove it into every level of government and refused to bastardize it with homosexuals. And we the people were overturned. I'm not sure there is anything left to argue. Those are the facts. The argument wasn't lost...it is abrogated. And in a country where self government is abrogated the people need to decide what to do about it. I suggest looking to our founders and how they responded to having their voices ignored.
Click to expand...


Dismissing the polls is handy.   And I never said that the polls mattered.  They simply show that your claim of it only being a few judges, the Hollywood elite and some billionaires wanting same sex marriage is bogus.

And the SCOTUS simply applied the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

But why do you care?  What effect does the ruling have on you or your marriage?


----------



## DOTR

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?
> 
> All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.
> 
> But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).
Click to expand...

  I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.


----------



## DOTR

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).



  Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Orwell was right about statists and their abuse of language in the pursuit of power. It is a word which sprang into being to describe the legal status of men and women in relation to each other. Liberals have stripped the word of its meaning and then used the now useless word in their war on Americans.

"
*“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."*

*" This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’ since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless....Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought..."*


----------



## DOTR

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Again, because marriage contract law is written to accommodate two consenting adult partners only, not three or more.
> 
> That three or more persons cannot marry has nothing to do with ‘discrimination,’ it has to do with the fact that marriage contract law is not written to accommodate such a union.



  Don't lie. Marriage contract law was written for the union of a man and a woman. Period.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are boring. Primarily because all of your examples, be they children, different races, arranged, forced marriage, subservient or anything else, were always unions of the opposite sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.
> 
> And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. *Why not? *
> 
> You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.
> 
> Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're are correct, marriage is what we define it to be, and until the USSC decided differently, it was always defined as some type of union between members of the opposite sex. Ugh....you are like debating with a brick wall, unable to hear, only resist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.
> 
> You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.
> 
> Which is why you failed.
> 
> Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain to me, you bigot, why the 14 guys I work with in my unit cannot marry each other and just pay one insurance premium?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can.   Well, they can form 7 couples and marry.   But, lest you forget, marriage is about being in love with the other person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a weird definition. I think you are a bigot who holds contempt for polyamorous joinings. But you still didn't answer the very simple question. Nor do I expect you to. What I do expect is that when the Supreme Court overturns the bans on plural marriage you will be here explaining why it is such a wonderful decision. Which of course will lead to the 14 men in my unit keeping their wives, marrying each other and asking to pay one premium for the family plan insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are barking up the wrong tree.  I am not saying anything against polygamy.  In fact, as I have stated numerous times, I am polyamorous.  But the law currently is set up for two people.  If polygamy is legal, I am all for it.
> 
> Now, answer a question for me.  Why do you want the gov't involved in marriage at all?
Click to expand...


  Would you like some adderall or Ritalin? I didn't mention polygamy or being polyamorous in my question to you. I asked if you had a reason for opposing the polyamorous union of 14 men.
  Doesn't matter why I want the government involved in marriage. It is. By history, culture, precedent and practice and consent of the governed. There is no move yet by liberals (though i expect it) to take marriage from the framework of law.
  You can answer the question or move on.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?
> 
> All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.
> 
> But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.
Click to expand...


Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed.   We have moved beyond that.  Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.
> 
> And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. *Why not? *
> 
> You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.
> 
> Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.
> 
> You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.
> 
> You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.
> 
> Which is why you failed.
> 
> Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain to me, you bigot, why the 14 guys I work with in my unit cannot marry each other and just pay one insurance premium?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can.   Well, they can form 7 couples and marry.   But, lest you forget, marriage is about being in love with the other person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a weird definition. I think you are a bigot who holds contempt for polyamorous joinings. But you still didn't answer the very simple question. Nor do I expect you to. What I do expect is that when the Supreme Court overturns the bans on plural marriage you will be here explaining why it is such a wonderful decision. Which of course will lead to the 14 men in my unit keeping their wives, marrying each other and asking to pay one premium for the family plan insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are barking up the wrong tree.  I am not saying anything against polygamy.  In fact, as I have stated numerous times, I am polyamorous.  But the law currently is set up for two people.  If polygamy is legal, I am all for it.
> 
> Now, answer a question for me.  Why do you want the gov't involved in marriage at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you like some adderall or Ritalin? I didn't mention polygamy or being polyamorous in my question to you. I asked if you had a reason for opposing the polyamorous union of 14 men.
> Doesn't matter why I want the government involved in marriage. It is. By history, culture, precedent and practice and consent of the governed. There is no move yet by liberals (though i expect it) to take marriage from the framework of law.
> You can answer the question or move on.
Click to expand...


No thanks on the meds.  All I need for you to do is remember what you type.

You said "I think you are a bigot who holds contempt for polyamorous joinings. But you still didn't answer the very simple question. Nor do I expect you to. What I do expect is that when the Supreme Court overturns the bans on plural marriage you will be here explaining why it is such a wonderful decision.". 

My response was due to your comment "I think you are a bigot who holds contempt for polyamorous joinings".    And, while you didn't mention polygamy by name, you did, in fact, mention plural marriages.  What is amusing is that you claim I am a bigot without knowing anything about my beliefs on the topic.  

And I believe in smaller gov't which interferes less in our lives.  Perhaps you want the gov't involved in the most intimate details.  I don't.  That is not liberal.  

As for my answering your question or moving on, I think I'll keep posting when and where I choose.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Orwell was right about statists and their abuse of language in the pursuit of power. It is a word which sprang into being to describe the legal status of men and women in relation to each other. Liberals have stripped the word of its meaning and then used the now useless word in their war on Americans.
> 
> "
> *“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."*
> 
> *" This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’ since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless....Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought..."*
Click to expand...



How in the hell does allowing same sex couples the same marital rigts a war on Americans??    It doesn't effect any American except those in the marriage.  

Once again, why do you care?


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?
> 
> All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.
> 
> But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm always?

Divorce has been legal for decades if not centuries.

Marriage has been many things in the United States


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, because marriage contract law is written to accommodate two consenting adult partners only, not three or more.
> 
> That three or more persons cannot marry has nothing to do with ‘discrimination,’ it has to do with the fact that marriage contract law is not written to accommodate such a union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't lie. Marriage contract law was written for the union of a man and a woman. Period.
Click to expand...


Indeed.  And there were times when marital contracts held wives as property.  We, as a society changed that (in most places).   There were times when marital contracts forbid interracial unions.  We, as a society changed that.  The changes are minor.  And, like the prior changes, the inclusion of same sex couples only offers the same benefits to other.  It does not remove any from existing couples.  It does not effect heterosexual couples at all.


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?
> 
> All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.
> 
> But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are boring. Primarily because all of your examples, be they children, different races, arranged, forced marriage, subservient or anything else, were always unions of the opposite sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.
> 
> And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. *Why not? *
> 
> You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.
> 
> Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're are correct, marriage is what we define it to be, and until the USSC decided differently, it was always defined as some type of union between members of the opposite sex. Ugh....you are like debating with a brick wall, unable to hear, only resist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.
> 
> You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.
> 
> Which is why you failed.
> 
> Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain to me, you bigot, why the 14 guys I work with in my unit cannot marry each other and just pay one insurance premium?
Click to expand...


Because its against the law. 

Simple as that. 

Now if you want to argue that you have a constitutional right to marry your 13 guys- you have the right to make that argument.


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a bit more than some judges, Hollywood and some billionaires.   I have seen polls showing as high as 55% of the population agreed with same sex marriages.
> 
> Personally, I don't think the gov't has a place in marriage at all.  But if you are going to offer 1,400 federal, state and local benefits for married couples, you should make it open to all couples in love.
> 
> And, as far as the "Always", you are leaving out some other conditions that have been applied to marriage.  Like requiring that they be the same race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your polls are wrong but its a moot point. Polls are to a liberal elitist what .
Click to expand...


Funny how polls are a moot point- but only when they disagree with you.


----------



## Syriusly

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, because marriage contract law is written to accommodate two consenting adult partners only, not three or more.
> 
> That three or more persons cannot marry has nothing to do with ‘discrimination,’ it has to do with the fact that marriage contract law is not written to accommodate such a union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't lie. Marriage contract law was written for the union of a man and a woman. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And there were times when marital contracts held wives as property.  We, as a society changed that (in most places).   There were times when marital contracts forbid interracial unions.  We, as a society changed that.  The changes are minor.  And, like the prior changes, the inclusion of same sex couples only offers the same benefits to other.  It does not remove any from existing couples.  It does not effect heterosexual couples at all.
Click to expand...


Yep- my marriage to my wife is not affected because John and Jim can get married.


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Click to expand...


Marriage is a union between a man and woman, or a man and several women, or a man and a man or  a woman and a woman.

Here in the United States we only recognized unions between couples- in other countries it can include a man and several women- and that tradition goes back way beyond the United States.


----------



## DOTR

Syriusly said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is a union between a man and woman, or a man and several women, or a man and a man or  a woman and a woman.
> 
> Here in the United States we only recognized unions between couples- in other countries it can include a man and several women- and that tradition goes back way beyond the United States.
Click to expand...


 No western country did. Because ultimately it is western values under attack as expressed by the US and UK. The "other countries" you speak of are backwards Muslim or primitive tribal societies. And might I add that anywhere it includes a man and several women the women are mere chattel.
  Besides simply attacking Americans what is the allure of backwards non christian societies for liberals?


----------



## DOTR

Syriusly said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, because marriage contract law is written to accommodate two consenting adult partners only, not three or more.
> 
> That three or more persons cannot marry has nothing to do with ‘discrimination,’ it has to do with the fact that marriage contract law is not written to accommodate such a union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't lie. Marriage contract law was written for the union of a man and a woman. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And there were times when marital contracts held wives as property.  We, as a society changed that (in most places).   There were times when marital contracts forbid interracial unions.  We, as a society changed that.  The changes are minor.  And, like the prior changes, the inclusion of same sex couples only offers the same benefits to other.  It does not remove any from existing couples.  It does not effect heterosexual couples at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- my marriage to my wife is not affected because John and Jim can get married.
Click to expand...


   Marriage exists as a benefit only as a privileged state exclusive to the unions a society feels desirous of promoting.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is a union between a man and woman, or a man and several women, or a man and a man or  a woman and a woman.
> 
> Here in the United States we only recognized unions between couples- in other countries it can include a man and several women- and that tradition goes back way beyond the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No western country did. Because ultimately it is western values under attack as expressed by the US and UK. The "other countries" you speak of are backwards Muslim or primitive tribal societies. And might I add that anywhere it includes a man and several women the women are mere chattel.
> Besides simply attacking Americans what is the allure of backwards non christian societies for liberals?
Click to expand...


There were countries hundreds of years ago that did.  Isn't that what you were saying?  That is was always a man and a woman?

In fact, in Great Britain (centuries ago) there were plural marriages.  

And this "western values are under attack" is bullshit.  No one is attacking your values.  You are attacking other people's values.  No one is saying you have to marry someone of the same gender.  In fact, heterosexual marriages are *exactly* the same as they were before.  

If you are claiming someone is attacking your values, then tell us what effect same sex marriage has on your or your marriage??   You keep avoiding answering that question.  Funny that you demand I answer your question, but refuse to answer mine.  Typical.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, because marriage contract law is written to accommodate two consenting adult partners only, not three or more.
> 
> That three or more persons cannot marry has nothing to do with ‘discrimination,’ it has to do with the fact that marriage contract law is not written to accommodate such a union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't lie. Marriage contract law was written for the union of a man and a woman. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And there were times when marital contracts held wives as property.  We, as a society changed that (in most places).   There were times when marital contracts forbid interracial unions.  We, as a society changed that.  The changes are minor.  And, like the prior changes, the inclusion of same sex couples only offers the same benefits to other.  It does not remove any from existing couples.  It does not effect heterosexual couples at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- my marriage to my wife is not affected because John and Jim can get married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage exists as a benefit only as a privileged state exclusive to the unions a society feels desirous of promoting.
Click to expand...


Oh, so the only people who get the +/- 1,400 benefits is the people you like??   LMAO!!!   Sorry junior, that is not how it works.  No one is harming you or yours.  But allowing same sex marriages is simply including others in the same benefits.  You don't have to like it.


----------



## Tennyson

Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is a union between a man and woman, or a man and several women, or a man and a man or  a woman and a woman.
> 
> Here in the United States we only recognized unions between couples- in other countries it can include a man and several women- and that tradition goes back way beyond the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No western country did. Because ultimately it is western values under attack as expressed by the US and UK. The "other countries" you speak of are backwards Muslim or primitive tribal societies. And might I add that anywhere it includes a man and several women the women are mere chattel.
> Besides simply attacking Americans what is the allure of backwards non christian societies for liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were countries hundreds of years ago that did.  Isn't that what you were saying?  That is was always a man and a woman?
> 
> In fact, in Great Britain (centuries ago) there were plural marriages.
> 
> And this "western values are under attack" is bullshit.  No one is attacking your values.  You are attacking other people's values.  No one is saying you have to marry someone of the same gender.  In fact, heterosexual marriages are *exactly* the same as they were before.
> 
> If you are claiming someone is attacking your values, then tell us what effect same sex marriage has on your or your marriage??   You keep avoiding answering that question.  Funny that you demand I answer your question, but refuse to answer mine.  Typical.
Click to expand...


  You are an abomination and you live to attack western christian values. Why lie about it with all these words? You know, deep down, of your disgust with western moral values. Lets get that straight first.
  The values are mutually exclusive. 
  And I dont demand you answer my question. As I said I know I will get no answer. I will get a lie or a lot of words misdirecting. But never an answer. My point was to expose your bigotry and illogic. Which I did.
Lots of shucking and jiving there for you to keep your bigotry against polyamourous unions of 14+ men hidden.
  You've admitted a hatred of legal forms of marriage. it is no coincidence you support anything that undermines it.


----------



## WinterBorn

Tennyson said:


> Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.



Oh please.  Spare me that sort of nonsense.   "play-thing of the day"??   How about a chunk of the population?  How about US citizens who work, pay taxes, serve in the military and deserve the same rights and privileges every other citizen enjoys?

The rule of law is to protect ALL citizens.  Not just the ones who act like you think they should act.   Hell, how many redneck white trash couples have gone to the courthouse after knowing each other only a few weeks?  How many people serving time in prison get to marry?   And yet you claim, because they are the same gender, that law-abiding couples who function as valued members of society are excluded because you think what they do in the privacy of their home is yucky?

No.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is a union between a man and woman, or a man and several women, or a man and a man or  a woman and a woman.
> 
> Here in the United States we only recognized unions between couples- in other countries it can include a man and several women- and that tradition goes back way beyond the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No western country did. Because ultimately it is western values under attack as expressed by the US and UK. The "other countries" you speak of are backwards Muslim or primitive tribal societies. And might I add that anywhere it includes a man and several women the women are mere chattel.
> Besides simply attacking Americans what is the allure of backwards non christian societies for liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were countries hundreds of years ago that did.  Isn't that what you were saying?  That is was always a man and a woman?
> 
> In fact, in Great Britain (centuries ago) there were plural marriages.
> 
> And this "western values are under attack" is bullshit.  No one is attacking your values.  You are attacking other people's values.  No one is saying you have to marry someone of the same gender.  In fact, heterosexual marriages are *exactly* the same as they were before.
> 
> If you are claiming someone is attacking your values, then tell us what effect same sex marriage has on your or your marriage??   You keep avoiding answering that question.  Funny that you demand I answer your question, but refuse to answer mine.  Typical.
Click to expand...


  And by the way you may want to mainline that Ritalin. I never accused anyone of forcing me into a gay marriage. I said gay unions masquerading as marriage were (1) forced upon an unwilling citizenry and (2) are aimed at weakening marriage.
   Now ask "but whyeeeeeeee?". Doesn't matter. So long as you know they are and that that a hatred of Western and christian values along with a desire for no legal Marriage ALWAYS go along with support for gay marriage. ALWAYS.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is a union between a man and woman, or a man and several women, or a man and a man or  a woman and a woman.
> 
> Here in the United States we only recognized unions between couples- in other countries it can include a man and several women- and that tradition goes back way beyond the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No western country did. Because ultimately it is western values under attack as expressed by the US and UK. The "other countries" you speak of are backwards Muslim or primitive tribal societies. And might I add that anywhere it includes a man and several women the women are mere chattel.
> Besides simply attacking Americans what is the allure of backwards non christian societies for liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were countries hundreds of years ago that did.  Isn't that what you were saying?  That is was always a man and a woman?
> 
> In fact, in Great Britain (centuries ago) there were plural marriages.
> 
> And this "western values are under attack" is bullshit.  No one is attacking your values.  You are attacking other people's values.  No one is saying you have to marry someone of the same gender.  In fact, heterosexual marriages are *exactly* the same as they were before.
> 
> If you are claiming someone is attacking your values, then tell us what effect same sex marriage has on your or your marriage??   You keep avoiding answering that question.  Funny that you demand I answer your question, but refuse to answer mine.  Typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an abomination and you live to attack western christian values. Why lie about it with all these words? You know, deep down, of your disgust with western moral values. Lets get that straight first.
> The values are mutually exclusive.
> And I dont demand you answer my question. As I said I know I will get no answer. I will get a lie or a lot of words misdirecting. But never an answer. My point was to expose your bigotry and illogic. Which I did.
> Lots of shucking and jiving there for you to keep your bigotry against polyamourous unions of 14+ men hidden.
> You've admitted a hatred of legal forms of marriage. it is no coincidence you support anything that undermines it.
Click to expand...


Jeez due, you have gone off the deep end, haven't you?   I will repeat it again.  *I am polyamorous.*  I have absolutely no problem with 14 men getting married.  As long as they love each other, let them marry.  You are the one demanding that marriage must only be one man and one woman.

I'm an abomination?  LMAO!!   At least I am not a hypocrite, like you have shown yourself to be.  And the only abomination is your attempts at telling me what I believe, when you obviously are clueless.

I have no disgust for any values except those that promote hatred or exclusion.  

Now, once again, how does allowing same sex couple to marry effect you?


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is a union between a man and woman, or a man and several women, or a man and a man or  a woman and a woman.
> 
> Here in the United States we only recognized unions between couples- in other countries it can include a man and several women- and that tradition goes back way beyond the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No western country did. Because ultimately it is western values under attack as expressed by the US and UK. The "other countries" you speak of are backwards Muslim or primitive tribal societies. And might I add that anywhere it includes a man and several women the women are mere chattel.
> Besides simply attacking Americans what is the allure of backwards non christian societies for liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were countries hundreds of years ago that did.  Isn't that what you were saying?  That is was always a man and a woman?
> 
> In fact, in Great Britain (centuries ago) there were plural marriages.
> 
> And this "western values are under attack" is bullshit.  No one is attacking your values.  You are attacking other people's values.  No one is saying you have to marry someone of the same gender.  In fact, heterosexual marriages are *exactly* the same as they were before.
> 
> If you are claiming someone is attacking your values, then tell us what effect same sex marriage has on your or your marriage??   You keep avoiding answering that question.  Funny that you demand I answer your question, but refuse to answer mine.  Typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by the way you may want to mainline that Ritalin. I never accused anyone of forcing me into a gay marriage. I said gay unions masquerading as marriage were (1) forced upon an unwilling citizenry and (2) are aimed at weakening marriage.
> Now ask "but whyeeeeeeee?". Doesn't matter. So long as you know they are and that that a hatred of Western and christian values along with a desire for no legal Marriage ALWAYS go along with support for gay marriage. ALWAYS.
Click to expand...


Yes I ask why.  You make a claim and the only reasoning you have is "because I said so".   Not good enough.  You claim I am attacking your values.  How??  I am not attacking you at all.  In fact, nothing has changed about you, your rights or your marriage.  Pretty weak evidence of an attack.   

As for my not supporting marriage, that is simply bullshit.  Nothing I have said shows any evidence that I have any hatred for christianity or marriage.  And your claims to the contrary are simply lies in place of an actual argument.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is a union between a man and woman, or a man and several women, or a man and a man or  a woman and a woman.
> 
> Here in the United States we only recognized unions between couples- in other countries it can include a man and several women- and that tradition goes back way beyond the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No western country did. Because ultimately it is western values under attack as expressed by the US and UK. The "other countries" you speak of are backwards Muslim or primitive tribal societies. And might I add that anywhere it includes a man and several women the women are mere chattel.
> Besides simply attacking Americans what is the allure of backwards non christian societies for liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were countries hundreds of years ago that did.  Isn't that what you were saying?  That is was always a man and a woman?
> 
> In fact, in Great Britain (centuries ago) there were plural marriages.
> 
> And this "western values are under attack" is bullshit.  No one is attacking your values.  You are attacking other people's values.  No one is saying you have to marry someone of the same gender.  In fact, heterosexual marriages are *exactly* the same as they were before.
> 
> If you are claiming someone is attacking your values, then tell us what effect same sex marriage has on your or your marriage??   You keep avoiding answering that question.  Funny that you demand I answer your question, but refuse to answer mine.  Typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by the way you may want to mainline that Ritalin. I never accused anyone of forcing me into a gay marriage. I said gay unions masquerading as marriage were (1) forced upon an unwilling citizenry and (2) are aimed at weakening marriage.
> Now ask "but whyeeeeeeee?". Doesn't matter. So long as you know they are and that that a hatred of Western and christian values along with a desire for no legal Marriage ALWAYS go along with support for gay marriage. ALWAYS.
Click to expand...


Oh, and you might want to brush up on your reading skills.  I never said that you claimed people were forcing you into a gay marriage.


----------



## Tennyson

WinterBorn said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.  Spare me that sort of nonsense.   "play-thing of the day"??   How about a chunk of the population?  How about US citizens who work, pay taxes, serve in the military and deserve the same rights and privileges every other citizen enjoys?
> 
> The rule of law is to protect ALL citizens.  Not just the ones who act like you think they should act.   Hell, how many redneck white trash couples have gone to the courthouse after knowing each other only a few weeks?  How many people serving time in prison get to marry?   And yet you claim, because they are the same gender, that law-abiding couples who function as valued members of society are excluded because you think what they do in the privacy of their home is yucky?
> 
> No.
Click to expand...

 
You should learn the difference between the rule of law and the rule of man and the purpose of our written Constitution. Your flaw is not understanding federalism and the Fourteenth Amendment.


----------



## WinterBorn

Tennyson said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.  Spare me that sort of nonsense.   "play-thing of the day"??   How about a chunk of the population?  How about US citizens who work, pay taxes, serve in the military and deserve the same rights and privileges every other citizen enjoys?
> 
> The rule of law is to protect ALL citizens.  Not just the ones who act like you think they should act.   Hell, how many redneck white trash couples have gone to the courthouse after knowing each other only a few weeks?  How many people serving time in prison get to marry?   And yet you claim, because they are the same gender, that law-abiding couples who function as valued members of society are excluded because you think what they do in the privacy of their home is yucky?
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn the difference between the rule of law and the rule of man and the purpose of our written Constitution. Your flaw is not understanding federalism and the Fourteenth Amendment.
Click to expand...


One of the purposes of our Constitution is to prevent mob rule.  The minority is protected.  And the 14th provides equality under the law.


----------



## DOTR

Syriusly said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a bit more than some judges, Hollywood and some billionaires.   I have seen polls showing as high as 55% of the population agreed with same sex marriages.
> 
> Personally, I don't think the gov't has a place in marriage at all.  But if you are going to offer 1,400 federal, state and local benefits for married couples, you should make it open to all couples in love.
> 
> And, as far as the "Always", you are leaving out some other conditions that have been applied to marriage.  Like requiring that they be the same race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your polls are wrong but its a moot point. Polls are to a liberal elitist what .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how polls are a moot point- but only when they disagree with you.
Click to expand...


  Funny how you make stuff up out of thin air. You have some evidence for the "only when they disagree with you" or just wasting time?


----------



## Tennyson

WinterBorn said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.  Spare me that sort of nonsense.   "play-thing of the day"??   How about a chunk of the population?  How about US citizens who work, pay taxes, serve in the military and deserve the same rights and privileges every other citizen enjoys?
> 
> The rule of law is to protect ALL citizens.  Not just the ones who act like you think they should act.   Hell, how many redneck white trash couples have gone to the courthouse after knowing each other only a few weeks?  How many people serving time in prison get to marry?   And yet you claim, because they are the same gender, that law-abiding couples who function as valued members of society are excluded because you think what they do in the privacy of their home is yucky?
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn the difference between the rule of law and the rule of man and the purpose of our written Constitution. Your flaw is not understanding federalism and the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of the purposes of our Constitution is to prevent mob rule.  The minority is protected.  And the 14th provides equality under the law.
Click to expand...

 
The Fourteenth Amendment does not provide equality under the law, equally under the law was never mentioned by the 39th Congress. The equal protection and due process clauses regarded judicial proceedings, not the law. The Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.  Spare me that sort of nonsense.   "play-thing of the day"??   How about a chunk of the population?  How about US citizens who work, pay taxes, serve in the military and deserve the same rights and privileges every other citizen enjoys?
> 
> The rule of law is to protect ALL citizens.  Not just the ones who act like you think they should act.   Hell, how many redneck white trash couples have gone to the courthouse after knowing each other only a few weeks?  How many people serving time in prison get to marry?   And yet you claim, because they are the same gender, that law-abiding couples who function as valued members of society are excluded because you think what they do in the privacy of their home is yucky?
> 
> No.
Click to expand...


   it is more than yucky. It is a revolting abomination. Gays were banned from the miltary by the way until the corrupt clinton/obama attack. But thats an aside.
  Its another lie from you about the privacy of their homes. Which nobody interfered with. What they, and all anti christians, want is for society to give them a license for their abomination. They want government in their bedroom so bad they couldn't shut up about it until they got it. 
  So this is yet another example of either 1 willful misdirection or 2 ignorance. Which is it?


----------



## Tennyson

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.  Spare me that sort of nonsense.   "play-thing of the day"??   How about a chunk of the population?  How about US citizens who work, pay taxes, serve in the military and deserve the same rights and privileges every other citizen enjoys?
> 
> The rule of law is to protect ALL citizens.  Not just the ones who act like you think they should act.   Hell, how many redneck white trash couples have gone to the courthouse after knowing each other only a few weeks?  How many people serving time in prison get to marry?   And yet you claim, because they are the same gender, that law-abiding couples who function as valued members of society are excluded because you think what they do in the privacy of their home is yucky?
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it is more than yucky. It is a revolting abomination. Gays were banned from the miltary by the way until the corrupt clinton/obama attack. But thats an aside.
> Its another lie from you about the privacy of their homes. Which nobody interfered with. What they, and all anti christians, want is for society to give them a license for their abomination. They want government in their bedroom so bad they couldn't shut up about it until they got it.
> So this is yet another example of either 1 willful misdirection or 2 ignorance. Which is it?
Click to expand...


I have no idea what you are replying to.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.  Spare me that sort of nonsense.   "play-thing of the day"??   How about a chunk of the population?  How about US citizens who work, pay taxes, serve in the military and deserve the same rights and privileges every other citizen enjoys?
> 
> The rule of law is to protect ALL citizens.  Not just the ones who act like you think they should act.   Hell, how many redneck white trash couples have gone to the courthouse after knowing each other only a few weeks?  How many people serving time in prison get to marry?   And yet you claim, because they are the same gender, that law-abiding couples who function as valued members of society are excluded because you think what they do in the privacy of their home is yucky?
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it is more than yucky. It is a revolting abomination. Gays were banned from the miltary by the way until the corrupt clinton/obama attack. But thats an aside.
> Its another lie from you about the privacy of their homes. Which nobody interfered with. What they, and all anti christians, want is for society to give them a license for their abomination. They want government in their bedroom so bad they couldn't shut up about it until they got it.
> So this is yet another example of either 1 willful misdirection or 2 ignorance. Which is it?
Click to expand...


"revolting abomination" = "really, really yucky"

Yes, they WERE interfered with.  The anti-sodomy laws were specifically used against gays.  Law enforcement didn't care if straight couples committed acts of sodomy, just gays.

What they wanted, and mostly got, was to be free from harassment about their sexual orientation.  What they wanted, and mostly got, was to be treated equally by the gov't.  They pay the same taxes you do, higher for years since they couldn't marry.  But they could be fired and refused service or benefits because of their sexual orientation.

To answer your question, it is neither willful misdirection nor ignorance.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed.   We have moved beyond that.  Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman.
Click to expand...


   Homosexuals are still shunned. But it was always illegal to kill anyone. Even homosexuals. Another lie.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed.   We have moved beyond that.  Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are still shunned. But it was always illegal to kill anyone. Even homosexuals. Another lie.
Click to expand...


Did I say it was ever legal to kill a homosexual?  You really need to work on your reading comprehension.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR, I see you deleted a post.  But you asked a question, after accusing me of hypocrisy.  Yes, show me.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Orwell was right about statists and their abuse of language in the pursuit of power. It is a word which sprang into being to describe the legal status of men and women in relation to each other. Liberals have stripped the word of its meaning and then used the now useless word in their war on Americans.
> 
> "
> *“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."*
> 
> *" This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’ since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless....Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought..."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How in the hell does allowing same sex couples the same marital rigts a war on Americans??    It doesn't effect any American except those in the marriage.
> 
> Once again, why do you care?
Click to expand...


   Once again doesnt matter why I care. I care. it may because I flipped a coin.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR, I see you deleted a post.  But you asked a question, after accusing me of hypocrisy.  Yes, show me.



  You are an abomination and a hypocrite. The two are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed.   We have moved beyond that.  Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are still shunned. But it was always illegal to kill anyone. Even homosexuals. Another lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say it was ever legal to kill a homosexual?  You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
Click to expand...


  Then what did we move past do tell?


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Orwell was right about statists and their abuse of language in the pursuit of power. It is a word which sprang into being to describe the legal status of men and women in relation to each other. Liberals have stripped the word of its meaning and then used the now useless word in their war on Americans.
> 
> "
> *“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."*
> 
> *" This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’ since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless....Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought..."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How in the hell does allowing same sex couples the same marital rigts a war on Americans??    It doesn't effect any American except those in the marriage.
> 
> Once again, why do you care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again doesnt matter why I care. I care. it may because I flipped a coin.
Click to expand...


Hatred without reason is ignorance.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR, I see you deleted a post.  But you asked a question, after accusing me of hypocrisy.  Yes, show me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an abomination and a hypocrite. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...


Please point out where I have been a hypocrite?

As for the "abomination", that is only accurate in your imaginings of what I believe and what I want.  You have been quite inventive there.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed.   We have moved beyond that.  Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are still shunned. But it was always illegal to kill anyone. Even homosexuals. Another lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say it was ever legal to kill a homosexual?  You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what did we move past do tell?
Click to expand...


Did we move past black men being lynched for looking at a white woman?   Was it ever legal (for lynching free black men)?

It is the same with murdering gays.


----------



## WinterBorn

Let's review.  I am an abomination, but not for anything I have actually said.  But for things you CLAIM I believe or want.  But you have no evidence.

I am a hypocrite, but you cannot site an example.

I am a liar, but you cannot point to a single lie I have told.


Interesting debate style you have.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.  Spare me that sort of nonsense.   "play-thing of the day"??   How about a chunk of the population?  How about US citizens who work, pay taxes, serve in the military and deserve the same rights and privileges every other citizen enjoys?
> 
> The rule of law is to protect ALL citizens.  Not just the ones who act like you think they should act.   Hell, how many redneck white trash couples have gone to the courthouse after knowing each other only a few weeks?  How many people serving time in prison get to marry?   And yet you claim, because they are the same gender, that law-abiding couples who function as valued members of society are excluded because you think what they do in the privacy of their home is yucky?
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it is more than yucky. It is a revolting abomination. Gays were banned from the miltary by the way until the corrupt clinton/obama attack. But thats an aside.
> Its another lie from you about the privacy of their homes. Which nobody interfered with. What they, and all anti christians, want is for society to give them a license for their abomination. They want government in their bedroom so bad they couldn't shut up about it until they got it.
> So this is yet another example of either 1 willful misdirection or 2 ignorance. Which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "revolting abomination" = "really, really yucky"
> 
> Yes, they WERE interfered with.  The anti-sodomy laws were specifically used against gays.  Law enforcement didn't care if straight couples committed acts of sodomy, just gays.
> 
> What they wanted, and mostly got, was to be free from harassment about their sexual orientation.  What they wanted, and mostly got, was to be treated equally by the gov't.  They pay the same taxes you do, higher for years since they couldn't marry.  But they could be fired and refused service or benefits because of their sexual orientation.
> 
> To answer your question, it is neither willful misdirection nor ignorance.
Click to expand...


  It appears it was willful misdirection. Marriage is NOT the privacy of your own home.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Orwell was right about statists and their abuse of language in the pursuit of power. It is a word which sprang into being to describe the legal status of men and women in relation to each other. Liberals have stripped the word of its meaning and then used the now useless word in their war on Americans.
> 
> "
> *“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."*
> 
> *" This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’ since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless....Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought..."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How in the hell does allowing same sex couples the same marital rigts a war on Americans??    It doesn't effect any American except those in the marriage.
> 
> Once again, why do you care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again doesnt matter why I care. I care. it may because I flipped a coin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hatred without reason is ignorance.
Click to expand...


  Ignorance without reason is liberalism.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.  Spare me that sort of nonsense.   "play-thing of the day"??   How about a chunk of the population?  How about US citizens who work, pay taxes, serve in the military and deserve the same rights and privileges every other citizen enjoys?
> 
> The rule of law is to protect ALL citizens.  Not just the ones who act like you think they should act.   Hell, how many redneck white trash couples have gone to the courthouse after knowing each other only a few weeks?  How many people serving time in prison get to marry?   And yet you claim, because they are the same gender, that law-abiding couples who function as valued members of society are excluded because you think what they do in the privacy of their home is yucky?
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it is more than yucky. It is a revolting abomination. Gays were banned from the miltary by the way until the corrupt clinton/obama attack. But thats an aside.
> Its another lie from you about the privacy of their homes. Which nobody interfered with. What they, and all anti christians, want is for society to give them a license for their abomination. They want government in their bedroom so bad they couldn't shut up about it until they got it.
> So this is yet another example of either 1 willful misdirection or 2 ignorance. Which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "revolting abomination" = "really, really yucky"
> 
> Yes, they WERE interfered with.  The anti-sodomy laws were specifically used against gays.  Law enforcement didn't care if straight couples committed acts of sodomy, just gays.
> 
> What they wanted, and mostly got, was to be free from harassment about their sexual orientation.  What they wanted, and mostly got, was to be treated equally by the gov't.  They pay the same taxes you do, higher for years since they couldn't marry.  But they could be fired and refused service or benefits because of their sexual orientation.
> 
> To answer your question, it is neither willful misdirection nor ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears it was willful misdirection. Marriage is NOT the privacy of your own home.
Click to expand...


I never said marriage was in the privacy of their home.  Please use what I actually say instead of what you want me to say.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Orwell was right about statists and their abuse of language in the pursuit of power. It is a word which sprang into being to describe the legal status of men and women in relation to each other. Liberals have stripped the word of its meaning and then used the now useless word in their war on Americans.
> 
> "
> *“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."*
> 
> *" This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’ since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless....Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought..."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How in the hell does allowing same sex couples the same marital rigts a war on Americans??    It doesn't effect any American except those in the marriage.
> 
> Once again, why do you care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again doesnt matter why I care. I care. it may because I flipped a coin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hatred without reason is ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance without reason is liberalism.
Click to expand...


I'll let a liberal argue that.  Since I am not a liberal...


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> Let's review.  I am an abomination, but not for anything I have actually said.  But for things you CLAIM I believe or want.  But you have no evidence.
> 
> I am a hypocrite, but you cannot site an example.
> 
> I am a liar, but you cannot point to a single lie I have told.
> 
> 
> Interesting debate style you have.



  Certainly I can. You lie in your refusal to admit that western values disgust you. That your goal is the elimination of legal marriage though yes you have basically admitted to that since you first lied about it. That you first decided 14 men couldn't get married...now have decided they can...and will shout from the rooftop that 14 men marrying was the original goal of the constitution if and when the Supreme Court reaches that level of depravity.
   What it boils down to, what you lie about, is that this is about destroying legal marriage. Period.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.  Spare me that sort of nonsense.   "play-thing of the day"??   How about a chunk of the population?  How about US citizens who work, pay taxes, serve in the military and deserve the same rights and privileges every other citizen enjoys?
> 
> The rule of law is to protect ALL citizens.  Not just the ones who act like you think they should act.   Hell, how many redneck white trash couples have gone to the courthouse after knowing each other only a few weeks?  How many people serving time in prison get to marry?  * And yet you claim, because they are the same gender, that law-abiding couples who function as valued members of society are excluded because you think what they do in the privacy of their home is yucky?*
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it is more than yucky. It is a revolting abomination. Gays were banned from the miltary by the way until the corrupt clinton/obama attack. But thats an aside.
> Its another lie from you about the privacy of their homes. Which nobody interfered with. What they, and all anti christians, want is for society to give them a license for their abomination. They want government in their bedroom so bad they couldn't shut up about it until they got it.
> So this is yet another example of either 1 willful misdirection or 2 ignorance. Which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "revolting abomination" = "really, really yucky"
> 
> Yes, they WERE interfered with.  The anti-sodomy laws were specifically used against gays.  Law enforcement didn't care if straight couples committed acts of sodomy, just gays.
> 
> What they wanted, and mostly got, was to be free from harassment about their sexual orientation.  What they wanted, and mostly got, was to be treated equally by the gov't.  They pay the same taxes you do, higher for years since they couldn't marry.  But they could be fired and refused service or benefits because of their sexual orientation.
> 
> To answer your question, it is neither willful misdirection nor ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears it was willful misdirection. Marriage is NOT the privacy of your own home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said marriage was in the privacy of their home.  Please use what I actually say instead of what you want me to say.
Click to expand...


   "And yet you claim, because they are the same gender, that law-abiding couples who function as valued members of society are excluded because you think what they do in the privacy of their home is yucky?"

   If you were straying from the topic of marriage then lets ignore it. But I dont think so. You responded to a post about "same sex marriage rights". Incredible lack of concentration...or a weak attempt to claim gays pretending to marry is somehow tied up with "the privacy of their own home".


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Orwell was right about statists and their abuse of language in the pursuit of power. It is a word which sprang into being to describe the legal status of men and women in relation to each other. Liberals have stripped the word of its meaning and then used the now useless word in their war on Americans.
> 
> "
> *“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."*
> 
> *" This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’ since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless....Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought..."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How in the hell does allowing same sex couples the same marital rigts a war on Americans??    It doesn't effect any American except those in the marriage.
> 
> Once again, why do you care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again doesnt matter why I care. I care. it may because I flipped a coin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hatred without reason is ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance without reason is liberalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll let a liberal argue that.  Since I am not a liberal...
Click to expand...


  You are as repulsive a liberal as I have ever seen.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's review.  I am an abomination, but not for anything I have actually said.  But for things you CLAIM I believe or want.  But you have no evidence.
> 
> I am a hypocrite, but you cannot site an example.
> 
> I am a liar, but you cannot point to a single lie I have told.
> 
> 
> Interesting debate style you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly I can. You lie in your refusal to admit that western values disgust you. That your goal is the elimination of legal marriage though yes you have basically admitted to that since you first lied about it. That you first decided 14 men couldn't get married...now have decided they can...and will shout from the rooftop that 14 men marrying was the original goal of the constitution if and when the Supreme Court reaches that level of depravity.
> What it boils down to, what you lie about, is that this is about destroying legal marriage. Period.
Click to expand...


I have not lied.   You insist that western values disgust me.  Nothing I have said even hits a such a thing.

I have said numerous times that I do not believe that the gov't should be involved in marriage at all.  But if they are, then the SCOTUS made the correct ruling.  I have not lied.  You simply cannot comprehend what you read.

I did not "decide" that 14 men cannot marry.  The law is currently setup for only two people.  You asked why 14 men can't marry.  I answered, based on current laws.  Then you decided that was proof that a polyamorous man was a bigot against polyamory.  Once again, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.  My two comments on the 14 men marrying were in different contexts.  It is not legal, but I don't care of they do.  Can you grasp the difference?


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed.   We have moved beyond that.  Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are still shunned. But it was always illegal to kill anyone. Even homosexuals. Another lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say it was ever legal to kill a homosexual?  You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what did we move past do tell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did we move past black men being lynched for looking at a white woman?   Was it ever legal (for lynching free black men)?
> 
> It is the same with murdering gays.
Click to expand...


    Is that what you were speaking of? I thought it was gays wanting a marriage license. In fact I know it was. I asked you why those men never saw anything about gay marriage in the laws they passed and ruled on.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.  Spare me that sort of nonsense.   "play-thing of the day"??   How about a chunk of the population?  How about US citizens who work, pay taxes, serve in the military and deserve the same rights and privileges every other citizen enjoys?
> 
> The rule of law is to protect ALL citizens.  Not just the ones who act like you think they should act.   Hell, how many redneck white trash couples have gone to the courthouse after knowing each other only a few weeks?  How many people serving time in prison get to marry?  * And yet you claim, because they are the same gender, that law-abiding couples who function as valued members of society are excluded because you think what they do in the privacy of their home is yucky?*
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is more than yucky. It is a revolting abomination. Gays were banned from the miltary by the way until the corrupt clinton/obama attack. But thats an aside.
> Its another lie from you about the privacy of their homes. Which nobody interfered with. What they, and all anti christians, want is for society to give them a license for their abomination. They want government in their bedroom so bad they couldn't shut up about it until they got it.
> So this is yet another example of either 1 willful misdirection or 2 ignorance. Which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "revolting abomination" = "really, really yucky"
> 
> Yes, they WERE interfered with.  The anti-sodomy laws were specifically used against gays.  Law enforcement didn't care if straight couples committed acts of sodomy, just gays.
> 
> What they wanted, and mostly got, was to be free from harassment about their sexual orientation.  What they wanted, and mostly got, was to be treated equally by the gov't.  They pay the same taxes you do, higher for years since they couldn't marry.  But they could be fired and refused service or benefits because of their sexual orientation.
> 
> To answer your question, it is neither willful misdirection nor ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears it was willful misdirection. Marriage is NOT the privacy of your own home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said marriage was in the privacy of their home.  Please use what I actually say instead of what you want me to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "And yet you claim, because they are the same gender, that law-abiding couples who function as valued members of society are excluded because you think what they do in the privacy of their home is yucky?"
> 
> If you were straying from the topic of marriage then lets ignore it. But I dont think so. You responded to a post about "same sex marriage rights". Incredible lack of concentration...or a weak attempt to claim gays pretending to marry is somehow tied up with "the privacy of their own home".
Click to expand...


You really do have trouble reading and understanding, don't you?   You claim homosexuality is an abomination.   Why?  Because two men having sex is an abomination to you.  It is the sex in the privacy of their own home that is the reason behind the opposition to two men marrying.

Why would I say that gays are excluded from marriage because of marriage?  Which is what you claim I was saying.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR, I see you deleted a post.  But you asked a question, after accusing me of hypocrisy.  Yes, show me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an abomination and a hypocrite. The two are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please point out where I have been a hypocrite?
> 
> As for the "abomination", that is only accurate in your imaginings of what I believe and what I want.  You have been quite inventive there.
Click to expand...


  Now this is funny. I was going to make a comment earlier about the hypocrisy. Ann Coulter once said "when you have lost the morality to see any sin...only hypocrisy remains as a sin and the search for hypocrisy the last crusade"

  How right she was.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is more than yucky. It is a revolting abomination. Gays were banned from the miltary by the way until the corrupt clinton/obama attack. But thats an aside.
> Its another lie from you about the privacy of their homes. Which nobody interfered with. What they, and all anti christians, want is for society to give them a license for their abomination. They want government in their bedroom so bad they couldn't shut up about it until they got it.
> So this is yet another example of either 1 willful misdirection or 2 ignorance. Which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "revolting abomination" = "really, really yucky"
> 
> Yes, they WERE interfered with.  The anti-sodomy laws were specifically used against gays.  Law enforcement didn't care if straight couples committed acts of sodomy, just gays.
> 
> What they wanted, and mostly got, was to be free from harassment about their sexual orientation.  What they wanted, and mostly got, was to be treated equally by the gov't.  They pay the same taxes you do, higher for years since they couldn't marry.  But they could be fired and refused service or benefits because of their sexual orientation.
> 
> To answer your question, it is neither willful misdirection nor ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears it was willful misdirection. Marriage is NOT the privacy of your own home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said marriage was in the privacy of their home.  Please use what I actually say instead of what you want me to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "And yet you claim, because they are the same gender, that law-abiding couples who function as valued members of society are excluded because you think what they do in the privacy of their home is yucky?"
> 
> If you were straying from the topic of marriage then lets ignore it. But I dont think so. You responded to a post about "same sex marriage rights". Incredible lack of concentration...or a weak attempt to claim gays pretending to marry is somehow tied up with "the privacy of their own home".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really do have trouble reading and understanding, don't you?   You claim homosexuality is an abomination.   Why?  Because two men having sex is an abomination to you.  It is the sex in the privacy of their own home that is the reason behind the opposition to two men marrying.
> 
> Why would I say that gays are excluded from marriage because of marriage?  Which is what you claim I was saying.
Click to expand...



  You wouldnt. You despise legal marriage. But be that as it may what you did was invoke "privacy of their own home" as a defense of gay marriage licenses. How ridiculous.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed.   We have moved beyond that.  Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are still shunned. But it was always illegal to kill anyone. Even homosexuals. Another lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say it was ever legal to kill a homosexual?  You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what did we move past do tell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did we move past black men being lynched for looking at a white woman?   Was it ever legal (for lynching free black men)?
> 
> It is the same with murdering gays.
Click to expand...


_I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes._


*Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed.   We have moved beyond that.  Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman*

     So you admit that the men who wrote the 14th amendment, perhaps because of "killing and shunning gays", did not consider for a second that they were legalizing gay marriage? You will admit that the law they wrote is twisted from their purpose to something they would have found abominable? 

  Orwellian


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's review.  I am an abomination, but not for anything I have actually said.  But for things you CLAIM I believe or want.  But you have no evidence.
> 
> I am a hypocrite, but you cannot site an example.
> 
> I am a liar, but you cannot point to a single lie I have told.
> 
> 
> Interesting debate style you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly I can. You lie in your refusal to admit that western values disgust you. That your goal is the elimination of legal marriage though yes you have basically admitted to that since you first lied about it. That you first decided 14 men couldn't get married...now have decided they can...and will shout from the rooftop that 14 men marrying was the original goal of the constitution if and when the Supreme Court reaches that level of depravity.
> What it boils down to, what you lie about, is that this is about destroying legal marriage. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not lied.   You insist that western values disgust me.  Nothing I have said even hits a such a thing.
> 
> I have said numerous times that I do not believe that the gov't should be involved in marriage at all.  But if they are, then the SCOTUS made the correct ruling.  I have not lied.  You simply cannot comprehend what you read.
> 
> I did not "decide" that 14 men cannot marry.  The law is currently setup for only two people.  You asked why 14 men can't marry.  I answered, based on current laws.  Then you decided that was proof that a polyamorous man was a bigot against polyamory.  Once again, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.  My two comments on the 14 men marrying were in different contexts.  It is not legal, but I don't care of they do.  Can you grasp the difference?
Click to expand...


  That took some twisting didnt it?


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's review.  I am an abomination, but not for anything I have actually said.  But for things you CLAIM I believe or want.  But you have no evidence.
> 
> I am a hypocrite, but you cannot site an example.
> 
> I am a liar, but you cannot point to a single lie I have told.
> 
> 
> Interesting debate style you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly I can. You lie in your refusal to admit that western values disgust you. That your goal is the elimination of legal marriage though yes you have basically admitted to that since you first lied about it. That you first decided 14 men couldn't get married...now have decided they can...and will shout from the rooftop that 14 men marrying was the original goal of the constitution if and when the Supreme Court reaches that level of depravity.
> What it boils down to, what you lie about, is that this is about destroying legal marriage. Period.
Click to expand...


Let's try and clarify what you seem unable to understand.   I have not been hypocritical about 14 men marrying.


In post #401 you asked “Explain to me, you bigot, why the 14 guys I work with in my unit cannot marry each other and just pay one insurance premium?”

In post #404 I replied “They can. Well, they can form 7 couples and marry. But, lest you forget, marriage is about being in love with the other person.”



Then in post #431 you said, in part “And I dont demand you answer my question. As I said I know I will get no answer. I will get a lie or a lot of words misdirecting. But never an answer. My point was to expose your bigotry and illogic. Which I did.
Lots of shucking and jiving there for you to keep your bigotry against polyamourous unions of 14+ men hidden.”

To which I replied in post #434 “I have absolutely no problem with 14 men getting married. As long as they love each other, let them marry.”



In the first answer I used the word “can”.  Which shows I was talking about what is currently legal.

In the second answer, I simply stated that I have no problem with 14 men marrying each other.



If your reading comprehension skills were up to par, you would see the difference between stating what is currently legal and what I don’t have a problem with.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's review.  I am an abomination, but not for anything I have actually said.  But for things you CLAIM I believe or want.  But you have no evidence.
> 
> I am a hypocrite, but you cannot site an example.
> 
> I am a liar, but you cannot point to a single lie I have told.
> 
> 
> Interesting debate style you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly I can. You lie in your refusal to admit that western values disgust you. That your goal is the elimination of legal marriage though yes you have basically admitted to that since you first lied about it. That you first decided 14 men couldn't get married...now have decided they can...and will shout from the rooftop that 14 men marrying was the original goal of the constitution if and when the Supreme Court reaches that level of depravity.
> What it boils down to, what you lie about, is that this is about destroying legal marriage. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not lied.   You insist that western values disgust me.  Nothing I have said even hits a such a thing.
> 
> I have said numerous times that I do not believe that the gov't should be involved in marriage at all.  But if they are, then the SCOTUS made the correct ruling.  I have not lied.  You simply cannot comprehend what you read.
> 
> I did not "decide" that 14 men cannot marry.  The law is currently setup for only two people.  You asked why 14 men can't marry.  I answered, based on current laws.  Then you decided that was proof that a polyamorous man was a bigot against polyamory.  Once again, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.  My two comments on the 14 men marrying were in different contexts.  It is not legal, but I don't care of they do.  Can you grasp the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That took some twisting didnt it?
Click to expand...


None at all.   The first comment was answering why 14 men can't marry.  I answered based on current law.  My next comment on it was about whether I care if 14 men marry or not.  It was not based on current law.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> How in the hell does allowing same sex couples the same marital rigts a war on Americans??    It doesn't effect any American except those in the marriage.
> 
> Once again, why do you care?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again doesnt matter why I care. I care. it may because I flipped a coin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hatred without reason is ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance without reason is liberalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll let a liberal argue that.  Since I am not a liberal...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are as repulsive a liberal as I have ever seen.
Click to expand...


Because I expect the gov't to treat all citizens the same?  Because I want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives?   Those are conservative and libertarian traits.  Not liberal.  In fact, liberals are the ones who want the gov't to "fix" things so they are the way THEY want them.  Which is exactly what you are doing.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's review.  I am an abomination, but not for anything I have actually said.  But for things you CLAIM I believe or want.  But you have no evidence.
> 
> I am a hypocrite, but you cannot site an example.
> 
> I am a liar, but you cannot point to a single lie I have told.
> 
> 
> Interesting debate style you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly I can. You lie in your refusal to admit that western values disgust you. That your goal is the elimination of legal marriage though yes you have basically admitted to that since you first lied about it. That you first decided 14 men couldn't get married...now have decided they can...and will shout from the rooftop that 14 men marrying was the original goal of the constitution if and when the Supreme Court reaches that level of depravity.
> What it boils down to, what you lie about, is that this is about destroying legal marriage. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not lied.   You insist that western values disgust me.  Nothing I have said even hits a such a thing.
> 
> I have said numerous times that I do not believe that the gov't should be involved in marriage at all.  But if they are, then the SCOTUS made the correct ruling.  I have not lied.  You simply cannot comprehend what you read.
> 
> I did not "decide" that 14 men cannot marry.  The law is currently setup for only two people.  You asked why 14 men can't marry.  I answered, based on current laws.  Then you decided that was proof that a polyamorous man was a bigot against polyamory.  Once again, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.  My two comments on the 14 men marrying were in different contexts.  It is not legal, but I don't care of they do.  Can you grasp the difference?
Click to expand...


   So lets set the record straight and stop going round and round. You, a supporter of the government forcing states to marry gays to each other...oppose legal marriage. You, who oppose marriage, also believe 14 men at a jobsite should be able to marry and all pay one insurance premium.
  You see no questions marks up there do you? I state facts. if you disagree now is the time to speak up.
   I dont see how you can however so lets continue. The point I wanted to make was simply that...those who want the destruction of traditional marriage support not only the licensing of two men...but also 14 men...or 30 men...or 17 men and three women. There is no logical stopping point. Nobody should be fooled by the lies being told in support of the travesty of men pretending to marry men.
  Winterborn is just an old guy on the computer with a government check. it isnt him doing it. He simply parrots the elites.
  But never be in doubt what the intent is.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed.   We have moved beyond that.  Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are still shunned. But it was always illegal to kill anyone. Even homosexuals. Another lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say it was ever legal to kill a homosexual?  You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what did we move past do tell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did we move past black men being lynched for looking at a white woman?   Was it ever legal (for lynching free black men)?
> 
> It is the same with murdering gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes._
> 
> 
> *Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed.   We have moved beyond that.  Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman*
> 
> So you admit that the men who wrote the 14th amendment, perhaps because of "killing and shunning gays", did not consider for a second that they were legalizing gay marriage? You will admit that the law they wrote is twisted from their purpose to something they would have found abominable?
> 
> Orwellian
Click to expand...


I have no idea whether Holmes, Warren, Brennan, Black, Grant, Kennedy, or Roosevelt thought about homosexuality.  And I doubt you do either.  And really, it does not matter at all.   Society has grown out of its hatred for homosexuality, at least most of it has.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again doesnt matter why I care. I care. it may because I flipped a coin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hatred without reason is ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance without reason is liberalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll let a liberal argue that.  Since I am not a liberal...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are as repulsive a liberal as I have ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I expect the gov't to treat all citizens the same?  Because I want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives?   Those are conservative and libertarian traits.  Not liberal.  In fact, liberals are the ones who want the gov't to "fix" things so they are the way THEY want them.  Which is exactly what you are doing.
Click to expand...


  Conservative and libertarianism are two entirely different things. That you conflate two opposing ideologies shows you share nothing with either.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are still shunned. But it was always illegal to kill anyone. Even homosexuals. Another lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say it was ever legal to kill a homosexual?  You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what did we move past do tell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did we move past black men being lynched for looking at a white woman?   Was it ever legal (for lynching free black men)?
> 
> It is the same with murdering gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes._
> 
> 
> *Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed.   We have moved beyond that.  Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman*
> 
> So you admit that the men who wrote the 14th amendment, perhaps because of "killing and shunning gays", did not consider for a second that they were legalizing gay marriage? You will admit that the law they wrote is twisted from their purpose to something they would have found abominable?
> 
> Orwellian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea whether Holmes, Warren, Brennan, Black, Grant, Kennedy, or Roosevelt thought about homosexuality.  And I doubt you do either.  And really, it does not matter at all.   Society has grown out of its hatred for homosexuality, at least most of it has.
Click to expand...


  Doesnt matter what they thought. They didn't see it in the 14th amendment did they?


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's review.  I am an abomination, but not for anything I have actually said.  But for things you CLAIM I believe or want.  But you have no evidence.
> 
> I am a hypocrite, but you cannot site an example.
> 
> I am a liar, but you cannot point to a single lie I have told.
> 
> 
> Interesting debate style you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly I can. You lie in your refusal to admit that western values disgust you. That your goal is the elimination of legal marriage though yes you have basically admitted to that since you first lied about it. That you first decided 14 men couldn't get married...now have decided they can...and will shout from the rooftop that 14 men marrying was the original goal of the constitution if and when the Supreme Court reaches that level of depravity.
> What it boils down to, what you lie about, is that this is about destroying legal marriage. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not lied.   You insist that western values disgust me.  Nothing I have said even hits a such a thing.
> 
> I have said numerous times that I do not believe that the gov't should be involved in marriage at all.  But if they are, then the SCOTUS made the correct ruling.  I have not lied.  You simply cannot comprehend what you read.
> 
> I did not "decide" that 14 men cannot marry.  The law is currently setup for only two people.  You asked why 14 men can't marry.  I answered, based on current laws.  Then you decided that was proof that a polyamorous man was a bigot against polyamory.  Once again, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.  My two comments on the 14 men marrying were in different contexts.  It is not legal, but I don't care of they do.  Can you grasp the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So lets set the record straight and stop going round and round. You, a supporter of the government forcing states to marry gays to each other...oppose legal marriage. You, who oppose marriage, also believe 14 men at a jobsite should be able to marry and all pay one insurance premium.
> You see no questions marks up there do you? I state facts. if you disagree now is the time to speak up.
> I dont see how you can however so lets continue. The point I wanted to make was simply that...those who want the destruction of traditional marriage support not only the licensing of two men...but also 14 men...or 30 men...or 17 men and three women. There is no logical stopping point. Nobody should be fooled by the lies being told in support of the travesty of men pretending to marry men.
> Winterborn is just an old guy on the computer with a government check. it isnt him doing it. He simply parrots the elites.
> But never be in doubt what the intent is.
Click to expand...


If we are setting the record straight, let's start with the fact that I do not oppose marriage.  You invented that tidbit, like you have invented other items.

I am opposed to gov't involvement in marriage.  But if it IS going to be involved, I expect it to treat all citizens the same and allow them to marry the consenting adult that they love.

I said I have no problem with 14 men marrying each other, as long as they love each other.  That is simply my belief that what others do, that harms no one, has no business being illegal.  

I find it amusing that you accuse me of lying, and then post that I am living off a gov't check and that I parrot some elites.  When you accuse someone of lying, and then lie in the same post, that is called hypocrisy.  And you have lied plenty.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's review.  I am an abomination, but not for anything I have actually said.  But for things you CLAIM I believe or want.  But you have no evidence.
> 
> I am a hypocrite, but you cannot site an example.
> 
> I am a liar, but you cannot point to a single lie I have told.
> 
> 
> Interesting debate style you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly I can. You lie in your refusal to admit that western values disgust you. That your goal is the elimination of legal marriage though yes you have basically admitted to that since you first lied about it. That you first decided 14 men couldn't get married...now have decided they can...and will shout from the rooftop that 14 men marrying was the original goal of the constitution if and when the Supreme Court reaches that level of depravity.
> What it boils down to, what you lie about, is that this is about destroying legal marriage. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not lied.   You insist that western values disgust me.  Nothing I have said even hits a such a thing.
> 
> I have said numerous times that I do not believe that the gov't should be involved in marriage at all.  But if they are, then the SCOTUS made the correct ruling.  I have not lied.  You simply cannot comprehend what you read.
> 
> I did not "decide" that 14 men cannot marry.  The law is currently setup for only two people.  You asked why 14 men can't marry.  I answered, based on current laws.  Then you decided that was proof that a polyamorous man was a bigot against polyamory.  Once again, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.  My two comments on the 14 men marrying were in different contexts.  It is not legal, but I don't care of they do.  Can you grasp the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That took some twisting didnt it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None at all.   The first comment was answering why 14 men can't marry.  I answered based on current law.  My next comment on it was about whether I care if 14 men marry or not.  It was not based on current law.
Click to expand...


  Ahhhh thats what I wanted...current law! I had no idea current law illogically limited marriage to just two men rather than 14 men. Thanks.
  Wonder why they do that?


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hatred without reason is ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance without reason is liberalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll let a liberal argue that.  Since I am not a liberal...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are as repulsive a liberal as I have ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I expect the gov't to treat all citizens the same?  Because I want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives?   Those are conservative and libertarian traits.  Not liberal.  In fact, liberals are the ones who want the gov't to "fix" things so they are the way THEY want them.  Which is exactly what you are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservative and libertarianism are two entirely different things. That you conflate two opposing ideologies shows you share nothing with either.
Click to expand...


Ididn't say they were the same thing.  I simply said they both want the gov't to treat all its citizens the same and that they both want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives.  And they do, in fact, share those two traits.

It would be helpful if you stuck with quoting what I actually saying and stop lying to invent what you want me to say.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's review.  I am an abomination, but not for anything I have actually said.  But for things you CLAIM I believe or want.  But you have no evidence.
> 
> I am a hypocrite, but you cannot site an example.
> 
> I am a liar, but you cannot point to a single lie I have told.
> 
> 
> Interesting debate style you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly I can. You lie in your refusal to admit that western values disgust you. That your goal is the elimination of legal marriage though yes you have basically admitted to that since you first lied about it. That you first decided 14 men couldn't get married...now have decided they can...and will shout from the rooftop that 14 men marrying was the original goal of the constitution if and when the Supreme Court reaches that level of depravity.
> What it boils down to, what you lie about, is that this is about destroying legal marriage. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not lied.   You insist that western values disgust me.  Nothing I have said even hits a such a thing.
> 
> I have said numerous times that I do not believe that the gov't should be involved in marriage at all.  But if they are, then the SCOTUS made the correct ruling.  I have not lied.  You simply cannot comprehend what you read.
> 
> I did not "decide" that 14 men cannot marry.  The law is currently setup for only two people.  You asked why 14 men can't marry.  I answered, based on current laws.  Then you decided that was proof that a polyamorous man was a bigot against polyamory.  Once again, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.  My two comments on the 14 men marrying were in different contexts.  It is not legal, but I don't care of they do.  Can you grasp the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So lets set the record straight and stop going round and round. You, a supporter of the government forcing states to marry gays to each other...oppose legal marriage. You, who oppose marriage, also believe 14 men at a jobsite should be able to marry and all pay one insurance premium.
> You see no questions marks up there do you? I state facts. if you disagree now is the time to speak up.
> I dont see how you can however so lets continue. The point I wanted to make was simply that...those who want the destruction of traditional marriage support not only the licensing of two men...but also 14 men...or 30 men...or 17 men and three women. There is no logical stopping point. Nobody should be fooled by the lies being told in support of the travesty of men pretending to marry men.
> Winterborn is just an old guy on the computer with a government check. it isnt him doing it. He simply parrots the elites.
> But never be in doubt what the intent is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we are setting the record straight, let's start with the fact that I do not oppose marriage.  You invented that tidbit, like you have invented other items.
> 
> I am opposed to gov't involvement in marriage.  But if it IS going to be involved, I expect it to treat all citizens the same and allow them to marry the consenting adult that they love.
> 
> I said I have no problem with 14 men marrying each other, as long as they love each other.  That is simply my belief that what others do, that harms no one, has no business being illegal.
> 
> I find it amusing that you accuse me of lying, and then post that I am living off a gov't check and that I parrot some elites.  When you accuse someone of lying, and then lie in the same post, that is called hypocrisy.  And you have lied plenty.
Click to expand...


 That is what marriage is dipstick. The legal recognition of a relationship by the legal system.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say it was ever legal to kill a homosexual?  You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what did we move past do tell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did we move past black men being lynched for looking at a white woman?   Was it ever legal (for lynching free black men)?
> 
> It is the same with murdering gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes._
> 
> 
> *Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed.   We have moved beyond that.  Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman*
> 
> So you admit that the men who wrote the 14th amendment, perhaps because of "killing and shunning gays", did not consider for a second that they were legalizing gay marriage? You will admit that the law they wrote is twisted from their purpose to something they would have found abominable?
> 
> Orwellian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea whether Holmes, Warren, Brennan, Black, Grant, Kennedy, or Roosevelt thought about homosexuality.  And I doubt you do either.  And really, it does not matter at all.   Society has grown out of its hatred for homosexuality, at least most of it has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesnt matter what they thought. They didn't see it in the 14th amendment did they?
Click to expand...


You claim that they didn't consider for second, and yet you claim what they thought doesn't matter?   Okey dokey.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's review.  I am an abomination, but not for anything I have actually said.  But for things you CLAIM I believe or want.  But you have no evidence.
> 
> I am a hypocrite, but you cannot site an example.
> 
> I am a liar, but you cannot point to a single lie I have told.
> 
> 
> Interesting debate style you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly I can. You lie in your refusal to admit that western values disgust you. That your goal is the elimination of legal marriage though yes you have basically admitted to that since you first lied about it. That you first decided 14 men couldn't get married...now have decided they can...and will shout from the rooftop that 14 men marrying was the original goal of the constitution if and when the Supreme Court reaches that level of depravity.
> What it boils down to, what you lie about, is that this is about destroying legal marriage. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not lied.   You insist that western values disgust me.  Nothing I have said even hits a such a thing.
> 
> I have said numerous times that I do not believe that the gov't should be involved in marriage at all.  But if they are, then the SCOTUS made the correct ruling.  I have not lied.  You simply cannot comprehend what you read.
> 
> I did not "decide" that 14 men cannot marry.  The law is currently setup for only two people.  You asked why 14 men can't marry.  I answered, based on current laws.  Then you decided that was proof that a polyamorous man was a bigot against polyamory.  Once again, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.  My two comments on the 14 men marrying were in different contexts.  It is not legal, but I don't care of they do.  Can you grasp the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So lets set the record straight and stop going round and round. You, a supporter of the government forcing states to marry gays to each other...oppose legal marriage. You, who oppose marriage, also believe 14 men at a jobsite should be able to marry and all pay one insurance premium.
> You see no questions marks up there do you? I state facts. if you disagree now is the time to speak up.
> I dont see how you can however so lets continue. The point I wanted to make was simply that...those who want the destruction of traditional marriage support not only the licensing of two men...but also 14 men...or 30 men...or 17 men and three women. There is no logical stopping point. Nobody should be fooled by the lies being told in support of the travesty of men pretending to marry men.
> Winterborn is just an old guy on the computer with a government check. it isnt him doing it. He simply parrots the elites.
> But never be in doubt what the intent is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we are setting the record straight, let's start with the fact that I do not oppose marriage.  You invented that tidbit, like you have invented other items.
> 
> I am opposed to gov't involvement in marriage.  But if it IS going to be involved, I expect it to treat all citizens the same and allow them to marry the consenting adult that they love.
> 
> I said I have no problem with 14 men marrying each other, as long as they love each other.  That is simply my belief that what others do, that harms no one, has no business being illegal.
> 
> I find it amusing that you accuse me of lying, and then post that I am living off a gov't check and that I parrot some elites.  When you accuse someone of lying, and then lie in the same post, that is called hypocrisy.  And you have lied plenty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is what marriage is dipstick. The legal recognition of a relationship by the legal system.
Click to expand...


That is what it is NOW.   And there is no reason for it.

Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used  for same sex marriages.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Tennyson said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again the ignorance of our Constitution is broadcast for the world to read.
> 
> Art. 1, sec. 8 clause 1 states in full:
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts *and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States*; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States​Where in the COTUS is general Welfare defined?
> 
> If we are to consider the Preamble to COTUS as a mission/vision statement, the concept of a general Welfare along with a common defence (defense) are a guarantee of protection to each individual citizen of civil rights, not limited to those enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Thus, the congress via the taxing power can pass legislation to provide cradle to grave protection against disease to each of us, and a guarantee to each citizen that the civil rights (life, liberty, property and happiness) equally to all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The common defense and general welfare clauses are not grants of power. The grants of powers are enumerated and explicit. The general welfare clause was defined in the debates and writings and came from two articles in the Articles of Confederation, and the meaning and intent did not change with the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Methinks you have not done your research.  

Madison and Hamilton did not agree, and the issue was sort of decided by Butler,  but not really.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance without reason is liberalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll let a liberal argue that.  Since I am not a liberal...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are as repulsive a liberal as I have ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I expect the gov't to treat all citizens the same?  Because I want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives?   Those are conservative and libertarian traits.  Not liberal.  In fact, liberals are the ones who want the gov't to "fix" things so they are the way THEY want them.  Which is exactly what you are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservative and libertarianism are two entirely different things. That you conflate two opposing ideologies shows you share nothing with either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ididn't say they were the same thing.  I simply said they both want the gov't to treat all its citizens the same and that they both want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives.  And they do, in fact, share those two traits.
> 
> It would be helpful if you stuck with quoting what I actually saying and stop lying to invent what you want me to say.
Click to expand...


   Hint...conflate does not mean "they are the same thing". Arguing with a liberal always always always comes down to arguing about words. I used "conflate" as a transitive verb..Websters defintion (in context) as "confuse".
   In fact though they do NOT share those two things. Conservatives support legal marriage only for male female unions and on approval by the state. Libertarians dont care who gets married so long as the orders dont come from the Federal Courts.
   You obviously cant be either...much less be both opposing philosophies.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed.   We have moved beyond that.  Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are still shunned. But it was always illegal to kill anyone. Even homosexuals. Another lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say it was ever legal to kill a homosexual?  You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what did we move past do tell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did we move past black men being lynched for looking at a white woman?   Was it ever legal (for lynching free black men)?
> 
> It is the same with murdering gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what you were speaking of? I thought it was gays wanting a marriage license. In fact I know it was. I asked you why those men never saw anything about gay marriage in the laws they passed and ruled on.
Click to expand...


And I used lynching blacks as an example of stopping something that was always illegal.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll let a liberal argue that.  Since I am not a liberal...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are as repulsive a liberal as I have ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I expect the gov't to treat all citizens the same?  Because I want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives?   Those are conservative and libertarian traits.  Not liberal.  In fact, liberals are the ones who want the gov't to "fix" things so they are the way THEY want them.  Which is exactly what you are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservative and libertarianism are two entirely different things. That you conflate two opposing ideologies shows you share nothing with either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ididn't say they were the same thing.  I simply said they both want the gov't to treat all its citizens the same and that they both want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives.  And they do, in fact, share those two traits.
> 
> It would be helpful if you stuck with quoting what I actually saying and stop lying to invent what you want me to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hint...conflate does not mean "they are the same thing". Arguing with a liberal always always always comes down to arguing about words. I used "conflate" as a transitive verb..Websters defintion (in context) as "confuse".
> In fact though they do NOT share those two things. Conservatives support legal marriage only for male female unions and on approval by the state. Libertarians dont care who gets married so long as the orders dont come from the Federal Courts.
> You obviously cant be either...much less be both opposing philosophies.
Click to expand...


I did not mention marriage in my statement, now did I?   Once again, please try and stick with what I actually say.

Conservative DO continually complain about the gov't interfering too much in private lives.  Which is why I phrased it the way I did.


----------



## WinterBorn

Dude, if you can't debate a topic without lying and inventing what you want me to have said, I have no interest in continuing.  You have basically made all sorts of baseless accusations and gone from discussing a topic to personal attacks.  You have very little actual basis for your hatred, but spew all sorts of bullshit hoping it will stick.  It didn't.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly I can. You lie in your refusal to admit that western values disgust you. That your goal is the elimination of legal marriage though yes you have basically admitted to that since you first lied about it. That you first decided 14 men couldn't get married...now have decided they can...and will shout from the rooftop that 14 men marrying was the original goal of the constitution if and when the Supreme Court reaches that level of depravity.
> What it boils down to, what you lie about, is that this is about destroying legal marriage. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not lied.   You insist that western values disgust me.  Nothing I have said even hits a such a thing.
> 
> I have said numerous times that I do not believe that the gov't should be involved in marriage at all.  But if they are, then the SCOTUS made the correct ruling.  I have not lied.  You simply cannot comprehend what you read.
> 
> I did not "decide" that 14 men cannot marry.  The law is currently setup for only two people.  You asked why 14 men can't marry.  I answered, based on current laws.  Then you decided that was proof that a polyamorous man was a bigot against polyamory.  Once again, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.  My two comments on the 14 men marrying were in different contexts.  It is not legal, but I don't care of they do.  Can you grasp the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So lets set the record straight and stop going round and round. You, a supporter of the government forcing states to marry gays to each other...oppose legal marriage. You, who oppose marriage, also believe 14 men at a jobsite should be able to marry and all pay one insurance premium.
> You see no questions marks up there do you? I state facts. if you disagree now is the time to speak up.
> I dont see how you can however so lets continue. The point I wanted to make was simply that...those who want the destruction of traditional marriage support not only the licensing of two men...but also 14 men...or 30 men...or 17 men and three women. There is no logical stopping point. Nobody should be fooled by the lies being told in support of the travesty of men pretending to marry men.
> Winterborn is just an old guy on the computer with a government check. it isnt him doing it. He simply parrots the elites.
> But never be in doubt what the intent is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we are setting the record straight, let's start with the fact that I do not oppose marriage.  You invented that tidbit, like you have invented other items.
> 
> I am opposed to gov't involvement in marriage.  But if it IS going to be involved, I expect it to treat all citizens the same and allow them to marry the consenting adult that they love.
> 
> I said I have no problem with 14 men marrying each other, as long as they love each other.  That is simply my belief that what others do, that harms no one, has no business being illegal.
> 
> I find it amusing that you accuse me of lying, and then post that I am living off a gov't check and that I parrot some elites.  When you accuse someone of lying, and then lie in the same post, that is called hypocrisy.  And you have lied plenty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is what marriage is dipstick. The legal recognition of a relationship by the legal system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is what it is NOW.   And there is no reason for it.
> 
> Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used  for same sex marriages.
Click to expand...


  Ok I have several reasons. One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
  Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
  Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
  Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses.
   Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are as repulsive a liberal as I have ever seen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I expect the gov't to treat all citizens the same?  Because I want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives?   Those are conservative and libertarian traits.  Not liberal.  In fact, liberals are the ones who want the gov't to "fix" things so they are the way THEY want them.  Which is exactly what you are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservative and libertarianism are two entirely different things. That you conflate two opposing ideologies shows you share nothing with either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ididn't say they were the same thing.  I simply said they both want the gov't to treat all its citizens the same and that they both want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives.  And they do, in fact, share those two traits.
> 
> It would be helpful if you stuck with quoting what I actually saying and stop lying to invent what you want me to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hint...conflate does not mean "they are the same thing". Arguing with a liberal always always always comes down to arguing about words. I used "conflate" as a transitive verb..Websters defintion (in context) as "confuse".
> In fact though they do NOT share those two things. Conservatives support legal marriage only for male female unions and on approval by the state. Libertarians dont care who gets married so long as the orders dont come from the Federal Courts.
> You obviously cant be either...much less be both opposing philosophies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not mention marriage in my statement, now did I?   Once again, please try and stick with what I actually say.
> 
> Conservative DO continually complain about the gov't interfering too much in private lives.  Which is why I phrased it the way I did.
Click to expand...


   Thats the caricature you get from liberalism. Actually conservatives want government to protect traditional marriage and traditional marriage only. Fact. You cant be there.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are as repulsive a liberal as I have ever seen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I expect the gov't to treat all citizens the same?  Because I want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives?   Those are conservative and libertarian traits.  Not liberal.  In fact, liberals are the ones who want the gov't to "fix" things so they are the way THEY want them.  Which is exactly what you are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservative and libertarianism are two entirely different things. That you conflate two opposing ideologies shows you share nothing with either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ididn't say they were the same thing.  I simply said they both want the gov't to treat all its citizens the same and that they both want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives.  And they do, in fact, share those two traits.
> 
> It would be helpful if you stuck with quoting what I actually saying and stop lying to invent what you want me to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hint...conflate does not mean "they are the same thing". Arguing with a liberal always always always comes down to arguing about words. I used "conflate" as a transitive verb..Websters defintion (in context) as "confuse".
> In fact though they do NOT share those two things. Conservatives support legal marriage only for male female unions and on approval by the state. Libertarians dont care who gets married so long as the orders dont come from the Federal Courts.
> You obviously cant be either...much less be both opposing philosophies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not mention marriage in my statement, now did I?   Once again, please try and stick with what I actually say.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


  The topic is marriage. I will assume any and all comments refer to it in some way.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> Dude, if you can't debate a topic without lying and inventing what you want me to have said, I have no interest in continuing.  You have basically made all sorts of baseless accusations and gone from discussing a topic to personal attacks.  You have very little actual basis for your hatred, but spew all sorts of bullshit hoping it will stick.  It didn't.



  It is stuck. You are covered with goo of your own production. Enjoy


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I expect the gov't to treat all citizens the same?  Because I want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives?   Those are conservative and libertarian traits.  Not liberal.  In fact, liberals are the ones who want the gov't to "fix" things so they are the way THEY want them.  Which is exactly what you are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative and libertarianism are two entirely different things. That you conflate two opposing ideologies shows you share nothing with either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ididn't say they were the same thing.  I simply said they both want the gov't to treat all its citizens the same and that they both want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives.  And they do, in fact, share those two traits.
> 
> It would be helpful if you stuck with quoting what I actually saying and stop lying to invent what you want me to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hint...conflate does not mean "they are the same thing". Arguing with a liberal always always always comes down to arguing about words. I used "conflate" as a transitive verb..Websters defintion (in context) as "confuse".
> In fact though they do NOT share those two things. Conservatives support legal marriage only for male female unions and on approval by the state. Libertarians dont care who gets married so long as the orders dont come from the Federal Courts.
> You obviously cant be either...much less be both opposing philosophies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not mention marriage in my statement, now did I?   Once again, please try and stick with what I actually say.
> 
> Conservative DO continually complain about the gov't interfering too much in private lives.  Which is why I phrased it the way I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats the caricature you get from liberalism. Actually conservatives want government to protect traditional marriage and traditional marriage only. Fact. You cant be there.
Click to expand...


You are confusing republicans with conservatives.  They are not the same thing.
I never said I was a republican.   But, once again, what I stated is accurate.  You are the one twisting things.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, if you can't debate a topic without lying and inventing what you want me to have said, I have no interest in continuing.  You have basically made all sorts of baseless accusations and gone from discussing a topic to personal attacks.  You have very little actual basis for your hatred, but spew all sorts of bullshit hoping it will stick.  It didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is stuck. You are covered with goo of your own production. Enjoy
Click to expand...


LMAO!!!   Too funny.   You continually lie about what I have said, what I want and what I believe.  Then you even lie claiming I receive a gov't check.

No junior, nothing stuck.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I expect the gov't to treat all citizens the same?  Because I want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives?   Those are conservative and libertarian traits.  Not liberal.  In fact, liberals are the ones who want the gov't to "fix" things so they are the way THEY want them.  Which is exactly what you are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative and libertarianism are two entirely different things. That you conflate two opposing ideologies shows you share nothing with either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ididn't say they were the same thing.  I simply said they both want the gov't to treat all its citizens the same and that they both want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives.  And they do, in fact, share those two traits.
> 
> It would be helpful if you stuck with quoting what I actually saying and stop lying to invent what you want me to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hint...conflate does not mean "they are the same thing". Arguing with a liberal always always always comes down to arguing about words. I used "conflate" as a transitive verb..Websters defintion (in context) as "confuse".
> In fact though they do NOT share those two things. Conservatives support legal marriage only for male female unions and on approval by the state. Libertarians dont care who gets married so long as the orders dont come from the Federal Courts.
> You obviously cant be either...much less be both opposing philosophies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not mention marriage in my statement, now did I?   Once again, please try and stick with what I actually say.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is marriage. I will assume any and all comments refer to it in some way.
Click to expand...


When you call me a liberal, you are the one derailling the topic, not me.  And obviously, you spoke out of ignorance.

How about assuming what I say is what I mean?   Oh wait, that would mean most of your arguments couldn't be made.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not lied.   You insist that western values disgust me.  Nothing I have said even hits a such a thing.
> 
> I have said numerous times that I do not believe that the gov't should be involved in marriage at all.  But if they are, then the SCOTUS made the correct ruling.  I have not lied.  You simply cannot comprehend what you read.
> 
> I did not "decide" that 14 men cannot marry.  The law is currently setup for only two people.  You asked why 14 men can't marry.  I answered, based on current laws.  Then you decided that was proof that a polyamorous man was a bigot against polyamory.  Once again, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.  My two comments on the 14 men marrying were in different contexts.  It is not legal, but I don't care of they do.  Can you grasp the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So lets set the record straight and stop going round and round. You, a supporter of the government forcing states to marry gays to each other...oppose legal marriage. You, who oppose marriage, also believe 14 men at a jobsite should be able to marry and all pay one insurance premium.
> You see no questions marks up there do you? I state facts. if you disagree now is the time to speak up.
> I dont see how you can however so lets continue. The point I wanted to make was simply that...those who want the destruction of traditional marriage support not only the licensing of two men...but also 14 men...or 30 men...or 17 men and three women. There is no logical stopping point. Nobody should be fooled by the lies being told in support of the travesty of men pretending to marry men.
> Winterborn is just an old guy on the computer with a government check. it isnt him doing it. He simply parrots the elites.
> But never be in doubt what the intent is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we are setting the record straight, let's start with the fact that I do not oppose marriage.  You invented that tidbit, like you have invented other items.
> 
> I am opposed to gov't involvement in marriage.  But if it IS going to be involved, I expect it to treat all citizens the same and allow them to marry the consenting adult that they love.
> 
> I said I have no problem with 14 men marrying each other, as long as they love each other.  That is simply my belief that what others do, that harms no one, has no business being illegal.
> 
> I find it amusing that you accuse me of lying, and then post that I am living off a gov't check and that I parrot some elites.  When you accuse someone of lying, and then lie in the same post, that is called hypocrisy.  And you have lied plenty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is what marriage is dipstick. The legal recognition of a relationship by the legal system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is what it is NOW.   And there is no reason for it.
> 
> Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used  for same sex marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok I have several reasons. One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses.
> Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Click to expand...


I'll answer them separately.
_
One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses_.
The discussion is about the legal aspects or constitutionality of gay marriage.  The rules of the catholic church do not apply.

_Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses._
The history of our culture and our country is not stagnant, and it never has been.  Until the 19th amendment, no woman was allowed to vote.  Until the 13th amendment, men could own other men.   Because it has never been done does not mean anything.

_Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses._
The US Constitution protects the minorities from the majority.  During the Civil Rights movement, at no time was the majority of the population in the South in favor of equal rights for blacks.  States cannot override what the US Constitution guarantees.

_Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses._
Whatever "impression" someone has is irrelevant.  But, other than giving birth to children without outside assistance, same sex marriages are as beneficial as opposite sex marriages.

_Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses._
You can believe whatever you want.  Unless you can show actual damage, you are simply inventing shit (again).  Families are not effected by someone else's marriage.  That gay couple down the street lived together for years.  Now they have a license and benefits.  Nothing changed as far as any families are concerned.   But it WOULD be nice if the concerns for what damages families extended to other areas.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> So lets set the record straight and stop going round and round. You, a supporter of the government forcing states to marry gays to each other...oppose legal marriage. You, who oppose marriage, also believe 14 men at a jobsite should be able to marry and all pay one insurance premium.
> You see no questions marks up there do you? I state facts. if you disagree now is the time to speak up.
> I dont see how you can however so lets continue. The point I wanted to make was simply that...those who want the destruction of traditional marriage support not only the licensing of two men...but also 14 men...or 30 men...or 17 men and three women. There is no logical stopping point. Nobody should be fooled by the lies being told in support of the travesty of men pretending to marry men.
> Winterborn is just an old guy on the computer with a government check. it isnt him doing it. He simply parrots the elites.
> But never be in doubt what the intent is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we are setting the record straight, let's start with the fact that I do not oppose marriage.  You invented that tidbit, like you have invented other items.
> 
> I am opposed to gov't involvement in marriage.  But if it IS going to be involved, I expect it to treat all citizens the same and allow them to marry the consenting adult that they love.
> 
> I said I have no problem with 14 men marrying each other, as long as they love each other.  That is simply my belief that what others do, that harms no one, has no business being illegal.
> 
> I find it amusing that you accuse me of lying, and then post that I am living off a gov't check and that I parrot some elites.  When you accuse someone of lying, and then lie in the same post, that is called hypocrisy.  And you have lied plenty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is what marriage is dipstick. The legal recognition of a relationship by the legal system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is what it is NOW.   And there is no reason for it.
> 
> Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used  for same sex marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok I have several reasons. One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses.
> Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll answer them separately.
> _
> One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses_.
> The discussion is about the legal aspects or constitutionality of gay marriage.  The rules of the catholic church do not apply.
> 
> _Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses._
> The history of our culture and our country is not stagnant, and it never has been.  Until the 19th amendment, no woman was allowed to vote.  Until the 13th amendment, men could own other men.   Because it has never been done does not mean anything.
> 
> _Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses._
> The US Constitution protects the minorities from the majority.  During the Civil Rights movement, at no time was the majority of the population in the South in favor of equal rights for blacks.  States cannot override what the US Constitution guarantees.
> 
> _Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses._
> Whatever "impression" someone has is irrelevant.  But, other than giving birth to children without outside assistance, same sex marriages are as beneficial as opposite sex marriages.
> 
> _Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses._
> You can believe whatever you want.  Unless you can show actual damage, you are simply inventing shit (again).  Families are not effected by someone else's marriage.  That gay couple down the street lived together for years.  Now they have a license and benefits.  Nothing changed as far as any families are concerned.   But it WOULD be nice if the concerns for what damages families extended to other areas.
Click to expand...


  Huge fail. You were bragging you could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses. Want to try again?


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used  for same sex marriages.



  There it is plain as day. I gave you plenty of reasons. Use them to support gay marriage licenses.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we are setting the record straight, let's start with the fact that I do not oppose marriage.  You invented that tidbit, like you have invented other items.
> 
> I am opposed to gov't involvement in marriage.  But if it IS going to be involved, I expect it to treat all citizens the same and allow them to marry the consenting adult that they love.
> 
> I said I have no problem with 14 men marrying each other, as long as they love each other.  That is simply my belief that what others do, that harms no one, has no business being illegal.
> 
> I find it amusing that you accuse me of lying, and then post that I am living off a gov't check and that I parrot some elites.  When you accuse someone of lying, and then lie in the same post, that is called hypocrisy.  And you have lied plenty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what marriage is dipstick. The legal recognition of a relationship by the legal system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is what it is NOW.   And there is no reason for it.
> 
> Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used  for same sex marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok I have several reasons. One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses.
> Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll answer them separately.
> _
> One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses_.
> The discussion is about the legal aspects or constitutionality of gay marriage.  The rules of the catholic church do not apply.
> 
> _Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses._
> The history of our culture and our country is not stagnant, and it never has been.  Until the 19th amendment, no woman was allowed to vote.  Until the 13th amendment, men could own other men.   Because it has never been done does not mean anything.
> 
> _Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses._
> The US Constitution protects the minorities from the majority.  During the Civil Rights movement, at no time was the majority of the population in the South in favor of equal rights for blacks.  States cannot override what the US Constitution guarantees.
> 
> _Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses._
> Whatever "impression" someone has is irrelevant.  But, other than giving birth to children without outside assistance, same sex marriages are as beneficial as opposite sex marriages.
> 
> _Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses._
> You can believe whatever you want.  Unless you can show actual damage, you are simply inventing shit (again).  Families are not effected by someone else's marriage.  That gay couple down the street lived together for years.  Now they have a license and benefits.  Nothing changed as far as any families are concerned.   But it WOULD be nice if the concerns for what damages families extended to other areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huge fail. You were bragging you could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses. Want to try again?
Click to expand...


Huge fail?   LMAO!!   You don't like the answers so it is a fail?

Are the rules of the catholic church laws of the land?  No.
Is the fact that something has always been a certain way a reason to continue that way? No.
Is a majority vote a reason to deny rights to a minority?  No.
Is someone's impression a reason to do it either?  No.
Is your belief that it damages family the same as it actually damaging families?  No.

And once again, you lied.   I did not say I "...could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses.".   I said "Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used  for same sex marriages".   You did not offer a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage.  You posted reasons you don't think it should.  

So stop lying and read what I actually say.  Is that so difficult?   Are you a chronic liar?


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what marriage is dipstick. The legal recognition of a relationship by the legal system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what it is NOW.   And there is no reason for it.
> 
> Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used  for same sex marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok I have several reasons. One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses.
> Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll answer them separately.
> _
> One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses_.
> The discussion is about the legal aspects or constitutionality of gay marriage.  The rules of the catholic church do not apply.
> 
> _Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses._
> The history of our culture and our country is not stagnant, and it never has been.  Until the 19th amendment, no woman was allowed to vote.  Until the 13th amendment, men could own other men.   Because it has never been done does not mean anything.
> 
> _Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses._
> The US Constitution protects the minorities from the majority.  During the Civil Rights movement, at no time was the majority of the population in the South in favor of equal rights for blacks.  States cannot override what the US Constitution guarantees.
> 
> _Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses._
> Whatever "impression" someone has is irrelevant.  But, other than giving birth to children without outside assistance, same sex marriages are as beneficial as opposite sex marriages.
> 
> _Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses._
> You can believe whatever you want.  Unless you can show actual damage, you are simply inventing shit (again).  Families are not effected by someone else's marriage.  That gay couple down the street lived together for years.  Now they have a license and benefits.  Nothing changed as far as any families are concerned.   But it WOULD be nice if the concerns for what damages families extended to other areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huge fail. You were bragging you could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses. Want to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huge fail?   LMAO!!   You don't like the answers so it is a fail?
> 
> Are the rules of the catholic church laws of the land?  No.
> Is the fact that something has always been a certain way a reason to continue that way? No.
> Is a majority vote a reason to deny rights to a minority?  No.
> Is someone's impression a reason to do it either?  No.
> Is your belief that it damages family the same as it actually damaging families?  No.
> 
> And once again, you lied.   I did not say I "...could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses.".   I said "Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used  for same sex marriages".   You did not offer a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage.  You posted reasons you don't think it should.
> 
> So stop lying and read what I actually say.  Is that so difficult?   Are you a chronic liar?
Click to expand...


  So use them to support gay marriage then.


----------



## DOTR

Lets take them one by one. The Catholic church opposes gay marriage licenses. Use that argument to support gay marriage licenses.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what marriage is dipstick. The legal recognition of a relationship by the legal system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what it is NOW.   And there is no reason for it.
> 
> Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used  for same sex marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok I have several reasons. One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses.
> Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll answer them separately.
> _
> One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses_.
> The discussion is about the legal aspects or constitutionality of gay marriage.  The rules of the catholic church do not apply.
> 
> _Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses._
> The history of our culture and our country is not stagnant, and it never has been.  Until the 19th amendment, no woman was allowed to vote.  Until the 13th amendment, men could own other men.   Because it has never been done does not mean anything.
> 
> _Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses._
> The US Constitution protects the minorities from the majority.  During the Civil Rights movement, at no time was the majority of the population in the South in favor of equal rights for blacks.  States cannot override what the US Constitution guarantees.
> 
> _Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses._
> Whatever "impression" someone has is irrelevant.  But, other than giving birth to children without outside assistance, same sex marriages are as beneficial as opposite sex marriages.
> 
> _Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses._
> You can believe whatever you want.  Unless you can show actual damage, you are simply inventing shit (again).  Families are not effected by someone else's marriage.  That gay couple down the street lived together for years.  Now they have a license and benefits.  Nothing changed as far as any families are concerned.   But it WOULD be nice if the concerns for what damages families extended to other areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huge fail. You were bragging you could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses. Want to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huge fail?   LMAO!!   You don't like the answers so it is a fail?
> 
> Are the rules of the catholic church laws of the land?  No.
> Is the fact that something has always been a certain way a reason to continue that way? No.
> Is a majority vote a reason to deny rights to a minority?  No.
> Is someone's impression a reason to do it either?  No.
> Is your belief that it damages family the same as it actually damaging families?  No.
> 
> And once again, you lied.   I did not say I "...could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses.".   I said "Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used  for same sex marriages".   You did not offer a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage.  You posted reasons you don't think it should.
> 
> So stop lying and read what I actually say.  Is that so difficult?   Are you a chronic liar?
Click to expand...


Number two..._in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. 

  Use that to support gay marriage licenses pleae. As you said you could._


----------



## DOTR

Three the people of the United States oppose gay marriage licenses and in fact proved it at the ballot box dozens of times. Use that to support gay marriage please.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what marriage is dipstick. The legal recognition of a relationship by the legal system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what it is NOW.   And there is no reason for it.
> 
> Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used  for same sex marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok I have several reasons. One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses.
> Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll answer them separately.
> _
> One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses_.
> The discussion is about the legal aspects or constitutionality of gay marriage.  The rules of the catholic church do not apply.
> 
> _Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses._
> The history of our culture and our country is not stagnant, and it never has been.  Until the 19th amendment, no woman was allowed to vote.  Until the 13th amendment, men could own other men.   Because it has never been done does not mean anything.
> 
> _Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses._
> The US Constitution protects the minorities from the majority.  During the Civil Rights movement, at no time was the majority of the population in the South in favor of equal rights for blacks.  States cannot override what the US Constitution guarantees.
> 
> _Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses._
> Whatever "impression" someone has is irrelevant.  But, other than giving birth to children without outside assistance, same sex marriages are as beneficial as opposite sex marriages.
> 
> _Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses._
> You can believe whatever you want.  Unless you can show actual damage, you are simply inventing shit (again).  Families are not effected by someone else's marriage.  That gay couple down the street lived together for years.  Now they have a license and benefits.  Nothing changed as far as any families are concerned.   But it WOULD be nice if the concerns for what damages families extended to other areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huge fail. You were bragging you could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses. Want to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huge fail?   LMAO!!   You don't like the answers so it is a fail?
> 
> Are the rules of the catholic church laws of the land?  No.
> Is the fact that something has always been a certain way a reason to continue that way? No.
> Is a majority vote a reason to deny rights to a minority?  No.
> Is someone's impression a reason to do it either?  No.
> Is your belief that it damages family the same as it actually damaging families?  No.
> 
> And once again, you lied.   I did not say I "...could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses.".   I said "Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used  for same sex marriages".   You did not offer a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage.  You posted reasons you don't think it should.
> 
> So stop lying and read what I actually say.  Is that so difficult?   Are you a chronic liar?
Click to expand...


  Gay marriage licenses should be opposed because to do otherwise would give the impression society valued the idea of two men marrying. 
  Use that argument to support gay marriage licenses please.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used  for same sex marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There it is plain as day. I gave you plenty of reasons. Use them to support gay marriage licenses.
Click to expand...


No, liar, you did not.  You did not give me one reason for the gov't to recognize marriage.   You gave me 5 reasons against gay marriage.  I refuted each one.

One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage.
*Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?   No, itis not.*

Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. 
*Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*

Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes.
*Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*

Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage.
*Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*

Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. 
*Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*

So the "huge fail" is on your part.  Apparently you can't comprehend what you read and you can't stop lying.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what marriage is dipstick. The legal recognition of a relationship by the legal system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what it is NOW.   And there is no reason for it.
> 
> Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used  for same sex marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok I have several reasons. One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses.
> Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll answer them separately.
> _
> One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses_.
> The discussion is about the legal aspects or constitutionality of gay marriage.  The rules of the catholic church do not apply.
> 
> _Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses._
> The history of our culture and our country is not stagnant, and it never has been.  Until the 19th amendment, no woman was allowed to vote.  Until the 13th amendment, men could own other men.   Because it has never been done does not mean anything.
> 
> _Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses._
> The US Constitution protects the minorities from the majority.  During the Civil Rights movement, at no time was the majority of the population in the South in favor of equal rights for blacks.  States cannot override what the US Constitution guarantees.
> 
> _Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses._
> Whatever "impression" someone has is irrelevant.  But, other than giving birth to children without outside assistance, same sex marriages are as beneficial as opposite sex marriages.
> 
> _Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses._
> You can believe whatever you want.  Unless you can show actual damage, you are simply inventing shit (again).  Families are not effected by someone else's marriage.  That gay couple down the street lived together for years.  Now they have a license and benefits.  Nothing changed as far as any families are concerned.   But it WOULD be nice if the concerns for what damages families extended to other areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huge fail. You were bragging you could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses. Want to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huge fail?   LMAO!!   You don't like the answers so it is a fail?
> 
> Are the rules of the catholic church laws of the land?  No.
> Is the fact that something has always been a certain way a reason to continue that way? No.
> Is a majority vote a reason to deny rights to a minority?  No.
> Is someone's impression a reason to do it either?  No.
> Is your belief that it damages family the same as it actually damaging families?  No.
> 
> And once again, you lied.   I did not say I "...could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses.".   I said "Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used  for same sex marriages".   You did not offer a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage.  You posted reasons you don't think it should.
> 
> So stop lying and read what I actually say.  Is that so difficult?   Are you a chronic liar?
Click to expand...


   I believe, and the citizens of this country, believe issuing gay marriages undermines families. You claimed you could use this to support gay marriage licenses. I would like to see that.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used  for same sex marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There it is plain as day. I gave you plenty of reasons. Use them to support gay marriage licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, liar, you did not.  You did not give me one reason for the gov't to recognize marriage.   You gave me 5 reasons against gay marriage.  I refuted each one.
> 
> One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?   No, itis not.*
> 
> Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> So the "huge fail" is on your part.  Apparently you can't comprehend what you read and you can't stop lying.
Click to expand...


   Wow. Im not convinced sorry. Here i thought I was going to see you use those arguments to support gay marriage licenses. Another lie from you I suppose.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what marriage is dipstick. The legal recognition of a relationship by the legal system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what it is NOW.   And there is no reason for it.
> 
> Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used  for same sex marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok I have several reasons. One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses.
> Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll answer them separately.
> _
> One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses_.
> The discussion is about the legal aspects or constitutionality of gay marriage.  The rules of the catholic church do not apply.
> 
> _Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses._
> The history of our culture and our country is not stagnant, and it never has been.  Until the 19th amendment, no woman was allowed to vote.  Until the 13th amendment, men could own other men.   Because it has never been done does not mean anything.
> 
> _Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses._
> The US Constitution protects the minorities from the majority.  During the Civil Rights movement, at no time was the majority of the population in the South in favor of equal rights for blacks.  States cannot override what the US Constitution guarantees.
> 
> _Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses._
> Whatever "impression" someone has is irrelevant.  But, other than giving birth to children without outside assistance, same sex marriages are as beneficial as opposite sex marriages.
> 
> _Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses._
> You can believe whatever you want.  Unless you can show actual damage, you are simply inventing shit (again).  Families are not effected by someone else's marriage.  That gay couple down the street lived together for years.  Now they have a license and benefits.  Nothing changed as far as any families are concerned.   But it WOULD be nice if the concerns for what damages families extended to other areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huge fail. You were bragging you could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses. Want to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huge fail?   LMAO!!   You don't like the answers so it is a fail?
> 
> Are the rules of the catholic church laws of the land?  No.
> Is the fact that something has always been a certain way a reason to continue that way? No.
> Is a majority vote a reason to deny rights to a minority?  No.
> Is someone's impression a reason to do it either?  No.
> Is your belief that it damages family the same as it actually damaging families?  No.
> 
> And once again, you lied.   I did not say I "...could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses.".   I said "Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used  for same sex marriages".   You did not offer a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage.  You posted reasons you don't think it should.
> 
> So stop lying and read what I actually say.  Is that so difficult?   Are you a chronic liar?
Click to expand...


   Should I give more reasons...so you can NOT use more of them to support gay marriage licenses?


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> Three the people of the United States oppose gay marriage licenses and in fact proved it at the ballot box dozens of times. Use that to support gay marriage please.



If the people of the United States voted to imprison all left-handed people or to make private gun ownership illegal or to make blacks slaves again, it would still be unconstitutional and would be overturned.  

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that you live in a democracy where the majority always rules.  You don't.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used  for same sex marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There it is plain as day. I gave you plenty of reasons. Use them to support gay marriage licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, liar, you did not.  You did not give me one reason for the gov't to recognize marriage.   You gave me 5 reasons against gay marriage.  I refuted each one.
> 
> One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?   No, itis not.*
> 
> Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> So the "huge fail" is on your part.  Apparently you can't comprehend what you read and you can't stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. Im not convinced sorry. Here i thought I was going to see you use those arguments to support gay marriage licenses. Another lie from you I suppose.
Click to expand...


Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, you did not.   Unless you do, your fail is huge.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Three the people of the United States oppose gay marriage licenses and in fact proved it at the ballot box dozens of times. Use that to support gay marriage please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the people of the United States voted to imprison all left-handed people or to make private gun ownership illegal or to make blacks slaves again, it would still be unconstitutional and would be overturned.
> 
> You seem to be laboring under the misconception that you live in a democracy where the majority always rules.  You don't.
Click to expand...


   I seem to be laboring under the misconception that you were going to do as you said...again.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used  for same sex marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There it is plain as day. I gave you plenty of reasons. Use them to support gay marriage licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, liar, you did not.  You did not give me one reason for the gov't to recognize marriage.   You gave me 5 reasons against gay marriage.  I refuted each one.
> 
> One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?   No, itis not.*
> 
> Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> So the "huge fail" is on your part.  Apparently you can't comprehend what you read and you can't stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. Im not convinced sorry. Here i thought I was going to see you use those arguments to support gay marriage licenses. Another lie from you I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, you did not.   Unless you do, your fail is huge.
Click to expand...


  So really weren't intending to take any reason I give for opposing gay marriage licenses and use it to support gay marriage licenses. You were just saying that?


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what it is NOW.   And there is no reason for it.
> 
> Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used  for same sex marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok I have several reasons. One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses.
> Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll answer them separately.
> _
> One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses_.
> The discussion is about the legal aspects or constitutionality of gay marriage.  The rules of the catholic church do not apply.
> 
> _Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses._
> The history of our culture and our country is not stagnant, and it never has been.  Until the 19th amendment, no woman was allowed to vote.  Until the 13th amendment, men could own other men.   Because it has never been done does not mean anything.
> 
> _Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses._
> The US Constitution protects the minorities from the majority.  During the Civil Rights movement, at no time was the majority of the population in the South in favor of equal rights for blacks.  States cannot override what the US Constitution guarantees.
> 
> _Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses._
> Whatever "impression" someone has is irrelevant.  But, other than giving birth to children without outside assistance, same sex marriages are as beneficial as opposite sex marriages.
> 
> _Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses._
> You can believe whatever you want.  Unless you can show actual damage, you are simply inventing shit (again).  Families are not effected by someone else's marriage.  That gay couple down the street lived together for years.  Now they have a license and benefits.  Nothing changed as far as any families are concerned.   But it WOULD be nice if the concerns for what damages families extended to other areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huge fail. You were bragging you could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses. Want to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huge fail?   LMAO!!   You don't like the answers so it is a fail?
> 
> Are the rules of the catholic church laws of the land?  No.
> Is the fact that something has always been a certain way a reason to continue that way? No.
> Is a majority vote a reason to deny rights to a minority?  No.
> Is someone's impression a reason to do it either?  No.
> Is your belief that it damages family the same as it actually damaging families?  No.
> 
> And once again, you lied.   I did not say I "...could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses.".   I said "Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used  for same sex marriages".   You did not offer a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage.  You posted reasons you don't think it should.
> 
> So stop lying and read what I actually say.  Is that so difficult?   Are you a chronic liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should I give more reasons...so you can NOT use more of them to support gay marriage licenses?
Click to expand...


It would be nice if you gave me one reason for the gov't to recognize marriage.   You have not done that.

But it is 12:40 am, and you have continually lied, misquoted me, and made baseless claims that you pretend are facts.  I have enjoyed making you look foolish.  But I have to go to work in the morning.  So you will have all night to come upwith reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used  for same sex marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There it is plain as day. I gave you plenty of reasons. Use them to support gay marriage licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, liar, you did not.  You did not give me one reason for the gov't to recognize marriage.   You gave me 5 reasons against gay marriage.  I refuted each one.
> 
> One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?   No, itis not.*
> 
> Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> So the "huge fail" is on your part.  Apparently you can't comprehend what you read and you can't stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. Im not convinced sorry. Here i thought I was going to see you use those arguments to support gay marriage licenses. Another lie from you I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, you did not.   Unless you do, your fail is huge.
Click to expand...


 I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Three the people of the United States oppose gay marriage licenses and in fact proved it at the ballot box dozens of times. Use that to support gay marriage please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the people of the United States voted to imprison all left-handed people or to make private gun ownership illegal or to make blacks slaves again, it would still be unconstitutional and would be overturned.
> 
> You seem to be laboring under the misconception that you live in a democracy where the majority always rules.  You don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I seem to be laboring under the misconception that you were going to do as you said...again.
Click to expand...


And what did I say?  "Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages."

You did not offer one single reason for the gov't to recognize marriage.  Not a single one.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are still shunned. But it was always illegal to kill anyone. Even homosexuals. Another lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say it was ever legal to kill a homosexual?  You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what did we move past do tell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did we move past black men being lynched for looking at a white woman?   Was it ever legal (for lynching free black men)?
> 
> It is the same with murdering gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes._
> 
> 
> *Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed.   We have moved beyond that.  Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman*
> 
> So you admit that the men who wrote the 14th amendment, perhaps because of "killing and shunning gays", did not consider for a second that they were legalizing gay marriage? You will admit that the law they wrote is twisted from their purpose to something they would have found abominable?
> 
> Orwellian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea whether Holmes, Warren, Brennan, Black, Grant, Kennedy, or Roosevelt thought about homosexuality.  And I doubt you do either.  And really, it does not matter at all.   Society has grown out of its hatred for homosexuality, at least most of it has.
Click to expand...


  If that were true you wouldn't have had to disenfranchise that society now would you?


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used  for same sex marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There it is plain as day. I gave you plenty of reasons. Use them to support gay marriage licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, liar, you did not.  You did not give me one reason for the gov't to recognize marriage.   You gave me 5 reasons against gay marriage.  I refuted each one.
> 
> One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?   No, itis not.*
> 
> Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> So the "huge fail" is on your part.  Apparently you can't comprehend what you read and you can't stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. Im not convinced sorry. Here i thought I was going to see you use those arguments to support gay marriage licenses. Another lie from you I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, you did not.   Unless you do, your fail is huge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.
Click to expand...


No, you did not.  None of those is a reason for gov't to recognize marriage.   Maybe have your Mom read what I said I would do and explain what it means.  I am done with your inability to comprehend teh written word.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Three the people of the United States oppose gay marriage licenses and in fact proved it at the ballot box dozens of times. Use that to support gay marriage please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the people of the United States voted to imprison all left-handed people or to make private gun ownership illegal or to make blacks slaves again, it would still be unconstitutional and would be overturned.
> 
> You seem to be laboring under the misconception that you live in a democracy where the majority always rules.  You don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I seem to be laboring under the misconception that you were going to do as you said...again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what did I say?  "Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages."
> 
> You did not offer one single reason for the gov't to recognize marriage.  Not a single one.
Click to expand...


  I offered five. Sorry you dont get to pick reasons for me to support traditional marriage only. Your job was to do as you said..take ANY reason I gave and use it to support gay marriage licenses.
  Your failure, when outside the old bounds, was pretty much expected.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> There it is plain as day. I gave you plenty of reasons. Use them to support gay marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, liar, you did not.  You did not give me one reason for the gov't to recognize marriage.   You gave me 5 reasons against gay marriage.  I refuted each one.
> 
> One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?   No, itis not.*
> 
> Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> So the "huge fail" is on your part.  Apparently you can't comprehend what you read and you can't stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. Im not convinced sorry. Here i thought I was going to see you use those arguments to support gay marriage licenses. Another lie from you I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, you did not.   Unless you do, your fail is huge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you did not.  None of those is a reason for gov't to recognize marriage.   Maybe have your Mom read what I said I would do and explain what it means.  I am done with your inability to comprehend teh written word.
Click to expand...


  LOL Yep you had a set you have been taught to ape an answer to. And I refused the liberal script. I say again you slimy liberal YOU dont get to pick the reasons I oppose gay marriage licenses.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then what did we move past do tell?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did we move past black men being lynched for looking at a white woman?   Was it ever legal (for lynching free black men)?
> 
> It is the same with murdering gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes._
> 
> 
> *Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed.   We have moved beyond that.  Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman*
> 
> So you admit that the men who wrote the 14th amendment, perhaps because of "killing and shunning gays", did not consider for a second that they were legalizing gay marriage? You will admit that the law they wrote is twisted from their purpose to something they would have found abominable?
> 
> Orwellian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea whether Holmes, Warren, Brennan, Black, Grant, Kennedy, or Roosevelt thought about homosexuality.  And I doubt you do either.  And really, it does not matter at all.   Society has grown out of its hatred for homosexuality, at least most of it has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesnt matter what they thought. They didn't see it in the 14th amendment did they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim that they didn't consider for second, and yet you claim what they thought doesn't matter?   Okey dokey.
Click to expand...


  Did they or didnt those mean old homophobes who wrote the law intend for it to be used for gay marriage licenses?


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used  for same sex marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There it is plain as day. I gave you plenty of reasons. Use them to support gay marriage licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, liar, you did not.  You did not give me one reason for the gov't to recognize marriage.   You gave me 5 reasons against gay marriage.  I refuted each one.
> 
> One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?   No, itis not.*
> 
> Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> So the "huge fail" is on your part.  Apparently you can't comprehend what you read and you can't stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. Im not convinced sorry. Here i thought I was going to see you use those arguments to support gay marriage licenses. Another lie from you I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, you did not.   Unless you do, your fail is huge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.
Click to expand...


Pretend you work for the gov't.   And you were looking for reasons to license and recognize marriage.

 If one of your people said "The Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage"
*Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*

Or if they said "In the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man". 
*Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*

Or if they said "The people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes".
*Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*

Or if they said"Gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage".
*Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*

Or if they said "I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families"
*Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.


If you cannot tell the difference between offering reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage (hint:this would be the gov't recognizing straight marriage), then I cannot respond by showing you how gay marriages would provide the same reason.*


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, liar, you did not.  You did not give me one reason for the gov't to recognize marriage.   You gave me 5 reasons against gay marriage.  I refuted each one.
> 
> One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?   No, itis not.*
> 
> Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> So the "huge fail" is on your part.  Apparently you can't comprehend what you read and you can't stop lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Im not convinced sorry. Here i thought I was going to see you use those arguments to support gay marriage licenses. Another lie from you I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, you did not.   Unless you do, your fail is huge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you did not.  None of those is a reason for gov't to recognize marriage.   Maybe have your Mom read what I said I would do and explain what it means.  I am done with your inability to comprehend teh written word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL Yep you had a set you have been taught to ape an answer to. And I refused the liberal script. I say again you slimy liberal YOU dont get top pick the reasons I oppose gay marriage licenses.
Click to expand...


I never tried to do that.

I said that any reason you can give for the gov't to recognize marriage.  That means you have to show a reason why the gov't should recognize straight marriages, and the same could be said of gay marriage.

I never said I would refute every imagined bit of nonsense you spout about gay marriage.  You really cannot comprehend what you read, can you?


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did we move past black men being lynched for looking at a white woman?   Was it ever legal (for lynching free black men)?
> 
> It is the same with murdering gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes._
> 
> 
> *Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed.   We have moved beyond that.  Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman*
> 
> So you admit that the men who wrote the 14th amendment, perhaps because of "killing and shunning gays", did not consider for a second that they were legalizing gay marriage? You will admit that the law they wrote is twisted from their purpose to something they would have found abominable?
> 
> Orwellian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea whether Holmes, Warren, Brennan, Black, Grant, Kennedy, or Roosevelt thought about homosexuality.  And I doubt you do either.  And really, it does not matter at all.   Society has grown out of its hatred for homosexuality, at least most of it has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesnt matter what they thought. They didn't see it in the 14th amendment did they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim that they didn't consider for second, and yet you claim what they thought doesn't matter?   Okey dokey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they or didnt those mean old homophobes who wrote the law intend for it to be used for gay marriage licenses?
Click to expand...


Your ignorant, inability to read ms you won't understand my answers anyway.  That you continue to lie, over and over and over, means you haven't the intellect to carry on a serious conversation.  That you resort to name-calling instead of discussion means you are clueless and think personal attacks are a substitute for facts.

I'm going to bed.  Have someone read my posts to you and explain what they mean.  You are obviously too ignorant to comprehend.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Im not convinced sorry. Here i thought I was going to see you use those arguments to support gay marriage licenses. Another lie from you I suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, you did not.   Unless you do, your fail is huge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you did not.  None of those is a reason for gov't to recognize marriage.   Maybe have your Mom read what I said I would do and explain what it means.  I am done with your inability to comprehend teh written word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL Yep you had a set you have been taught to ape an answer to. And I refused the liberal script. I say again you slimy liberal YOU dont get top pick the reasons I oppose gay marriage licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never tried to do that.
> 
> I said that any reason you can give for the gov't to recognize marriage.  That means you have to show a reason why the gov't should recognize straight marriages, and the same could be said of gay marriage.
> 
> I never said I would refute every imagined bit of nonsense you spout about gay marriage.  You really cannot comprehend what you read, can you?
Click to expand...


   I dont have to do anything. YOU dont choose the opposition argument so you can knock it down.


WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> There it is plain as day. I gave you plenty of reasons. Use them to support gay marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, liar, you did not.  You did not give me one reason for the gov't to recognize marriage.   You gave me 5 reasons against gay marriage.  I refuted each one.
> 
> One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?   No, itis not.*
> 
> Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> So the "huge fail" is on your part.  Apparently you can't comprehend what you read and you can't stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. Im not convinced sorry. Here i thought I was going to see you use those arguments to support gay marriage licenses. Another lie from you I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, you did not.   Unless you do, your fail is huge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretend you work for the gov't.   And you were looking for reasons to license and recognize marriage.
> 
> If one of your people said "The Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage"
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said "In the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man".
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said "The people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes".
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said"Gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage".
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said "I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families"
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.
> 
> 
> If you cannot tell the difference between offering reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage (hint:this would be the gov't recognizing straight marriage), then I cannot respond by showing you how gay marriages would provide the same reason.*
Click to expand...


Pretend you are a citizen. And you had reasons to oppose gay marriage licenses.

If some guy said he could use any reason you provided for your beliefs as an argument FOR gay marriage licenses and you gave him five of your reasons and he failed to use any of them to support gay marriage licenses then you would be justified thinking him a dunce.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> _I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes._
> 
> 
> *Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed.   We have moved beyond that.  Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman*
> 
> So you admit that the men who wrote the 14th amendment, perhaps because of "killing and shunning gays", did not consider for a second that they were legalizing gay marriage? You will admit that the law they wrote is twisted from their purpose to something they would have found abominable?
> 
> Orwellian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea whether Holmes, Warren, Brennan, Black, Grant, Kennedy, or Roosevelt thought about homosexuality.  And I doubt you do either.  And really, it does not matter at all.   Society has grown out of its hatred for homosexuality, at least most of it has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesnt matter what they thought. They didn't see it in the 14th amendment did they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim that they didn't consider for second, and yet you claim what they thought doesn't matter?   Okey dokey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they or didnt those mean old homophobes who wrote the law intend for it to be used for gay marriage licenses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorant, inability to read ms you won't understand my answers anyway.  That you continue to lie, over and over and over, means you haven't the intellect to carry on a serious conversation.  That you resort to name-calling instead of discussion means you are clueless and think personal attacks are a substitute for facts.
> 
> I'm going to bed.  Have someone read my posts to you and explain what they mean.  You are obviously too ignorant to comprehend.
Click to expand...


  Of course I know serious conversation cant be had with dissolute amoral liberals. My intent was to expose that very amorality and warn any readers what the real goal is.
\    Control of anyone who doesn't toe the liberal elite line and the destruction of traditional marriage.
  I am well aware you are used to seeing the elites present both sides and then caricature and knock one of their creations down. You failed because you dont control this end in this particular case.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, you did not.   Unless you do, your fail is huge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you did not.  None of those is a reason for gov't to recognize marriage.   Maybe have your Mom read what I said I would do and explain what it means.  I am done with your inability to comprehend teh written word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL Yep you had a set you have been taught to ape an answer to. And I refused the liberal script. I say again you slimy liberal YOU dont get top pick the reasons I oppose gay marriage licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never tried to do that.
> 
> I said that any reason you can give for the gov't to recognize marriage.  That means you have to show a reason why the gov't should recognize straight marriages, and the same could be said of gay marriage.
> 
> I never said I would refute every imagined bit of nonsense you spout about gay marriage.  You really cannot comprehend what you read, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont have to do anything. YOU dont choose the opposition argument so you can knock it down.
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, liar, you did not.  You did not give me one reason for the gov't to recognize marriage.   You gave me 5 reasons against gay marriage.  I refuted each one.
> 
> One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?   No, itis not.*
> 
> Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> So the "huge fail" is on your part.  Apparently you can't comprehend what you read and you can't stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. Im not convinced sorry. Here i thought I was going to see you use those arguments to support gay marriage licenses. Another lie from you I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, you did not.   Unless you do, your fail is huge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretend you work for the gov't.   And you were looking for reasons to license and recognize marriage.
> 
> If one of your people said "The Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage"
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said "In the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man".
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said "The people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes".
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said"Gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage".
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said "I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families"
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.
> 
> 
> If you cannot tell the difference between offering reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage (hint:this would be the gov't recognizing straight marriage), then I cannot respond by showing you how gay marriages would provide the same reason.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretend you are a citizen. And you had reasons to oppose gay marriage licenses.
> 
> If some guy said he could use any reason you provided for your beliefs as an argument FOR gay marriage licenses and you gave him five of your reasons and he failed to use any of them to support gay marriage licenses then you would be justified thinking him a dunce.
Click to expand...


You ignorant ass.  Did I ask you for reasons you oppose gay marriage so I could turn them around?  No, I did not. 

You are simply pathetic in your stupidity.  

I said give me reasons why a govt should recognize any marriage.  Not why you oppose gay marriage, you dimwit.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea whether Holmes, Warren, Brennan, Black, Grant, Kennedy, or Roosevelt thought about homosexuality.  And I doubt you do either.  And really, it does not matter at all.   Society has grown out of its hatred for homosexuality, at least most of it has.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesnt matter what they thought. They didn't see it in the 14th amendment did they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim that they didn't consider for second, and yet you claim what they thought doesn't matter?   Okey dokey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they or didnt those mean old homophobes who wrote the law intend for it to be used for gay marriage licenses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorant, inability to read ms you won't understand my answers anyway.  That you continue to lie, over and over and over, means you haven't the intellect to carry on a serious conversation.  That you resort to name-calling instead of discussion means you are clueless and think personal attacks are a substitute for facts.
> 
> I'm going to bed.  Have someone read my posts to you and explain what they mean.  You are obviously too ignorant to comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I know serious conversation cant be had with dissolute amoral liberals. My intent was to expose that very amorality and warn any readers what the real goal is.
> \    Control of anyone who doesn't toe the liberal elite line and the destruction of traditional marriage.
> I am well aware you are used to seeing the elites present both sides and then caricature and knock one of their creations down. You failed because you dont control this end in this particular case.
Click to expand...


You are nuts.  I didn't try to control anything.   I simply expected you to be able to read.   But I guess your tinfoil hat spoiled the liberal elite's mind control ray, huh?


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you did not.  None of those is a reason for gov't to recognize marriage.   Maybe have your Mom read what I said I would do and explain what it means.  I am done with your inability to comprehend teh written word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL Yep you had a set you have been taught to ape an answer to. And I refused the liberal script. I say again you slimy liberal YOU dont get top pick the reasons I oppose gay marriage licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never tried to do that.
> 
> I said that any reason you can give for the gov't to recognize marriage.  That means you have to show a reason why the gov't should recognize straight marriages, and the same could be said of gay marriage.
> 
> I never said I would refute every imagined bit of nonsense you spout about gay marriage.  You really cannot comprehend what you read, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont have to do anything. YOU dont choose the opposition argument so you can knock it down.
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Im not convinced sorry. Here i thought I was going to see you use those arguments to support gay marriage licenses. Another lie from you I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, you did not.   Unless you do, your fail is huge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretend you work for the gov't.   And you were looking for reasons to license and recognize marriage.
> 
> If one of your people said "The Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage"
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said "In the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man".
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said "The people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes".
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said"Gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage".
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said "I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families"
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.
> 
> 
> If you cannot tell the difference between offering reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage (hint:this would be the gov't recognizing straight marriage), then I cannot respond by showing you how gay marriages would provide the same reason.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretend you are a citizen. And you had reasons to oppose gay marriage licenses.
> 
> If some guy said he could use any reason you provided for your beliefs as an argument FOR gay marriage licenses and you gave him five of your reasons and he failed to use any of them to support gay marriage licenses then you would be justified thinking him a dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ignorant ass.  Did I ask you for reasons you oppose gay marriage so I could turn them around?  No, I did not.
> 
> You are simply pathetic in your stupidity.
> 
> I said give me reasons why a govt should recognize any marriage.  Not why you oppose gay marriage, you dimwit.
Click to expand...



  Those are the reasons I support traditional marriage only. Sorry you dont like them. Expected it as a matter of fact. But I'm still waiting for you to use them to support gay marriage licenses.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, you did not.   Unless you do, your fail is huge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you did not.  None of those is a reason for gov't to recognize marriage.   Maybe have your Mom read what I said I would do and explain what it means.  I am done with your inability to comprehend teh written word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL Yep you had a set you have been taught to ape an answer to. And I refused the liberal script. I say again you slimy liberal YOU dont get top pick the reasons I oppose gay marriage licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never tried to do that.
> 
> I said that any reason you can give for the gov't to recognize marriage.  That means you have to show a reason why the gov't should recognize straight marriages, and the same could be said of gay marriage.
> 
> I never said I would refute every imagined bit of nonsense you spout about gay marriage.  You really cannot comprehend what you read, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont have to do anything. YOU dont choose the opposition argument so you can knock it down.
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, liar, you did not.  You did not give me one reason for the gov't to recognize marriage.   You gave me 5 reasons against gay marriage.  I refuted each one.
> 
> One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?   No, itis not.*
> 
> Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families.
> *Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, it is not.*
> 
> So the "huge fail" is on your part.  Apparently you can't comprehend what you read and you can't stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. Im not convinced sorry. Here i thought I was going to see you use those arguments to support gay marriage licenses. Another lie from you I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, you did not.   Unless you do, your fail is huge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretend you work for the gov't.   And you were looking for reasons to license and recognize marriage.
> 
> If one of your people said "The Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage"
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said "In the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man".
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said "The people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes".
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said"Gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage".
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said "I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families"
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.
> 
> 
> If you cannot tell the difference between offering reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage (hint:this would be the gov't recognizing straight marriage), then I cannot respond by showing you how gay marriages would provide the same reason.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretend you are a citizen. And you had reasons to oppose gay marriage licenses.
> 
> If some guy said he could use any reason you provided for your beliefs as an argument FOR gay marriage licenses and you gave him five of your reasons and he failed to use any of them to support gay marriage licenses then you would be justified thinking him a dunce.
Click to expand...


I know you said you are gay, and that's ok.  But why do you hate macaroni & cheese?


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you did not.  None of those is a reason for gov't to recognize marriage.   Maybe have your Mom read what I said I would do and explain what it means.  I am done with your inability to comprehend teh written word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL Yep you had a set you have been taught to ape an answer to. And I refused the liberal script. I say again you slimy liberal YOU dont get top pick the reasons I oppose gay marriage licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never tried to do that.
> 
> I said that any reason you can give for the gov't to recognize marriage.  That means you have to show a reason why the gov't should recognize straight marriages, and the same could be said of gay marriage.
> 
> I never said I would refute every imagined bit of nonsense you spout about gay marriage.  You really cannot comprehend what you read, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont have to do anything. YOU dont choose the opposition argument so you can knock it down.
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, you did not.   Unless you do, your fail is huge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretend you work for the gov't.   And you were looking for reasons to license and recognize marriage.
> 
> If one of your people said "The Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage"
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said "In the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man".
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said "The people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes".
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said"Gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage".
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said "I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families"
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.
> 
> 
> If you cannot tell the difference between offering reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage (hint:this would be the gov't recognizing straight marriage), then I cannot respond by showing you how gay marriages would provide the same reason.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretend you are a citizen. And you had reasons to oppose gay marriage licenses.
> 
> If some guy said he could use any reason you provided for your beliefs as an argument FOR gay marriage licenses and you gave him five of your reasons and he failed to use any of them to support gay marriage licenses then you would be justified thinking him a dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ignorant ass.  Did I ask you for reasons you oppose gay marriage so I could turn them around?  No, I did not.
> 
> You are simply pathetic in your stupidity.
> 
> I said give me reasons why a govt should recognize any marriage.  Not why you oppose gay marriage, you dimwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those are the reasons I support traditional marriage only. Sorry you dont like them. Expected it as a matter of fact. But I'm still waiting for you to use them to support gay marriage licenses.
Click to expand...


But they are not reasons for the govt to recognize marriage.  Not gay marriage, but any marriage.  In other words, give me reasons why the govt should recognize the marriage between a man and a woman.   But you have not done that in page after page of your inability to read.


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you did not.  None of those is a reason for gov't to recognize marriage.   Maybe have your Mom read what I said I would do and explain what it means.  I am done with your inability to comprehend teh written word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL Yep you had a set you have been taught to ape an answer to. And I refused the liberal script. I say again you slimy liberal YOU dont get top pick the reasons I oppose gay marriage licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never tried to do that.
> 
> I said that any reason you can give for the gov't to recognize marriage.  That means you have to show a reason why the gov't should recognize straight marriages, and the same could be said of gay marriage.
> 
> I never said I would refute every imagined bit of nonsense you spout about gay marriage.  You really cannot comprehend what you read, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont have to do anything. YOU dont choose the opposition argument so you can knock it down.
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Im not convinced sorry. Here i thought I was going to see you use those arguments to support gay marriage licenses. Another lie from you I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage?  No, you did not.   Unless you do, your fail is huge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretend you work for the gov't.   And you were looking for reasons to license and recognize marriage.
> 
> If one of your people said "The Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage"
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said "In the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man".
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said "The people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes".
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said"Gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage".
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said "I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families"
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.
> 
> 
> If you cannot tell the difference between offering reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage (hint:this would be the gov't recognizing straight marriage), then I cannot respond by showing you how gay marriages would provide the same reason.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretend you are a citizen. And you had reasons to oppose gay marriage licenses.
> 
> If some guy said he could use any reason you provided for your beliefs as an argument FOR gay marriage licenses and you gave him five of your reasons and he failed to use any of them to support gay marriage licenses then you would be justified thinking him a dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you said you are gay, and that's ok.  But why do you hate macaroni & cheese?
Click to expand...


  Its a repulsive food. But lets try it this way. Tell me you can turn any reason I have for disliking macaroni and cheese into support for macaroni and cheese. Oh wait...you think YOU should tell me why I dislike macaroni and cheese first. 
  Chump


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL Yep you had a set you have been taught to ape an answer to. And I refused the liberal script. I say again you slimy liberal YOU dont get top pick the reasons I oppose gay marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never tried to do that.
> 
> I said that any reason you can give for the gov't to recognize marriage.  That means you have to show a reason why the gov't should recognize straight marriages, and the same could be said of gay marriage.
> 
> I never said I would refute every imagined bit of nonsense you spout about gay marriage.  You really cannot comprehend what you read, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont have to do anything. YOU dont choose the opposition argument so you can knock it down.
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretend you work for the gov't.   And you were looking for reasons to license and recognize marriage.
> 
> If one of your people said "The Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage"
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said "In the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man".
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said "The people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes".
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said"Gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage".
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said "I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families"
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.
> 
> 
> If you cannot tell the difference between offering reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage (hint:this would be the gov't recognizing straight marriage), then I cannot respond by showing you how gay marriages would provide the same reason.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretend you are a citizen. And you had reasons to oppose gay marriage licenses.
> 
> If some guy said he could use any reason you provided for your beliefs as an argument FOR gay marriage licenses and you gave him five of your reasons and he failed to use any of them to support gay marriage licenses then you would be justified thinking him a dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ignorant ass.  Did I ask you for reasons you oppose gay marriage so I could turn them around?  No, I did not.
> 
> You are simply pathetic in your stupidity.
> 
> I said give me reasons why a govt should recognize any marriage.  Not why you oppose gay marriage, you dimwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those are the reasons I support traditional marriage only. Sorry you dont like them. Expected it as a matter of fact. But I'm still waiting for you to use them to support gay marriage licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they are not reasons for the govt to recognize marriage.  Not gay marriage, but any marriage.  In other words, give me reasons why the govt should recognize the marriage between a man and a woman.   But you have not done that in page after page of your inability to read.
Click to expand...


  Of course they are. They are a few of the many reasons I think the government should support traditional marriage exclusively. Some of them are even reasons that those who wrote the laws which gave traditional marriage an exclusive position used.


----------



## DOTR

Ok winterborn. Im feeling sorry for you now. Go ahead and tell me the reason I should say government should support only traditional marriage. Then use that reason to support marriage licenses for two men. Call it a win.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never tried to do that.
> 
> I said that any reason you can give for the gov't to recognize marriage.  That means you have to show a reason why the gov't should recognize straight marriages, and the same could be said of gay marriage.
> 
> I never said I would refute every imagined bit of nonsense you spout about gay marriage.  You really cannot comprehend what you read, can you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have to do anything. YOU dont choose the opposition argument so you can knock it down.
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretend you work for the gov't.   And you were looking for reasons to license and recognize marriage.
> 
> If one of your people said "The Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage"
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said "In the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man".
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said "The people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes".
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said"Gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage".
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.*
> 
> Or if they said "I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families"
> *Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage?   No.
> 
> 
> If you cannot tell the difference between offering reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage (hint:this would be the gov't recognizing straight marriage), then I cannot respond by showing you how gay marriages would provide the same reason.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretend you are a citizen. And you had reasons to oppose gay marriage licenses.
> 
> If some guy said he could use any reason you provided for your beliefs as an argument FOR gay marriage licenses and you gave him five of your reasons and he failed to use any of them to support gay marriage licenses then you would be justified thinking him a dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ignorant ass.  Did I ask you for reasons you oppose gay marriage so I could turn them around?  No, I did not.
> 
> You are simply pathetic in your stupidity.
> 
> I said give me reasons why a govt should recognize any marriage.  Not why you oppose gay marriage, you dimwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those are the reasons I support traditional marriage only. Sorry you dont like them. Expected it as a matter of fact. But I'm still waiting for you to use them to support gay marriage licenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they are not reasons for the govt to recognize marriage.  Not gay marriage, but any marriage.  In other words, give me reasons why the govt should recognize the marriage between a man and a woman.   But you have not done that in page after page of your inability to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they are. They are a few of the many reasons I think the government should support traditional marriage exclusively. Some of them are even reasons that those who wrote the laws which gave traditional marriage an exclusive position used.
Click to expand...


You are an idiot.  No one who wrote the laws used those as reasons.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> Ok winterborn. Im feeling sorry for you now. Go ahead and tell me the reason I should say government should support only traditional marriage. Then use that reason to support marriage licenses for two men. Call it a win.



You have already said that I despise legal marriage and that my goal is the destruction of marriage.  Now you want me to give you reasons why the govt should support traditional marriage?

Have you forgotten I disagree with govt involvement in marriage?   You are the one who advocates for the govt to control marriage.


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is a union between a man and woman, or a man and several women, or a man and a man or  a woman and a woman.
> 
> Here in the United States we only recognized unions between couples- in other countries it can include a man and several women- and that tradition goes back way beyond the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No western country did. Because ultimately it is western values under attack as expressed by the US and UK. The "other countries" you speak of are backwards Muslim or primitive tribal societies. And might I add that anywhere it includes a man and several women the women are mere chattel.
> Besides simply attacking Americans what is the allure of backwards non christian societies for liberals?
Click to expand...


What is the allure for you in kicking puppies? 

There is no 'allure' in pointing out the facts- and the facts are that polygamy is as old as marriage. It even existed in the Bible. 

But I am glad you mentioned 'chattel' because historically women in Western until recently were chattel- to their fathers first, and then to their husbands.

Marriage law changed over time so women were no longer chattel because Western society had matured and no longer considered women to be second class citizens. Just as Western society has matured so that we no longer consider homosexuals to be second class citizens- unlike those backwards Muslim or primitive tribal societies

Why are Conservatives against marriage law changing to reflect our mature society and want our marriage laws to be more like those backwards Muslim or primitive tribal societies?


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, because marriage contract law is written to accommodate two consenting adult partners only, not three or more.
> 
> That three or more persons cannot marry has nothing to do with ‘discrimination,’ it has to do with the fact that marriage contract law is not written to accommodate such a union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't lie. Marriage contract law was written for the union of a man and a woman. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And there were times when marital contracts held wives as property.  We, as a society changed that (in most places).   There were times when marital contracts forbid interracial unions.  We, as a society changed that.  The changes are minor.  And, like the prior changes, the inclusion of same sex couples only offers the same benefits to other.  It does not remove any from existing couples.  It does not effect heterosexual couples at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- my marriage to my wife is not affected because John and Jim can get married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage exists as a benefit only as a privileged state exclusive to the unions a society feels desirous of promoting.
Click to expand...


So that was the reason why society forbade mixed race marriages.........and that is your rational for denying marriage to gay couples?


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.



Same sex marriage rights were not 'created' by the Supreme Court.

That you think our Supreme Court ruling equals Putin's dictatorship just shows how out of touch with reality you are.


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed.   We have moved beyond that.  Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are still shunned. But it was always illegal to kill anyone. Even homosexuals. Another lie.
Click to expand...


You haven't read the Old Testament have you.


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.  Spare me that sort of nonsense.   "play-thing of the day"??   How about a chunk of the population?  How about US citizens who work, pay taxes, serve in the military and deserve the same rights and privileges every other citizen enjoys?
> 
> The rule of law is to protect ALL citizens.  Not just the ones who act like you think they should act.   Hell, how many redneck white trash couples have gone to the courthouse after knowing each other only a few weeks?  How many people serving time in prison get to marry?   And yet you claim, because they are the same gender, that law-abiding couples who function as valued members of society are excluded because you think what they do in the privacy of their home is yucky?
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it is more than yucky. It is a revolting abomination.
Click to expand...


Because you find it yucky.


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> [d (2) are aimed at weakening marriage.



Hmmmm so couples wanting to get married- are aiming at weakening marriage?

How was your marriage weakened because Joe and Jim can get married now?


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same sex marriage rights were not 'created' by the Supreme Court.
> 
> That you think our Supreme Court ruling equals Putin's dictatorship just shows how out of touch with reality you are.
Click to expand...


Same-sex marriage rights were created by the Supreme Court with _Obergefell v. Hodges _in 2015.

There is no constitutional basis for the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over a state’s law or a state’s constitution. If there was a remote chance of jurisdiction, it would be limited to an Article I enumerated power under the supremacy clause, and there is nothing in Article I that comes close to congressional power over marriage.

There is no constitutional basis for the Obergefell ruling because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights; substantive due process did not exist until the twentieth century, and the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment regarded only judicial proceedings.


----------



## yiostheoy

DOTR said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?
> 
> All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.
> 
> But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS deciding 5 to 4 on this issue simply means there is no reasonable answer either way, only a political answer.

So why are morons here arguing about it?

Just to hear themselves talking obviously.

Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia


----------



## yiostheoy

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same sex marriage rights were not 'created' by the Supreme Court.
> 
> That you think our Supreme Court ruling equals Putin's dictatorship just shows how out of touch with reality you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage rights were created by the Supreme Court with _Obergefell v. Hodges _in 2015.
> 
> There is no constitutional basis for the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over a state’s law or a state’s constitution. If there was a remote chance of jurisdiction, it would be limited to an Article I enumerated power under the supremacy clause, and there is nothing in Article I that comes close to congressional power over marriage.
> 
> There is no constitutional basis for the Obergefell ruling because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights; substantive due process did not exist until the twentieth century, and the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment regarded only judicial proceedings.
Click to expand...

Interstate commerce -- you are forgetting about interstate commerce.

You are also forgetting about due process.

You would not have survived law school or the bar exam so you should give it up now.


----------



## Tennyson

yiostheoy said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same sex marriage rights were not 'created' by the Supreme Court.
> 
> That you think our Supreme Court ruling equals Putin's dictatorship just shows how out of touch with reality you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage rights were created by the Supreme Court with _Obergefell v. Hodges _in 2015.
> 
> There is no constitutional basis for the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over a state’s law or a state’s constitution. If there was a remote chance of jurisdiction, it would be limited to an Article I enumerated power under the supremacy clause, and there is nothing in Article I that comes close to congressional power over marriage.
> 
> There is no constitutional basis for the Obergefell ruling because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights; substantive due process did not exist until the twentieth century, and the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment regarded only judicial proceedings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interstate commerce -- you are forgetting about interstate commerce.
> 
> You are also forgetting about due process.
> 
> You would not have survived law school or the bar exam so you should give it up now.
Click to expand...


Explain to me interstate commerce _vis-a-vis_ interstate commerce along with the definition and common usage of the word "commerce" and its intent and purpose. 

I am pretty sure I did not forget procedural due process, which was the only type of due process in 1867, but if you want to help me out regarding a non-existent procedural due process, that would be nice.


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same sex marriage rights were not 'created' by the Supreme Court.
> 
> That you think our Supreme Court ruling equals Putin's dictatorship just shows how out of touch with reality you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage rights were created by the Supreme Court with _Obergefell v. Hodges _in 2015.
> 
> There is no constitutional basis for the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over a state’s law or a state’s constitution. If there was a remote chance of jurisdiction, it would be limited to an Article I enumerated power under the supremacy clause, and there is nothing in Article I that comes close to congressional power over marriage.
> 
> There is no constitutional basis for the Obergefell ruling because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights; substantive due process did not exist until the twentieth century, and the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment regarded only judicial proceedings.
Click to expand...


Hmmm so much wrong there. 

Same sex marriage rights were first recognized by the Massachusett's Supreme Court.on  November 18, 2003- 13 years ago. Multiple states followed suite- both through state and federal courts, and through State legislatures. 

The Constitutional basis for the Supreme Court's jurisdiction was recognized a long time ago- most notably in Loving v. Virginia- when the Supreme Court for the first of many times overturned an unconstitutional State marriage law.

As far as the rest of your Fourteenth Amendment babble- take it to the Supreme Court- along with how income taxes are unconstitutional.


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same sex marriage rights were not 'created' by the Supreme Court.
> 
> That you think our Supreme Court ruling equals Putin's dictatorship just shows how out of touch with reality you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage rights were created by the Supreme Court with _Obergefell v. Hodges _in 2015.
> 
> There is no constitutional basis for the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over a state’s law or a state’s constitution. If there was a remote chance of jurisdiction, it would be limited to an Article I enumerated power under the supremacy clause, and there is nothing in Article I that comes close to congressional power over marriage.
> 
> There is no constitutional basis for the Obergefell ruling because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights; substantive due process did not exist until the twentieth century, and the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment regarded only judicial proceedings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm so much wrong there.
> 
> Same sex marriage rights were first recognized by the Massachusett's Supreme Court.on  November 18, 2003- 13 years ago. Multiple states followed suite- both through state and federal courts, and through State legislatures.
> 
> The Constitutional basis for the Supreme Court's jurisdiction was recognized a long time ago- most notably in Loving v. Virginia- when the Supreme Court for the first of many times overturned an unconstitutional State marriage law.
> 
> As far as the rest of your Fourteenth Amendment babble- take it to the Supreme Court- along with how income taxes are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


*What is not part of the exchange:*

A state Supreme Court ruling.

A Supreme Court ruling unless you can articulate and explain the constitutional basis.

*What is part of the exchange you avoided:*

Explain to me interstate commerce _vis-a-vis_ interstate commerce along with the definition and common usage of the word "commerce" and its intent and purpose.

I am pretty sure I did not forget procedural due process, which was the only type of due process in 1867, but if you want to help me out regarding a non-existent procedural due process, that would be nice.


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same sex marriage rights were not 'created' by the Supreme Court.
> 
> That you think our Supreme Court ruling equals Putin's dictatorship just shows how out of touch with reality you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage rights were created by the Supreme Court with _Obergefell v. Hodges _in 2015.
> 
> There is no constitutional basis for the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over a state’s law or a state’s constitution. If there was a remote chance of jurisdiction, it would be limited to an Article I enumerated power under the supremacy clause, and there is nothing in Article I that comes close to congressional power over marriage.
> 
> There is no constitutional basis for the Obergefell ruling because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights; substantive due process did not exist until the twentieth century, and the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment regarded only judicial proceedings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm so much wrong there.
> 
> Same sex marriage rights were first recognized by the Massachusett's Supreme Court.on  November 18, 2003- 13 years ago. Multiple states followed suite- both through state and federal courts, and through State legislatures.
> 
> The Constitutional basis for the Supreme Court's jurisdiction was recognized a long time ago- most notably in Loving v. Virginia- when the Supreme Court for the first of many times overturned an unconstitutional State marriage law.
> 
> As far as the rest of your Fourteenth Amendment babble- take it to the Supreme Court- along with how income taxes are unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What is not part of the exchange:*
> 
> A state Supreme Court ruling.
> 
> A Supreme Court ruling unless you can articulate and explain the constitutional basis.
> 
> *What is part of the exchange you avoided:*
> 
> Explain to me interstate commerce _vis-a-vis_ interstate commerce along with the definition and common usage of the word "commerce" and its intent and purpose.
> 
> I am pretty sure I did not forget procedural due process, which was the only type of due process in 1867, but if you want to help me out regarding a non-existent procedural due process, that would be nice.
Click to expand...


What the hell are you talking about? What exchange? I didn't mention interstate commerce and that is not part of any of the Supreme Court's rulings on marriage.

You go back to your delusions that the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to do what it has been doing for the last 50 years.


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same sex marriage rights were not 'created' by the Supreme Court.
> 
> That you think our Supreme Court ruling equals Putin's dictatorship just shows how out of touch with reality you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage rights were created by the Supreme Court with _Obergefell v. Hodges _in 2015.
> 
> There is no constitutional basis for the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over a state’s law or a state’s constitution. If there was a remote chance of jurisdiction, it would be limited to an Article I enumerated power under the supremacy clause, and there is nothing in Article I that comes close to congressional power over marriage.
> 
> There is no constitutional basis for the Obergefell ruling because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights; substantive due process did not exist until the twentieth century, and the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment regarded only judicial proceedings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm so much wrong there.
> 
> Same sex marriage rights were first recognized by the Massachusett's Supreme Court.on  November 18, 2003- 13 years ago. Multiple states followed suite- both through state and federal courts, and through State legislatures.
> 
> The Constitutional basis for the Supreme Court's jurisdiction was recognized a long time ago- most notably in Loving v. Virginia- when the Supreme Court for the first of many times overturned an unconstitutional State marriage law.
> 
> As far as the rest of your Fourteenth Amendment babble- take it to the Supreme Court- along with how income taxes are unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What is not part of the exchange:*
> 
> A state Supreme Court ruling.
> 
> A Supreme Court ruling unless you can articulate and explain the constitutional basis.
> 
> *What is part of the exchange you avoided:*
> 
> Explain to me interstate commerce _vis-a-vis_ interstate commerce along with the definition and common usage of the word "commerce" and its intent and purpose.
> 
> I am pretty sure I did not forget procedural due process, which was the only type of due process in 1867, but if you want to help me out regarding a non-existent procedural due process, that would be nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell are you talking about? What exchange? I didn't mention interstate commerce and that is not part of any of the Supreme Court's rulings on marriage.
> 
> You go back to your delusions that the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to do what it has been doing for the last 50 years.
Click to expand...



Fantastic. Good luck with Wikipedia.


----------



## emilynghiem

IndependantAce said:


> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.



Dear IndependantAce

Gay Marriage, like any other marriage rite, is protected under religious freedom to exercise the rituals, beliefs and traditions of one's choice and spiritual identity and affiliation.

We don't need to politicize this, but we do need public education and agreement
what constitutes a faith based belief, so that we quit fighting over whose beliefs
are right or wrong, or should or should not be endorsed and established by govt.

The only beliefs that can be established by govt are ones we all agree on.
such as believing in "justice" which is a faith based concept, yet our legal system
is based on faith in this "justice" which nobody has ever seen or accomplished
but it remains a faith based concept. Because we agree, it's okay to have a govt
system built around that.

But if we don't agree, such as on 
Christianity, atheism, same sex or transgender policies,
then no, we can't abuse govt to establish one sides' beliefs over the dissenting sides.

Or else that's discrimination and not equal protection of all people's beliefs neutrally.


----------



## emilynghiem

IndependantAce said:


> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.




P.S. as for the beliefs about "Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

People have the right to believe that traditional and same sex marriages/relationships are equal.

Just NOT the right to impose this through govt on everyone else.

Regardless if beliefs are right or wrong, people have equal rights to exercise
their beliefs without being discriminated, harassed, excluded or penalized by law.

So if we want to promote respect for beliefs against gay marriage and homosexuality,
neither should we be in the business of bashing people for their beliefs and putting these down. Otherwise the bashing goes back and forth in endless circles and gets nowhere.


----------



## Skylar

yiostheoy said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?
> 
> All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.
> 
> But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SCOTUS deciding 5 to 4 on this issue simply means there is no reasonable answer either way, only a political answer.
> 
> So why are morons here arguing about it?
> 
> Just to hear themselves talking obviously.
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


Says who? Not our constitution. The authority to apply the judicial power rests with the Judiciary. The Judiciary is led by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled. Thus, the Judiciary applied the Judicial power in accordance with the constitution.


----------



## Skylar

emilynghiem said:


> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. as for the beliefs about "Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
Click to expand...


Procreation isn't a requirement for anyone's marriage. Making it irrelevant to any discussion of what is required for the validity of a marriage.  



> People have the right to believe that traditional and same sex marriages/relationships are equal.
> 
> Just NOT the right to impose this through govt on everyone else.



No one is forcing anyone to get married....gay, straight or otherwise. Nixing the 'imposing through government' argument. Marriage is completely voluntary. Gay, straight or otherwise. 



> Regardless if beliefs are right or wrong, people have equal rights to exercise their beliefs without being discriminated, harassed, excluded or penalized by law.



Not using the force of government they don't. As the power of government is limited by the rights of people. And the right to marry cannot be abrogated because you 'believe' otherwise.


----------



## emilynghiem

Skylar said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. as for the beliefs about "Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Procreation isn't a requirement for anyone's marriage. Making it irrelevant to any discussion of what is required for the validity of a marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People have the right to believe that traditional and same sex marriages/relationships are equal.
> 
> Just NOT the right to impose this through govt on everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is forcing anyone to get married....gay, straight or otherwise. Nixing the 'imposing through government' argument. Marriage is completely voluntary. Gay, straight or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless if beliefs are right or wrong, people have equal rights to exercise their beliefs without being discriminated, harassed, excluded or penalized by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not using the force of government they don't. As the power of government is limited by the rights of people. And the right to marry cannot be abrogated because you 'believe' otherwise.
Click to expand...


Dear Skylar
1. I agree that nobody's beliefs or 'requirement" for marriage should be pushed through govt!

To uphold this principle equally and consistently for both sides of these arguments, then ALL marriage should be removed from govt, kept personal and private, and only endorse CIVIL CONTRACTS that are secular and make no reference to social conditions or relationships. As long as parties to an agreement are legal competent and consenting, they should be able to enter into and enforce a civil contract.

THAT level can be endorsed by govt and enforced equally for all parties without discrimination.  But if people can't agre e on social relationships for "marriage" then leave that part out and not make it a requirement to enter into domestic contract for partnership, guardianship, estate, custody, etc.

Keep it neutral and secular, keep out any reference to faith based beliefs that would impose exclude or discriminate or favor one side or set of beliefs over another. So it is equally accessible and applicable to all cases where nobody's rights are more or less than anyone else's.

2. PLEASE NOTE:
having Crosses on buildings
isn't forcing anyone to be Christian.

Yet Crosses are REMOVED from public property
due to separation of church and state/religious fre edom
where govt should be not abused to establish or endorse a belief

Same with removing references to Creation, prayer, etc.

Just because it isn't "forcing" anyone and isn't "causing any direct harm" does not justify abusing govt to implement
faith based institutions.

So this should be consistent.

If Christian beliefs cannot be pushed through govt,
then neither should beliefs about homosexuality
or transgender identity that are faith based
and/or considered 'behavior of choice' that not everyone has to accept.

Since people do not agree on these beliefs,
they remain private choice and outside govt jurisdiction to decide.

If people want protection from harassment exclusion or discrimination, it should be equally acknowledged for BELIEFS on all sides REGARDLESS of the content or bias of that belief either for or against. But not let either side abuse govt to endorse one sides beliefs over the other!


----------



## Skylar

emilynghiem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. as for the beliefs about "Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Procreation isn't a requirement for anyone's marriage. Making it irrelevant to any discussion of what is required for the validity of a marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People have the right to believe that traditional and same sex marriages/relationships are equal.
> 
> Just NOT the right to impose this through govt on everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is forcing anyone to get married....gay, straight or otherwise. Nixing the 'imposing through government' argument. Marriage is completely voluntary. Gay, straight or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless if beliefs are right or wrong, people have equal rights to exercise their beliefs without being discriminated, harassed, excluded or penalized by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not using the force of government they don't. As the power of government is limited by the rights of people. And the right to marry cannot be abrogated because you 'believe' otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Skylar
> 1. I agree that nobody's beliefs or 'requirement" for marriage should be pushed through govt!
Click to expand...


You're agreeing with yourself then. As I've said clearly that rights trump government powers. And when you try to use your 'believe' to abrogate someone else's rights using government, the constitution stops you.

Remember, you put 'belief' up on this bizarre absolutist pedestal. But neither the law nor the constitution does. Which is why so many court rulings and laws are at odds with your assessment of the authority of 'belief'. 

'Belief' has no authority. Rights do.



> If Christian beliefs cannot be pushed through govt,
> then neither should beliefs about homosexuality
> or transgender identity that are faith based
> and/or considered 'behavior of choice' that not everyone has to accept.



Belief isn't a basis of authority. It never has been. You've imagined it.  Thus, your 'belief should trump rights' nonsense has no rational application in the real world.

As no, Emily....your beliefs do not allow you to override anyone else's rights.

You keep coming to the same fallacy again and again, concluding that since each side of the gay marriage issue is a 'belief', that neither side should prevail. The problem with that assessment....is rights. Gays and lesbians have the right to marry. And their rights can't be abrogated by your beliefs.

See how that works?


----------



## emilynghiem

Skylar said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. as for the beliefs about "Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Procreation isn't a requirement for anyone's marriage. Making it irrelevant to any discussion of what is required for the validity of a marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People have the right to believe that traditional and same sex marriages/relationships are equal.
> 
> Just NOT the right to impose this through govt on everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is forcing anyone to get married....gay, straight or otherwise. Nixing the 'imposing through government' argument. Marriage is completely voluntary. Gay, straight or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless if beliefs are right or wrong, people have equal rights to exercise their beliefs without being discriminated, harassed, excluded or penalized by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not using the force of government they don't. As the power of government is limited by the rights of people. And the right to marry cannot be abrogated because you 'believe' otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Skylar
> 1. I agree that nobody's beliefs or 'requirement" for marriage should be pushed through govt!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're agreeing with yourself then. As I've said clearly that rights trump government powers. And when you try to use your 'believe' to abrogate someone else's rights using government, the constitution stops you.
> 
> Remember, you put 'belief' up on this bizarre absolutist pedestal. But neither the law nor the constitution does. Which is why so many court rulings and laws are at odds with your assessment of the authority of 'belief'.
> 
> 'Belief' has no authority. Rights do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Christian beliefs cannot be pushed through govt,
> then neither should beliefs about homosexuality
> or transgender identity that are faith based
> and/or considered 'behavior of choice' that not everyone has to accept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Belief isn't a basis of authority. It never has been. You've imagined it.  Thus, your 'belief should trump rights' nonsense has no rational application in the real world.
> 
> As no, Emily....your beliefs do not allow you to override anyone else's rights.
> 
> You keep coming to the same fallacy again and again, concluding that since each side of the gay marriage issue is a 'belief', that neither side should prevail. The problem with that assessment....is rights. Gays and lesbians have the right to marry. And their rights can't be abrogated by your beliefs.
> 
> See how that works?
Click to expand...


Dear Skylar 
I think we agree in principle but you are calling things rights and saying I am calling them beliefs.
They are both.

The belief in "right to life" as starting at conception
or belief in right to health care THROUGH GOVT 
are both political beliefs.

Because people have different beliefs on these, that's why not everyone agre es they are default rights.

To you, if you believe it is by default, then to you it is a right.

But neither you nor I would agre e with govt
"mandating the right to life as starting at conception"
just because someone else believes it is an inherent right.

So you and I agre e on that PRINCIPLE
but you may not agree with which cases I apply it to.

You and I are just stating it differently.

That's fine, you have the right to defend your beliefs as a right.

I find it more constitutionally consistent to defend
rights to marriage under "religious freedom"

But if you don't believe in expressing it that way, you don't have to.

the reason I find it more consistent to do so
is that THIS WAY
*CAN ACCOMMODATE*
both the beliefs in traditional marriage only 
and the beliefs that you have, to o.

If your way of framing "right to marriage"
excludes and conflicts with the beliefs of others,
then that ISN'T UNIVERSAL.

So since I believe Govt should take the more universal
inclusive approach that treats all beliefs equally on the issue of marriage,
then treating all such beliefs EQUALLY under religious freedom
would mean equal protection of the laws for all people.

That's why I enforce that route, because it includes all beliefs including yours.
While your way conflicts and excludes other ways,
so it isn't the most inclusive and universal approach.


----------



## emilynghiem

Here Skylar 
I drew you a diagram of the different ranges and realms of people's viewpoints.

Since govt and public institutions are supposed to include and protect people equally regardless of beliefs,
then people like you who believe marriage is a right on the level of other Constitutional rights are in one group.
People who disagree and believe otherwise, even rejecting one form of marriage or another, are in other groups.
And I believe in treating and including all such beliefs equally.

So my goal is to work toward the OUTER SQUARE that accommodates all views even if they conflict with each other.

If you are content to hold onto and only enforce your belief, excluding and in conflict with others,
then your circle or square cannot include all the other people.

So I argue that cannot be the govt position.

The govt position has to remain neutral, treating ALL beliefs equally, and thus either staying out of the issue
[so everyone is equally free to exercise and enforce their beliefs without govt taking sides and endorsing one over others]
or including all views and beliefs on the issue in forming a consensus on policy
and where these AGREE then everyone consents to let THOSE points of agreement represent public policy for all people.

Two notes on this marriage issue
* I'd say either separate marriage from govt and stick to civil unions and domestic partnership agre ements that are neutral in language
* OR perhaps states can pass a resolution
by which the populations of each state AGRE E to let
other beliefs about marriage in, such as letting the state endorse same sex marriage although that's against many people's beliefs,
in exchange for allowing public institutions to include
references and practices involving:
God, Jesus, Christianity, the Bible, prayer, creation, abstinence in sex education, etc.
that are against other people's beliefs.

Maybe we can call a truce and allow for diversity of beliefs
in govt if people are going to push the Transgender issue and Same Sex Marriage
against the beliefs of people, then why not allow Govt to endorse all manner
of "faith based beliefs" that people believe in defending the same way the LGBT lobby has pushed those beliefs into govt, law and public policy.

That's a possibility, too.

Maybe Christians would tolerate this better if
* it is acknowledged that this is against their beliefs
* in return for acknowledging that Christian prayer and Biblical reference
are also against people's beliefs, but that these will no longer be barred from govt and public institutions.


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same sex marriage rights were not 'created' by the Supreme Court.
> 
> That you think our Supreme Court ruling equals Putin's dictatorship just shows how out of touch with reality you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage rights were created by the Supreme Court with _Obergefell v. Hodges _in 2015.
> 
> There is no constitutional basis for the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over a state’s law or a state’s constitution. If there was a remote chance of jurisdiction, it would be limited to an Article I enumerated power under the supremacy clause, and there is nothing in Article I that comes close to congressional power over marriage.
> 
> There is no constitutional basis for the Obergefell ruling because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights; substantive due process did not exist until the twentieth century, and the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment regarded only judicial proceedings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm so much wrong there.
> 
> Same sex marriage rights were first recognized by the Massachusett's Supreme Court.on  November 18, 2003- 13 years ago. Multiple states followed suite- both through state and federal courts, and through State legislatures.
> 
> The Constitutional basis for the Supreme Court's jurisdiction was recognized a long time ago- most notably in Loving v. Virginia- when the Supreme Court for the first of many times overturned an unconstitutional State marriage law.
> 
> As far as the rest of your Fourteenth Amendment babble- take it to the Supreme Court- along with how income taxes are unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What is not part of the exchange:*
> 
> A state Supreme Court ruling.
> 
> A Supreme Court ruling unless you can articulate and explain the constitutional basis.
> 
> *What is part of the exchange you avoided:*
> 
> Explain to me interstate commerce _vis-a-vis_ interstate commerce along with the definition and common usage of the word "commerce" and its intent and purpose.
> 
> I am pretty sure I did not forget procedural due process, which was the only type of due process in 1867, but if you want to help me out regarding a non-existent procedural due process, that would be nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell are you talking about? What exchange? I didn't mention interstate commerce and that is not part of any of the Supreme Court's rulings on marriage.
> 
> You go back to your delusions that the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to do what it has been doing for the last 50 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fantastic. Good luck with Wikipedia.
Click to expand...


It is fantastic.

People in love are getting married in all 50 states.

Life is good.


----------



## Skylar

emilynghiem said:


> View attachment 95419
> 
> Here Skylar
> I drew you a diagram of the different ranges and realms of people's viewpoints.
> 
> Since govt and public institutions are supposed to include and protect people equally regardless of beliefs,
> then people like you who believe marriage is a right on the level of other Constitutional rights are in one group.


How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?

Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, *there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally. *

You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination. 



> People who disagree and believe otherwise, even rejecting one form of marriage or another, are in other groups.
> And I believe in treating and including all such beliefs equally.



And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.

You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right. 



> So my goal is to work toward the OUTER SQUARE that accommodates all views even if they conflict with each other.


Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief. 

You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.
*
Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. *Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.


----------



## Skylar

emilynghiem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. as for the beliefs about "Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Procreation isn't a requirement for anyone's marriage. Making it irrelevant to any discussion of what is required for the validity of a marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People have the right to believe that traditional and same sex marriages/relationships are equal.
> 
> Just NOT the right to impose this through govt on everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is forcing anyone to get married....gay, straight or otherwise. Nixing the 'imposing through government' argument. Marriage is completely voluntary. Gay, straight or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless if beliefs are right or wrong, people have equal rights to exercise their beliefs without being discriminated, harassed, excluded or penalized by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not using the force of government they don't. As the power of government is limited by the rights of people. And the right to marry cannot be abrogated because you 'believe' otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Skylar
> 1. I agree that nobody's beliefs or 'requirement" for marriage should be pushed through govt!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're agreeing with yourself then. As I've said clearly that rights trump government powers. And when you try to use your 'believe' to abrogate someone else's rights using government, the constitution stops you.
> 
> Remember, you put 'belief' up on this bizarre absolutist pedestal. But neither the law nor the constitution does. Which is why so many court rulings and laws are at odds with your assessment of the authority of 'belief'.
> 
> 'Belief' has no authority. Rights do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Christian beliefs cannot be pushed through govt,
> then neither should beliefs about homosexuality
> or transgender identity that are faith based
> and/or considered 'behavior of choice' that not everyone has to accept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Belief isn't a basis of authority. It never has been. You've imagined it.  Thus, your 'belief should trump rights' nonsense has no rational application in the real world.
> 
> As no, Emily....your beliefs do not allow you to override anyone else's rights.
> 
> You keep coming to the same fallacy again and again, concluding that since each side of the gay marriage issue is a 'belief', that neither side should prevail. The problem with that assessment....is rights. Gays and lesbians have the right to marry. And their rights can't be abrogated by your beliefs.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Skylar
> I think we agree in principle but you are calling things rights and saying I am calling them beliefs.
> They are both.
Click to expand...


Nope. Beliefs and rights aren't the same thing. And no, we don't agree in principle. Rights trump beliefs. If you believe that gays should never been allowed to marry....and gays have the right to marry, they win.

That you have a 'belief' doesn't, in any way, provide you with any authority to strip any person of any right. Your conception of 'beliefs' is imaginary nonsense that has no reflection in the real world. As your equating rights and beliefs demonstrates.

I'm sorry, Emily....but your beliefs impart no authority on your position, mandate no recognition or representation by any public institution, nor grant you the ability to abrogate any right.


> If your way of framing "right to marriage"
> excludes and conflicts with the beliefs of others,
> then that ISN'T UNIVERSAL.



Nor does it need to be 'universal'. Again, there's no mandate that all beliefs be equally represented.

Your position that all beliefs must be equally represented by public institutions.....is completely and utterly imaginary. There is no such mandate. Nor has their ever been. When beliefs compete, there are winners and losers.


----------



## emilynghiem

Skylar said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 95419
> 
> Here Skylar
> I drew you a diagram of the different ranges and realms of people's viewpoints.
> 
> Since govt and public institutions are supposed to include and protect people equally regardless of beliefs,
> then people like you who believe marriage is a right on the level of other Constitutional rights are in one group.
> 
> 
> 
> How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?
> 
> Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, *there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally. *
> 
> You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who disagree and believe otherwise, even rejecting one form of marriage or another, are in other groups.
> And I believe in treating and including all such beliefs equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.
> 
> You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So my goal is to work toward the OUTER SQUARE that accommodates all views even if they conflict with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.
> 
> You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.
> *
> Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. *Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.
Click to expand...


Dear Skylar
It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.

If people don't consent to a belief that's enough.
I cited examples of atheists or religious freedom groups
suing to "remove crosses" from public property.
Based on PRINCIPLE alone.

Nobody's religious freedom is "stripped" by having those crosses.
In one case, a group across the country sued to remove crosses from a teacher's memorial plaque
that they don't even look at.  That image is not oppressing them or stripping anyone of rights.
But on principle alone, they argued that it couldn't be on public school property.

So I'm saying to be consistent.

If everyone practices the marriage beliefs of their choice
and agrees that the state can endorse "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships"
with NO references to social relationships at all,
then that is not stripping anyone of rights but recognizing everyone's freedom equally.

However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only"
to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."

No particular degree of harm is required to make this argument.
No stripping of rights or beliefs is needed to make this argument.

Sure it makes it worse if there are degrees of harm or damage, which add to the argument.
But the principle alone is enough to argue the state has no such authority.

BTW after hearing from people on both sides who just cannot tolerate or imagine
that the other belief/viewpoint has any validity whatsoever,
I am convinced that people cannot help having their beliefs about this.
and what I will recommend to the Governor and Senators of Texas (and party leaders)
is to call for a conference on this and a resolution:
* either agree to use neutral terms in public policies for "civil unions" "domestic partnership"
"custody or guardianship contracts" etc. and remove the term "marriage" if this
carries connotations that violate people's beliefs (similar to removing references to God or Jesus)
* or agree to SEPARATE funding by party, on health care, marriage benefits
and conditions on welfare (where people don't agree on the terms and conditions
due to religious and political beliefs) and only establish as public policy the
programs and conditions that all people agree on as representing everyone's values.
* or agree to "trade concessions" if it's too hard to separate and secularize everything:
such as if people are going to include same sex marriage in sex education
and in marriage and benefits, then ALSO let references to God, Jesus, creation,
spiritual healing, Bibles, crosses, heaven and hell, etc. be included in public institutions
and textbooks, public services, property, buildings, activities etc.

If people AGREE to a policy regarding beliefs, then it's okay to enact and endorse
that on a state level if all the people consent. SINCE BELIEFS ARE INVOLVED
THAT GOVT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE OR MANDATE, and which only
the people can choose freely to adopt endorse and enforce.

It's not okay to bully people into changing their beliefs or accepting things
against their beliefs by forcing that through govt. It has to be by the people's consent,
and/or to keep the policies local or private where consent and free choice can still be respected.

If consensus can be established on the collective level of city, party, state, etc.
then that's perfectly fine to endorse that for the members who agree to that.

So that's what I would recommend to heads of govt and parties.
To call for a truce on political beliefs, and agreement to respect consent and beliefs
of all people and parties without harassment, penalty or other duress/coercion,
and either to separate policies by party, agree on neutral and universally inclusive language
and points/principles that all parties AGREE is fair to enforce as public policy,
or agree to mutual concessions so that beliefs are treated equally (instead of
excluding/penalizing one set while endorsing and establishing the other which isn't equal).


----------



## Skylar

emilynghiem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 95419
> 
> Here Skylar
> I drew you a diagram of the different ranges and realms of people's viewpoints.
> 
> Since govt and public institutions are supposed to include and protect people equally regardless of beliefs,
> then people like you who believe marriage is a right on the level of other Constitutional rights are in one group.
> 
> 
> 
> How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?
> 
> Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, *there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally. *
> 
> You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who disagree and believe otherwise, even rejecting one form of marriage or another, are in other groups.
> And I believe in treating and including all such beliefs equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.
> 
> You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So my goal is to work toward the OUTER SQUARE that accommodates all views even if they conflict with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.
> 
> You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.
> *
> Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. *Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Skylar
> It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
> to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.
Click to expand...

How does gay marriage have a thing to do with the 'separation of church and state'? 

Again, you can any belief you want. But it doesn't mean that your view must be represented anywhere. Let alone in public institutions, our law, or our constitution.

If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one. But denying a gay or lesbian couple the right to marry because *you* have a belief is ludicrous. As they have a right to marry. And your 'belief' doesn't have any authority over their rights. 



> However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
> or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
> then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."



There is no mandate that 'beliefs' be equally represented. Your entire argument is based on an imaginary, false, and fallacious premise. 

Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.


----------



## emilynghiem

Skylar said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 95419
> 
> Here Skylar
> I drew you a diagram of the different ranges and realms of people's viewpoints.
> 
> Since govt and public institutions are supposed to include and protect people equally regardless of beliefs,
> then people like you who believe marriage is a right on the level of other Constitutional rights are in one group.
> 
> 
> 
> How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?
> 
> Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, *there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally. *
> 
> You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who disagree and believe otherwise, even rejecting one form of marriage or another, are in other groups.
> And I believe in treating and including all such beliefs equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.
> 
> You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So my goal is to work toward the OUTER SQUARE that accommodates all views even if they conflict with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.
> 
> You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.
> *
> Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. *Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Skylar
> It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
> to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does gay marriage have a thing to do with the 'separation of church and state'?
> 
> Again, you can any belief you want. But it doesn't mean that your view must be represented anywhere. Let alone in public institutions, our law, or our constitution.
> 
> If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one. But denying a gay or lesbian couple the right to marry because *you* have a belief is ludicrous. As they have a right to marry. And your 'belief' doesn't have any authority over their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
> or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
> then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no mandate that 'beliefs' be equally represented. Your entire argument is based on an imaginary, false, and fallacious premise.
> 
> Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.
Click to expand...

Skylar
1. RE How does gay marriage have a thing to do with the 'separation of church and state'?

Because some people believe in gay marriage and others do not.
Then these beliefs should not be established by govt.

If you are going to treat all beliefs equally as you would Christianity and church/collective authority
that supports "faith based" policies and principles;
and ask that this authority NOT be imposed through govt on other people "of other faiths"

then to protect all beliefs equally
yes,
the beliefs about LGBT/homosexuality/gender identity etc.
should be treated equally
instead of making an exception for these beliefs
because they are secular in expression and not labeled by an organized denomination.

They are still faith-based beliefs, not proven by science,
and up to the choice of individuals "what to believe"

so the PRINCIPLE of "separation of church and state" or the
establishment clause barring either endorsement or prohibition by govt
should apply to beliefs equally, and not just to members of organized religions,
or that's a form of discrimination by affiliation or creed.

If political parties leaders and groups are pushing beliefs through govt,
they should be treated the SAME as when traditional religions or church groups
are pushing their agenda through govt that other people don't believe in,
demand free choice to believe otherwise, and argue that is outside the jursidiction of govt.

2. RE There is no mandate that 'beliefs' be equally represented

A. In order to be consistent with "*equal PROTECTION of the laws*"
then if govt is used to "represent" LGBT beliefs by NAMING
the beliefs in homosexuality, same sex marriages, transgender identity, as recognized and protected
then this isn't equal.

so if you don't believe in equal representation when it comes to beliefs,
that's even MORE reason to REMOVE ALL SUCH REFERENCES.

I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU!!!

Govt is being used to endorse and REPRESENT a set of beliefs - the LGBT beliefs "in favor" of homosexuality as natural
(and in some cases writing out penalties against people for rejecting these beliefs)
-- which is just as wrong as laws/ordinances REJECTING and banning same sex marriage,
transgender people from using the restroom of their identity, and other LGBT beliefs
that are equally someone's free choice.

So either REMOVE THOSE BIASED REFERENCES favoring or rejecting one belief over another
OR represent all other beliefs equally, and that's still treating them all equally.

B. In order to be consistent with not discriminating on the basis of creed
again, either include them all or remove all biased references to faith based beliefs that not all people consent to be in public policy

C. In order to be consistent with the First Amendment
against either establishing religion or prohibiting free exercise thereof,
again,
either remove the contested faith-based references
change the language in the laws to be NEUTRAL and void of contested biases
or have all the people affected by the laws agree to concessions
(whereby they agree to compromise in one area in exchange for the opposite group conceding in another)

So to answer your objection
in order to comply with
* the First Amendment on the govt neither establishing nor prohibiting faith based beliefs
* the Fourteenth Amendment on equal protection of the laws
* the Civil Rights extension of equal protection of the laws to public institutions
by not discriminating on the basis of creed

then IF one belief is represented then all beliefs should be equally represented
OTHERWISE remove the references or stick to neutral language everyone agrees is
equally inclusive and neither endorses nor excludes any one set of beliefs over others
(or agree to mutual concessions if that brings about a consensus on how to manage
faith based policies that involve govt)


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

emilynghiem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 95419
> 
> Here Skylar
> I drew you a diagram of the different ranges and realms of people's viewpoints.
> 
> Since govt and public institutions are supposed to include and protect people equally regardless of beliefs,
> then people like you who believe marriage is a right on the level of other Constitutional rights are in one group.
> 
> 
> 
> How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?
> 
> Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, *there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally. *
> 
> You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who disagree and believe otherwise, even rejecting one form of marriage or another, are in other groups.
> And I believe in treating and including all such beliefs equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.
> 
> You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So my goal is to work toward the OUTER SQUARE that accommodates all views even if they conflict with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.
> 
> You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.
> *
> Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. *Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Skylar
> It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
> to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.
> 
> If people don't consent to a belief that's enough.
> I cited examples of atheists or religious freedom groups
> suing to "remove crosses" from public property.
> Based on PRINCIPLE alone.
> 
> Nobody's religious freedom is "stripped" by having those crosses.
> In one case, a group across the country sued to remove crosses from a teacher's memorial plaque
> that they don't even look at.  That image is not oppressing them or stripping anyone of rights.
> But on principle alone, they argued that it couldn't be on public school property.
> 
> So I'm saying to be consistent.
> 
> If everyone practices the marriage beliefs of their choice
> and agrees that the state can endorse "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships"
> with NO references to social relationships at all,
> then that is not stripping anyone of rights but recognizing everyone's freedom equally.
> 
> However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only"
> to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
> or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
> then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."
> 
> No particular degree of harm is required to make this argument.
> No stripping of rights or beliefs is needed to make this argument.
> 
> Sure it makes it worse if there are degrees of harm or damage, which add to the argument.
> But the principle alone is enough to argue the state has no such authority.
> 
> BTW after hearing from people on both sides who just cannot tolerate or imagine
> that the other belief/viewpoint has any validity whatsoever,
> I am convinced that people cannot help having their beliefs about this.
> and what I will recommend to the Governor and Senators of Texas (and party leaders)
> is to call for a conference on this and a resolution:
> * either agree to use neutral terms in public policies for "civil unions" "domestic partnership"
> "custody or guardianship contracts" etc. and remove the term "marriage" if this
> carries connotations that violate people's beliefs (similar to removing references to God or Jesus)
> * or agree to SEPARATE funding by party, on health care, marriage benefits
> and conditions on welfare (where people don't agree on the terms and conditions
> due to religious and political beliefs) and only establish as public policy the
> programs and conditions that all people agree on as representing everyone's values.
> * or agree to "trade concessions" if it's too hard to separate and secularize everything:
> such as if people are going to include same sex marriage in sex education
> and in marriage and benefits, then ALSO let references to God, Jesus, creation,
> spiritual healing, Bibles, crosses, heaven and hell, etc. be included in public institutions
> and textbooks, public services, property, buildings, activities etc.
> 
> If people AGREE to a policy regarding beliefs, then it's okay to enact and endorse
> that on a state level if all the people consent. SINCE BELIEFS ARE INVOLVED
> THAT GOVT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE OR MANDATE, and which only
> the people can choose freely to adopt endorse and enforce.
> 
> It's not okay to bully people into changing their beliefs or accepting things
> against their beliefs by forcing that through govt. It has to be by the people's consent,
> and/or to keep the policies local or private where consent and free choice can still be respected.
> 
> If consensus can be established on the collective level of city, party, state, etc.
> then that's perfectly fine to endorse that for the members who agree to that.
> 
> So that's what I would recommend to heads of govt and parties.
> To call for a truce on political beliefs, and agreement to respect consent and beliefs
> of all people and parties without harassment, penalty or other duress/coercion,
> and either to separate policies by party, agree on neutral and universally inclusive language
> and points/principles that all parties AGREE is fair to enforce as public policy,
> or agree to mutual concessions so that beliefs are treated equally (instead of
> excluding/penalizing one set while endorsing and establishing the other which isn't equal).
Click to expand...

Wrong.

You clearly have no understanding of the issue.

The 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying citizens who reside in the states access to state laws absent a rational basis, absent objective, documented evidence in support, and absent a proper legislative end.

The states cannot deny a given class of persons access to state law for no other reason than a majority of the state’s resident disapprove of that class of persons – be it race, religion, or sexual orientation.

In this case the law in question is marriage contract law, which same-sex couples are eligible to participate in.

Denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is devoid of a rational basis, there is no objective, documented evidence in support of doing so, and it pursues no proper legislative end – it seeks only to disadvantage gay American for no other reason than being homosexual.

“This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).


----------



## Skylar

emilynghiem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 95419
> 
> Here Skylar
> I drew you a diagram of the different ranges and realms of people's viewpoints.
> 
> Since govt and public institutions are supposed to include and protect people equally regardless of beliefs,
> then people like you who believe marriage is a right on the level of other Constitutional rights are in one group.
> 
> 
> 
> How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?
> 
> Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, *there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally. *
> 
> You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who disagree and believe otherwise, even rejecting one form of marriage or another, are in other groups.
> And I believe in treating and including all such beliefs equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.
> 
> You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So my goal is to work toward the OUTER SQUARE that accommodates all views even if they conflict with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.
> 
> You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.
> *
> Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. *Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Skylar
> It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
> to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does gay marriage have a thing to do with the 'separation of church and state'?
> 
> Again, you can any belief you want. But it doesn't mean that your view must be represented anywhere. Let alone in public institutions, our law, or our constitution.
> 
> If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one. But denying a gay or lesbian couple the right to marry because *you* have a belief is ludicrous. As they have a right to marry. And your 'belief' doesn't have any authority over their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
> or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
> then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no mandate that 'beliefs' be equally represented. Your entire argument is based on an imaginary, false, and fallacious premise.
> 
> Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. RE How does gay marriage have a thing to do with the 'separation of church and state'?
> 
> Because some people believe in gay marriage and others do not.
> Then these beliefs should not be established by govt.
Click to expand...

So what? Why would some people disagreeing with gay marriage have a thing to do with 'church and state'?

And why would having a belief be an invalid basis for law? If I believe that there should be speed limits and you don't......if more people agree with me than you, we have speed limits.

That's how democracy works. There is no mandate that everyone agree or that all beliefs be equally represented. You've imagined it.



> If you are going to treat all beliefs equally as you would Christianity and church/collective authority
> that supports "faith based" policies and principles;
> and ask that this authority NOT be imposed through govt on other people "of other faiths"



We don't treat all beliefs equally. We don't represent them equally. They don't equally reflect in our laws. They aren't equally protected in our constitution.

If you believe that interracial marriage is an abomination and I want to marry someone of a different race, I win. As your beliefs are insufficient to abrogate my rights. Nor must our laws reflect your beliefs.


> C. In order to be consistent with the First Amendment
> against either establishing religion or prohibiting free exercise thereof,
> again,
> either remove the contested faith-based references
> change the language in the laws to be NEUTRAL and void of contested biases
> or have all the people affected by the laws agree to concessions
> (whereby they agree to compromise in one area in exchange for the opposite group conceding in another)



Nope. That marriage is religious *to you* means jack shit to me. Or to the law. Or the constitution. Or to anyone else's marriage.

You are free to practice your religion. But your religious belief doesn't create any mandate in someone ELSE'S marriage. Nor should it.

If your religion forbids gay marriage.....then don't get gay married.


----------



## emilynghiem

Skylar said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 95419
> 
> Here Skylar
> I drew you a diagram of the different ranges and realms of people's viewpoints.
> 
> Since govt and public institutions are supposed to include and protect people equally regardless of beliefs,
> then people like you who believe marriage is a right on the level of other Constitutional rights are in one group.
> 
> 
> 
> How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?
> 
> Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, *there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally. *
> 
> You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who disagree and believe otherwise, even rejecting one form of marriage or another, are in other groups.
> And I believe in treating and including all such beliefs equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.
> 
> You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So my goal is to work toward the OUTER SQUARE that accommodates all views even if they conflict with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.
> 
> You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.
> *
> Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. *Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Skylar
> It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
> to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does gay marriage have a thing to do with the 'separation of church and state'?
> 
> Again, you can any belief you want. But it doesn't mean that your view must be represented anywhere. Let alone in public institutions, our law, or our constitution.
> 
> If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one. But denying a gay or lesbian couple the right to marry because *you* have a belief is ludicrous. As they have a right to marry. And your 'belief' doesn't have any authority over their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
> or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
> then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no mandate that 'beliefs' be equally represented. Your entire argument is based on an imaginary, false, and fallacious premise.
> 
> Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.
Click to expand...


*RE: Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.

SORRY Skylar
but by the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs.*

Those are for individuals to decide and not for govt to take one side "in competition" with another.

Our political system HAS been abusing party and media to bully and battle this way.

But it is AGAINST constitutional principles
AGAINST human nature to allow govt to oppress and force people to change their beliefs.

That has never worked, and people's conscience has always risen up to contest such oppressive abuse of govt.

I agree with you that this has been happening.
But the same way wars and genocides have happened,
doesn't make them right.

Coercion and oppression are only temporary means.
In the end, the human need for free choice overcomes these political shortcuts that
are not sustainable. People will fight against them until the cause of abuse and oppression is removed.
That's our nature to protect our free will from threat of tyrannical oppression.

Sorry Skylar but the same history that shows you this oppressive pattern of coercion
will also show you the people fighting back to restore natural freedom peace and justice
without that coercive abuse of collective authority. Our history is full of that trend also!


----------



## Skylar

emilynghiem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 95419
> 
> Here Skylar
> I drew you a diagram of the different ranges and realms of people's viewpoints.
> 
> Since govt and public institutions are supposed to include and protect people equally regardless of beliefs,
> then people like you who believe marriage is a right on the level of other Constitutional rights are in one group.
> 
> 
> 
> How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?
> 
> Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, *there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally. *
> 
> You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who disagree and believe otherwise, even rejecting one form of marriage or another, are in other groups.
> And I believe in treating and including all such beliefs equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.
> 
> You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So my goal is to work toward the OUTER SQUARE that accommodates all views even if they conflict with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.
> 
> You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.
> *
> Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. *Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Skylar
> It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
> to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does gay marriage have a thing to do with the 'separation of church and state'?
> 
> Again, you can any belief you want. But it doesn't mean that your view must be represented anywhere. Let alone in public institutions, our law, or our constitution.
> 
> If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one. But denying a gay or lesbian couple the right to marry because *you* have a belief is ludicrous. As they have a right to marry. And your 'belief' doesn't have any authority over their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
> or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
> then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no mandate that 'beliefs' be equally represented. Your entire argument is based on an imaginary, false, and fallacious premise.
> 
> Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *RE: Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.
> 
> SORRY Skylar
> but by the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs.
> *
Click to expand...

*
*
The first amendment says no such thing. You've imagined it. And I defy you to cite the amendment indicating that the government lacks the authority to forward one belief over another.

You'll find there is no such passage. 

Beliefs compete *constantly*. The entire idea of an election is predicated on people with different beliefs trying to convince a relevant majority of their fellow citizens that the laws and representatives who write it should reflect their beliefs rather than some other guy's. 

*Your entire conception of the 1st amendment is imaginary nonsense.* Nor is there any mandate, anywhere, that all beliefs should be equally represented in our laws. 

So far your entire argument has to been to restate the same nonsense premise, that all beliefs must be represented equally. And they don't. Nor have they ever.

So....what else have you got?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"Govt is being used to endorse and REPRESENT a set of beliefs"

No, it is not. 

'Government' is not being used to do any such thing. 

State governments were being used to deny same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law and due process of the law by enacting measures hostile to gay Americans predicated solely on their sexual orientation. 

The courts appropriately, consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, invalidated those measures. 

That's it, nothing more.


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 95419
> 
> Here Skylar
> I drew you a diagram of the different ranges and realms of people's viewpoints.
> 
> Since govt and public institutions are supposed to include and protect people equally regardless of beliefs,
> then people like you who believe marriage is a right on the level of other Constitutional rights are in one group.
> 
> 
> 
> How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?
> 
> Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, *there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally. *
> 
> You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who disagree and believe otherwise, even rejecting one form of marriage or another, are in other groups.
> And I believe in treating and including all such beliefs equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.
> 
> You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So my goal is to work toward the OUTER SQUARE that accommodates all views even if they conflict with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.
> 
> You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.
> *
> Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. *Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Skylar
> It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
> to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.
> 
> If people don't consent to a belief that's enough.
> I cited examples of atheists or religious freedom groups
> suing to "remove crosses" from public property.
> Based on PRINCIPLE alone.
> 
> Nobody's religious freedom is "stripped" by having those crosses.
> In one case, a group across the country sued to remove crosses from a teacher's memorial plaque
> that they don't even look at.  That image is not oppressing them or stripping anyone of rights.
> But on principle alone, they argued that it couldn't be on public school property.
> 
> So I'm saying to be consistent.
> 
> If everyone practices the marriage beliefs of their choice
> and agrees that the state can endorse "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships"
> with NO references to social relationships at all,
> then that is not stripping anyone of rights but recognizing everyone's freedom equally.
> 
> However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only"
> to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
> or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
> then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."
> 
> No particular degree of harm is required to make this argument.
> No stripping of rights or beliefs is needed to make this argument.
> 
> Sure it makes it worse if there are degrees of harm or damage, which add to the argument.
> But the principle alone is enough to argue the state has no such authority.
> 
> BTW after hearing from people on both sides who just cannot tolerate or imagine
> that the other belief/viewpoint has any validity whatsoever,
> I am convinced that people cannot help having their beliefs about this.
> and what I will recommend to the Governor and Senators of Texas (and party leaders)
> is to call for a conference on this and a resolution:
> * either agree to use neutral terms in public policies for "civil unions" "domestic partnership"
> "custody or guardianship contracts" etc. and remove the term "marriage" if this
> carries connotations that violate people's beliefs (similar to removing references to God or Jesus)
> * or agree to SEPARATE funding by party, on health care, marriage benefits
> and conditions on welfare (where people don't agree on the terms and conditions
> due to religious and political beliefs) and only establish as public policy the
> programs and conditions that all people agree on as representing everyone's values.
> * or agree to "trade concessions" if it's too hard to separate and secularize everything:
> such as if people are going to include same sex marriage in sex education
> and in marriage and benefits, then ALSO let references to God, Jesus, creation,
> spiritual healing, Bibles, crosses, heaven and hell, etc. be included in public institutions
> and textbooks, public services, property, buildings, activities etc.
> 
> If people AGREE to a policy regarding beliefs, then it's okay to enact and endorse
> that on a state level if all the people consent. SINCE BELIEFS ARE INVOLVED
> THAT GOVT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE OR MANDATE, and which only
> the people can choose freely to adopt endorse and enforce.
> 
> It's not okay to bully people into changing their beliefs or accepting things
> against their beliefs by forcing that through govt. It has to be by the people's consent,
> and/or to keep the policies local or private where consent and free choice can still be respected.
> 
> If consensus can be established on the collective level of city, party, state, etc.
> then that's perfectly fine to endorse that for the members who agree to that.
> 
> So that's what I would recommend to heads of govt and parties.
> To call for a truce on political beliefs, and agreement to respect consent and beliefs
> of all people and parties without harassment, penalty or other duress/coercion,
> and either to separate policies by party, agree on neutral and universally inclusive language
> and points/principles that all parties AGREE is fair to enforce as public policy,
> or agree to mutual concessions so that beliefs are treated equally (instead of
> excluding/penalizing one set while endorsing and establishing the other which isn't equal).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> You clearly have no understanding of the issue.
> 
> The 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying citizens who reside in the states access to state laws absent a rational basis, absent objective, documented evidence in support, and absent a proper legislative end.
> 
> The states cannot deny a given class of persons access to state law for no other reason than a majority of the state’s resident disapprove of that class of persons – be it race, religion, or sexual orientation.
> 
> In this case the law in question is marriage contract law, which same-sex couples are eligible to participate in.
> 
> Denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is devoid of a rational basis, there is no objective, documented evidence in support of doing so, and it pursues no proper legislative end – it seeks only to disadvantage gay American for no other reason than being homosexual.
> 
> “This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”
> 
> Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
Click to expand...


Yes Skylar 
I agree that laws that give traditional couples and marriages benefits and rights
but which exclude same sex couples and beliefs in treating those equally
ARE AGAINST the equal protections laws.

HOWEVER the state endorsing same sex marriage is equally problematic.

What you think is the solution just introduced as many complications if not more.

If you are going to fix the inequality,
then at least work out a solution that all sides AGREES remedies the problems
without adding more complications or making it worse by multiplying the objections.

If you understand the CONCEPT behind
NOT DISCRIMINATING ON THE BASIS OF CREED

and if you understood that beliefs about homosexuality/transgender identity
are FAITH BASED

then you would see how the state endorsing bills with BIASED LANGUAGE
is still introducing problems on top of the ones it sought to address

The language in these laws should have been more neutral to avoid
the contested biases and complications.

Just because you are addressing a wrong and seeking to correct it
by the Fourteenth Amendment, doesn't mean the solution you passed with legislation or
court ruling with didn't violate OTHER Constitutional standards on beliefs and creeds incidentally.

People are not perfect. And here, there were huge misses
because we have not publicly recognized, addressed and
revolved issues of political beliefs.

these conversations over health care and marriage 
are the first time I've seen this even brought up.

And you can see what a difficult issue it is to 
come to an understanding, when people have
such different backgrounds and beliefs. People
cannot even see that their viewpoint is a belief.
(which is similar to Christians who think what
they believe is so universally true, it shouldn't be treated
as an optional belief but the laws/govt should be based on it as the standard)

Now the shoe is on the other foot,
where the sacred beliefs on the left are being challenged.

And we are having the same conversation, but people
coming from the opposite position as before.

Very intriguìng process and I hope it leads to understanding
that we cannot change each other's beliefs,
nor can we use govt to force that,
so we need to recognize include and managed these beliefs equally,
to be fair to all people of all groups.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"...the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs."

Nonsense - the issue has nothing to do with the First Amendment, no government is seeking to restrict or deny anyone's beliefs. 

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence that invalidated state laws denying same-sex couples access to marriage laws applies solely to government, not to private persons or organizations, such as churches. 

Both individuals and religious entities are at complete liberty to discriminate against same-sex couples in the context of religious dogma, and private citizens are at complete liberty to hate gay Americans with impunity, to believe that homosexuality is 'immoral,' and to freely express their hostility toward gay Americans, free from unwarranted interference by any government.


----------



## Skylar

emilynghiem said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 95419
> 
> Here Skylar
> I drew you a diagram of the different ranges and realms of people's viewpoints.
> 
> Since govt and public institutions are supposed to include and protect people equally regardless of beliefs,
> then people like you who believe marriage is a right on the level of other Constitutional rights are in one group.
> 
> 
> 
> How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?
> 
> Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, *there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally. *
> 
> You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who disagree and believe otherwise, even rejecting one form of marriage or another, are in other groups.
> And I believe in treating and including all such beliefs equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.
> 
> You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So my goal is to work toward the OUTER SQUARE that accommodates all views even if they conflict with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.
> 
> You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.
> *
> Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. *Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Skylar
> It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
> to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.
> 
> If people don't consent to a belief that's enough.
> I cited examples of atheists or religious freedom groups
> suing to "remove crosses" from public property.
> Based on PRINCIPLE alone.
> 
> Nobody's religious freedom is "stripped" by having those crosses.
> In one case, a group across the country sued to remove crosses from a teacher's memorial plaque
> that they don't even look at.  That image is not oppressing them or stripping anyone of rights.
> But on principle alone, they argued that it couldn't be on public school property.
> 
> So I'm saying to be consistent.
> 
> If everyone practices the marriage beliefs of their choice
> and agrees that the state can endorse "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships"
> with NO references to social relationships at all,
> then that is not stripping anyone of rights but recognizing everyone's freedom equally.
> 
> However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only"
> to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
> or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
> then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."
> 
> No particular degree of harm is required to make this argument.
> No stripping of rights or beliefs is needed to make this argument.
> 
> Sure it makes it worse if there are degrees of harm or damage, which add to the argument.
> But the principle alone is enough to argue the state has no such authority.
> 
> BTW after hearing from people on both sides who just cannot tolerate or imagine
> that the other belief/viewpoint has any validity whatsoever,
> I am convinced that people cannot help having their beliefs about this.
> and what I will recommend to the Governor and Senators of Texas (and party leaders)
> is to call for a conference on this and a resolution:
> * either agree to use neutral terms in public policies for "civil unions" "domestic partnership"
> "custody or guardianship contracts" etc. and remove the term "marriage" if this
> carries connotations that violate people's beliefs (similar to removing references to God or Jesus)
> * or agree to SEPARATE funding by party, on health care, marriage benefits
> and conditions on welfare (where people don't agree on the terms and conditions
> due to religious and political beliefs) and only establish as public policy the
> programs and conditions that all people agree on as representing everyone's values.
> * or agree to "trade concessions" if it's too hard to separate and secularize everything:
> such as if people are going to include same sex marriage in sex education
> and in marriage and benefits, then ALSO let references to God, Jesus, creation,
> spiritual healing, Bibles, crosses, heaven and hell, etc. be included in public institutions
> and textbooks, public services, property, buildings, activities etc.
> 
> If people AGREE to a policy regarding beliefs, then it's okay to enact and endorse
> that on a state level if all the people consent. SINCE BELIEFS ARE INVOLVED
> THAT GOVT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE OR MANDATE, and which only
> the people can choose freely to adopt endorse and enforce.
> 
> It's not okay to bully people into changing their beliefs or accepting things
> against their beliefs by forcing that through govt. It has to be by the people's consent,
> and/or to keep the policies local or private where consent and free choice can still be respected.
> 
> If consensus can be established on the collective level of city, party, state, etc.
> then that's perfectly fine to endorse that for the members who agree to that.
> 
> So that's what I would recommend to heads of govt and parties.
> To call for a truce on political beliefs, and agreement to respect consent and beliefs
> of all people and parties without harassment, penalty or other duress/coercion,
> and either to separate policies by party, agree on neutral and universally inclusive language
> and points/principles that all parties AGREE is fair to enforce as public policy,
> or agree to mutual concessions so that beliefs are treated equally (instead of
> excluding/penalizing one set while endorsing and establishing the other which isn't equal).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> You clearly have no understanding of the issue.
> 
> The 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying citizens who reside in the states access to state laws absent a rational basis, absent objective, documented evidence in support, and absent a proper legislative end.
> 
> The states cannot deny a given class of persons access to state law for no other reason than a majority of the state’s resident disapprove of that class of persons – be it race, religion, or sexual orientation.
> 
> In this case the law in question is marriage contract law, which same-sex couples are eligible to participate in.
> 
> Denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is devoid of a rational basis, there is no objective, documented evidence in support of doing so, and it pursues no proper legislative end – it seeks only to disadvantage gay American for no other reason than being homosexual.
> 
> “This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”
> 
> Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Skylar
> I agree that laws that give traditional couples and marriages benefits and rights
> but which exclude same sex couples and beliefs in treating those equally
> ARE AGAINST the equal protections laws.
> 
> HOWEVER the state endorsing same sex marriage is equally problematic.
Click to expand...


No, it isn't. As recognizing same sex marriage strips no one of any right. While denying same sex marriage strips same sex couples of their right to marry.

They're literal opposites....which you strangely insist are 'equal'. I don't think 'equal' means what you think it means.



> What you think is the solution just introduced as many complications if not more.
> 
> If you are going to fix the inequality,
> then at least work out a solution that all sides AGREES remedies the problems
> without adding more complications or making it worse by multiplying the objections.



Nope. People disagree all the time. Elections, laws and court rulings help sort those disagreements out.

Beliefs compete. Some lose. Some win. Your imaginary idea that all beliefs must be equally represented is simple nonsense. There is no such mandate.

Nor has there ever been at any point in our nation's history. That mandate exists exclusively inside your head.



> and if you understood that beliefs about homosexuality/transgender identity
> are FAITH BASED



Says who? You're throwing up another nonsense premise to support your previous nonsense premise. And its imagination all the way down.

There is no mandate that all beliefs be equally represented.


> Just because you are addressing a wrong and seeking to correct it
> by the Fourteenth Amendment, doesn't mean the solution you passed with legislation or
> court ruling with didn't violate OTHER Constitutional standards on beliefs and creeds incidentally.



Save that your 'the first amendment prevents government from forwarding any belief' is imaginary nonsense. There is no such restriction. The very concept of democracy contradicts your assumption, as it it nothing BUT people using government to forward beliefs.

That's all laws are: codified belief. And not all beliefs are equally represented. Nor should be.


----------



## emilynghiem

Skylar said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 95419
> 
> Here Skylar
> I drew you a diagram of the different ranges and realms of people's viewpoints.
> 
> Since govt and public institutions are supposed to include and protect people equally regardless of beliefs,
> then people like you who believe marriage is a right on the level of other Constitutional rights are in one group.
> 
> 
> 
> How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?
> 
> Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, *there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally. *
> 
> You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who disagree and believe otherwise, even rejecting one form of marriage or another, are in other groups.
> And I believe in treating and including all such beliefs equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.
> 
> You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So my goal is to work toward the OUTER SQUARE that accommodates all views even if they conflict with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.
> 
> You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.
> *
> Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. *Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Skylar
> It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
> to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does gay marriage have a thing to do with the 'separation of church and state'?
> 
> Again, you can any belief you want. But it doesn't mean that your view must be represented anywhere. Let alone in public institutions, our law, or our constitution.
> 
> If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one. But denying a gay or lesbian couple the right to marry because *you* have a belief is ludicrous. As they have a right to marry. And your 'belief' doesn't have any authority over their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
> or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
> then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no mandate that 'beliefs' be equally represented. Your entire argument is based on an imaginary, false, and fallacious premise.
> 
> Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *RE: Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.
> 
> SORRY Skylar
> but by the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first amendment says no such thing. You've imagined it. And I defy you to cite the amendment indicating that the government lacks the authority to forward one belief over another.
> 
> You'll find there is no such passage.
> 
> Beliefs compete *constantly*. The entire idea of an election is predicated on people with different beliefs trying to convince a relevant majority of their fellow citizens that the laws and representatives who write it should reflect their beliefs rather than some other guy's.
> 
> *Your entire conception of the 1st amendment is imaginary nonsense.* Nor is there any mandate, anywhere, that all beliefs should be equally represented in our laws.
> 
> So far your entire argument has to been to restate the same nonsense premise, that all beliefs must be represented equally. And they don't. Nor have they ever.
> 
> So....what else have you got?
Click to expand...


1. The First Amendment was written literally for Congress
and states that 
*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*

which has been paraphrased by the left who call it
"separation of church and state"
which means the govt is not to be used to endorse or impose "religious beliefs"

Q: 
do you and I agree on the MEANING of the First Amendment?

do we agree that Congress is not supposed to pass laws
that either "establish OR prohibit" beliefs (you can say just
religious beliefs if you want to take this literally; but to avoid
discrimination I interpret it to ALL beliefs so everyone's rights are 
included and defended equally, regardless if they affiliate or identify with a religion or not.)

if that's all we disagree on -- whether this applies to ALL beliefs
or just established religions, that is normal to interpret the law as only applying to religious beliefs
due to established precedent and case history etc.)

2. the Fourteenth Amendment
expanded to the STATES
the protection of rights of people under state jurisdiction

so it isn't just Congress (or federal govt)
but STATE govt that cannot enforce any laws
that deprive people in their jurisdiction of protection of the laws:

*No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*
*
Q: Do you and I agree that instead of just Congress/federal govt
held to not violate any of the rights of individuals in the Bill of Rights,
part of the meaning of the 14th Amendment is to hold STATES to the same Constitutional standards
(on religious freedom, due process of laws, etc as in the Bill of Rights so all persons have "equal protections" of these laws)

3. Civil Rights acts and movement*

*
Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Fair Housing Act, prohibiting discrimination in sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, creed, and national origin.
Do we agree that the Civil Rights Act and movement
added language on NOT DISCRIMINATING ON THE BASIS OF CREED
(along with race, etc.)
*
*And this continued the expansion from*
*1. federal govt not abridging individual rights (as in the Bill of Rights)*
*2. to state govt (by the Fourteenth Amendment adding language on "equal protection of the laws")*
*3. to PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS (by the Civil Rights Act and movement adding language*
*on "not discriminating on the basis of _____________" <-- creed, race, gender, fill in the blanks*

*Even if not all policies SPECIFY creed as one of the areas,*
*do we agree it was the Civil Rights Act that expanded*
*individual rights and protections to PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS.*


----------



## emilynghiem

Skylar said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 95419
> 
> Here Skylar
> I drew you a diagram of the different ranges and realms of people's viewpoints.
> 
> Since govt and public institutions are supposed to include and protect people equally regardless of beliefs,
> then people like you who believe marriage is a right on the level of other Constitutional rights are in one group.
> 
> 
> 
> How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?
> 
> Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, *there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally. *
> 
> You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who disagree and believe otherwise, even rejecting one form of marriage or another, are in other groups.
> And I believe in treating and including all such beliefs equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.
> 
> You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So my goal is to work toward the OUTER SQUARE that accommodates all views even if they conflict with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.
> 
> You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.
> *
> Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. *Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Skylar
> It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
> to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.
> 
> If people don't consent to a belief that's enough.
> I cited examples of atheists or religious freedom groups
> suing to "remove crosses" from public property.
> Based on PRINCIPLE alone.
> 
> Nobody's religious freedom is "stripped" by having those crosses.
> In one case, a group across the country sued to remove crosses from a teacher's memorial plaque
> that they don't even look at.  That image is not oppressing them or stripping anyone of rights.
> But on principle alone, they argued that it couldn't be on public school property.
> 
> So I'm saying to be consistent.
> 
> If everyone practices the marriage beliefs of their choice
> and agrees that the state can endorse "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships"
> with NO references to social relationships at all,
> then that is not stripping anyone of rights but recognizing everyone's freedom equally.
> 
> However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only"
> to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
> or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
> then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."
> 
> No particular degree of harm is required to make this argument.
> No stripping of rights or beliefs is needed to make this argument.
> 
> Sure it makes it worse if there are degrees of harm or damage, which add to the argument.
> But the principle alone is enough to argue the state has no such authority.
> 
> BTW after hearing from people on both sides who just cannot tolerate or imagine
> that the other belief/viewpoint has any validity whatsoever,
> I am convinced that people cannot help having their beliefs about this.
> and what I will recommend to the Governor and Senators of Texas (and party leaders)
> is to call for a conference on this and a resolution:
> * either agree to use neutral terms in public policies for "civil unions" "domestic partnership"
> "custody or guardianship contracts" etc. and remove the term "marriage" if this
> carries connotations that violate people's beliefs (similar to removing references to God or Jesus)
> * or agree to SEPARATE funding by party, on health care, marriage benefits
> and conditions on welfare (where people don't agree on the terms and conditions
> due to religious and political beliefs) and only establish as public policy the
> programs and conditions that all people agree on as representing everyone's values.
> * or agree to "trade concessions" if it's too hard to separate and secularize everything:
> such as if people are going to include same sex marriage in sex education
> and in marriage and benefits, then ALSO let references to God, Jesus, creation,
> spiritual healing, Bibles, crosses, heaven and hell, etc. be included in public institutions
> and textbooks, public services, property, buildings, activities etc.
> 
> If people AGREE to a policy regarding beliefs, then it's okay to enact and endorse
> that on a state level if all the people consent. SINCE BELIEFS ARE INVOLVED
> THAT GOVT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE OR MANDATE, and which only
> the people can choose freely to adopt endorse and enforce.
> 
> It's not okay to bully people into changing their beliefs or accepting things
> against their beliefs by forcing that through govt. It has to be by the people's consent,
> and/or to keep the policies local or private where consent and free choice can still be respected.
> 
> If consensus can be established on the collective level of city, party, state, etc.
> then that's perfectly fine to endorse that for the members who agree to that.
> 
> So that's what I would recommend to heads of govt and parties.
> To call for a truce on political beliefs, and agreement to respect consent and beliefs
> of all people and parties without harassment, penalty or other duress/coercion,
> and either to separate policies by party, agree on neutral and universally inclusive language
> and points/principles that all parties AGREE is fair to enforce as public policy,
> or agree to mutual concessions so that beliefs are treated equally (instead of
> excluding/penalizing one set while endorsing and establishing the other which isn't equal).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> You clearly have no understanding of the issue.
> 
> The 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying citizens who reside in the states access to state laws absent a rational basis, absent objective, documented evidence in support, and absent a proper legislative end.
> 
> The states cannot deny a given class of persons access to state law for no other reason than a majority of the state’s resident disapprove of that class of persons – be it race, religion, or sexual orientation.
> 
> In this case the law in question is marriage contract law, which same-sex couples are eligible to participate in.
> 
> Denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is devoid of a rational basis, there is no objective, documented evidence in support of doing so, and it pursues no proper legislative end – it seeks only to disadvantage gay American for no other reason than being homosexual.
> 
> “This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”
> 
> Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Skylar
> I agree that laws that give traditional couples and marriages benefits and rights
> but which exclude same sex couples and beliefs in treating those equally
> ARE AGAINST the equal protections laws.
> 
> HOWEVER the state endorsing same sex marriage is equally problematic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. As recognizing same sex marriage strips no one of any right. While denying same sex marriage strips same sex couples of their right to marry.
> 
> They're literal opposites....which you strangely insist are 'equal'. I don't think 'equal' means what you think it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you think is the solution just introduced as many complications if not more.
> 
> If you are going to fix the inequality,
> then at least work out a solution that all sides AGREES remedies the problems
> without adding more complications or making it worse by multiplying the objections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. People disagree all the time. Elections, laws and court rulings help sort those disagreements out.
> 
> Beliefs compete. Some lose. Some win. Your imaginary idea that all beliefs must be equally represented is simple nonsense. There is no such mandate.
> 
> Nor has there ever been at any point in our nation's history. That mandate exists exclusively inside your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and if you understood that beliefs about homosexuality/transgender identity
> are FAITH BASED
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? You're throwing up another nonsense premise to support your previous nonsense premise. And its imagination all the way down.
> 
> There is no mandate that all beliefs be equally represented.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you are addressing a wrong and seeking to correct it
> by the Fourteenth Amendment, doesn't mean the solution you passed with legislation or
> court ruling with didn't violate OTHER Constitutional standards on beliefs and creeds incidentally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save that your 'the first amendment prevents government from forwarding any belief' is imaginary nonsense. There is no such restriction. The very concept of democracy contradicts your assumption, as it it nothing BUT people using government to forward beliefs.
> 
> That's all laws are: codified belief. And not all beliefs are equally represented. Nor should be.
Click to expand...


Yes so we agree
that beliefs should be kept out of govt if they cannot be equally represented.

and yes I agree that banning same sex marriage strips people of rights
But the solution is not to have govt ENDORSE such marriage beliefs if not all people agre e to those beliefs either!

Two wrongs don't make it right.

You are making a leap in logic.

If a law was passed banning Hindu or Muslim beliefs from being practiced,
is the solution for govt to ENDORSE Hindu or Muslim beliefs?

No. Just because you strike down the ban does not mean the state has to endorse what was being banned.


----------



## Skylar

emilynghiem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?
> 
> Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, *there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally. *
> 
> You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.
> 
> And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.
> 
> You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.
> 
> Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.
> 
> You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.
> *
> Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. *Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Skylar
> It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
> to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does gay marriage have a thing to do with the 'separation of church and state'?
> 
> Again, you can any belief you want. But it doesn't mean that your view must be represented anywhere. Let alone in public institutions, our law, or our constitution.
> 
> If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one. But denying a gay or lesbian couple the right to marry because *you* have a belief is ludicrous. As they have a right to marry. And your 'belief' doesn't have any authority over their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
> or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
> then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no mandate that 'beliefs' be equally represented. Your entire argument is based on an imaginary, false, and fallacious premise.
> 
> Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *RE: Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.
> 
> SORRY Skylar
> but by the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first amendment says no such thing. You've imagined it. And I defy you to cite the amendment indicating that the government lacks the authority to forward one belief over another.
> 
> You'll find there is no such passage.
> 
> Beliefs compete *constantly*. The entire idea of an election is predicated on people with different beliefs trying to convince a relevant majority of their fellow citizens that the laws and representatives who write it should reflect their beliefs rather than some other guy's.
> 
> *Your entire conception of the 1st amendment is imaginary nonsense.* Nor is there any mandate, anywhere, that all beliefs should be equally represented in our laws.
> 
> So far your entire argument has to been to restate the same nonsense premise, that all beliefs must be represented equally. And they don't. Nor have they ever.
> 
> So....what else have you got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. The First Amendment was written literally for Congress
> and states that
> *Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
> of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*
> 
> which has been paraphrased by the left who call it
> "separation of church and state"
> which means the govt is not to be used to endorse or impose "religious beliefs"
Click to expand...


And where does it say a thing about beliefs? If I believe there should be same sex marriage......that's not 'establishing religion'. Or inhibiting anyone else's right to practice it.

Again, your mandate that all rights must be represented equally doesn't exist in our laws, our constitution, or our nation's history. Beliefs compete. And some lose. Those that lose are no represented in our laws. Those that win are.

And your beliefs grant you no authority to abrogate anyone else's rights.



> Q:
> do you and I agree on the MEANING of the First Amendment?



Of course not. As you've equated any belief with religion. The 1st amendment never so much as mentions beliefs. Let alone forbids laws based on them.

You've literally imagined your entire premise. And the 1st amendment makes no mention of anything you've argued. Not one thing.



> do we agree that Congress is not supposed to pass laws
> that either "establish OR prohibit" beliefs (you can say just
> religious beliefs if you want to take this literally; but to avoid
> discrimination I interpret it to ALL beliefs so everyone's rights are
> included and defended equally, regardless if they affiliate or identify with a religion or not.)



No, we do not agree. As beliefs aren't even mentioned in the constitution. I can hold a belief that we should have speeding laws. Per your wildly bizarre interpretation of the 1st amendment, that somehow violates the separation of church and state.

Back in reality, there's no such violation. As a belief doesn't necessarily establish any religion. You merely calling anything you disagree with 'religion' doesn't magically make it so.

All you've done is switch to a useless false equivalency fallacy....insisting that any belief on any topic is religion.

Um, no. Its not. 



> if that's all we disagree on -- whether this applies to ALL beliefs
> or just established religions, that is normal to interpret the law as only applying to religious beliefs
> due to established precedent and case history etc.)
> 
> 2. the Fourteenth Amendment
> expanded to the STATES
> the protection of rights of people under state jurisdiction



And recognizing same sex marraige violates no rights. While denying same sex marriage violates rights. They're literal opposites.

Opposites are not 'equal'. One would think this was obvious.

Again, you bizarrely insist that beliefs and right are the same thing. And you're obviously wrong.


----------



## Skylar

emilynghiem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?
> 
> Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, *there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally. *
> 
> You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.
> 
> And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.
> 
> You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.
> 
> Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.
> 
> You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.
> *
> Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. *Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Skylar
> It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
> to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.
> 
> If people don't consent to a belief that's enough.
> I cited examples of atheists or religious freedom groups
> suing to "remove crosses" from public property.
> Based on PRINCIPLE alone.
> 
> Nobody's religious freedom is "stripped" by having those crosses.
> In one case, a group across the country sued to remove crosses from a teacher's memorial plaque
> that they don't even look at.  That image is not oppressing them or stripping anyone of rights.
> But on principle alone, they argued that it couldn't be on public school property.
> 
> So I'm saying to be consistent.
> 
> If everyone practices the marriage beliefs of their choice
> and agrees that the state can endorse "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships"
> with NO references to social relationships at all,
> then that is not stripping anyone of rights but recognizing everyone's freedom equally.
> 
> However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only"
> to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
> or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
> then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."
> 
> No particular degree of harm is required to make this argument.
> No stripping of rights or beliefs is needed to make this argument.
> 
> Sure it makes it worse if there are degrees of harm or damage, which add to the argument.
> But the principle alone is enough to argue the state has no such authority.
> 
> BTW after hearing from people on both sides who just cannot tolerate or imagine
> that the other belief/viewpoint has any validity whatsoever,
> I am convinced that people cannot help having their beliefs about this.
> and what I will recommend to the Governor and Senators of Texas (and party leaders)
> is to call for a conference on this and a resolution:
> * either agree to use neutral terms in public policies for "civil unions" "domestic partnership"
> "custody or guardianship contracts" etc. and remove the term "marriage" if this
> carries connotations that violate people's beliefs (similar to removing references to God or Jesus)
> * or agree to SEPARATE funding by party, on health care, marriage benefits
> and conditions on welfare (where people don't agree on the terms and conditions
> due to religious and political beliefs) and only establish as public policy the
> programs and conditions that all people agree on as representing everyone's values.
> * or agree to "trade concessions" if it's too hard to separate and secularize everything:
> such as if people are going to include same sex marriage in sex education
> and in marriage and benefits, then ALSO let references to God, Jesus, creation,
> spiritual healing, Bibles, crosses, heaven and hell, etc. be included in public institutions
> and textbooks, public services, property, buildings, activities etc.
> 
> If people AGREE to a policy regarding beliefs, then it's okay to enact and endorse
> that on a state level if all the people consent. SINCE BELIEFS ARE INVOLVED
> THAT GOVT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE OR MANDATE, and which only
> the people can choose freely to adopt endorse and enforce.
> 
> It's not okay to bully people into changing their beliefs or accepting things
> against their beliefs by forcing that through govt. It has to be by the people's consent,
> and/or to keep the policies local or private where consent and free choice can still be respected.
> 
> If consensus can be established on the collective level of city, party, state, etc.
> then that's perfectly fine to endorse that for the members who agree to that.
> 
> So that's what I would recommend to heads of govt and parties.
> To call for a truce on political beliefs, and agreement to respect consent and beliefs
> of all people and parties without harassment, penalty or other duress/coercion,
> and either to separate policies by party, agree on neutral and universally inclusive language
> and points/principles that all parties AGREE is fair to enforce as public policy,
> or agree to mutual concessions so that beliefs are treated equally (instead of
> excluding/penalizing one set while endorsing and establishing the other which isn't equal).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> You clearly have no understanding of the issue.
> 
> The 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying citizens who reside in the states access to state laws absent a rational basis, absent objective, documented evidence in support, and absent a proper legislative end.
> 
> The states cannot deny a given class of persons access to state law for no other reason than a majority of the state’s resident disapprove of that class of persons – be it race, religion, or sexual orientation.
> 
> In this case the law in question is marriage contract law, which same-sex couples are eligible to participate in.
> 
> Denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is devoid of a rational basis, there is no objective, documented evidence in support of doing so, and it pursues no proper legislative end – it seeks only to disadvantage gay American for no other reason than being homosexual.
> 
> “This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”
> 
> Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Skylar
> I agree that laws that give traditional couples and marriages benefits and rights
> but which exclude same sex couples and beliefs in treating those equally
> ARE AGAINST the equal protections laws.
> 
> HOWEVER the state endorsing same sex marriage is equally problematic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. As recognizing same sex marriage strips no one of any right. While denying same sex marriage strips same sex couples of their right to marry.
> 
> They're literal opposites....which you strangely insist are 'equal'. I don't think 'equal' means what you think it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you think is the solution just introduced as many complications if not more.
> 
> If you are going to fix the inequality,
> then at least work out a solution that all sides AGREES remedies the problems
> without adding more complications or making it worse by multiplying the objections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. People disagree all the time. Elections, laws and court rulings help sort those disagreements out.
> 
> Beliefs compete. Some lose. Some win. Your imaginary idea that all beliefs must be equally represented is simple nonsense. There is no such mandate.
> 
> Nor has there ever been at any point in our nation's history. That mandate exists exclusively inside your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and if you understood that beliefs about homosexuality/transgender identity
> are FAITH BASED
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? You're throwing up another nonsense premise to support your previous nonsense premise. And its imagination all the way down.
> 
> There is no mandate that all beliefs be equally represented.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you are addressing a wrong and seeking to correct it
> by the Fourteenth Amendment, doesn't mean the solution you passed with legislation or
> court ruling with didn't violate OTHER Constitutional standards on beliefs and creeds incidentally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save that your 'the first amendment prevents government from forwarding any belief' is imaginary nonsense. There is no such restriction. The very concept of democracy contradicts your assumption, as it it nothing BUT people using government to forward beliefs.
> 
> That's all laws are: codified belief. And not all beliefs are equally represented. Nor should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes so we agree
> that beliefs should be kept out of govt if they cannot be equally represented.
Click to expand...


You're not even reading what you're replying to. For the 3rd time, *NO, *we do not agree. *NO, *there is no mandate that beliefs be equally representd in government. *NO,* rights and beliefs aren't the same thing.

Again, all you're doing is restating the same nonsense premise, backed by nothing but your imagination.....and then insisting that I agree with you.

And I obviously don't. Is there anything to you but restating the same nonsense premise and pretending that everyone agrees with you?

If no, then you're done. If yes, then by all means, present your argument.


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "...the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs."
> 
> Nonsense - the issue has nothing to do with the First Amendment, no government is seeking to restrict or deny anyone's beliefs.
> 
> The 14th Amendment jurisprudence that invalidated state laws denying same-sex couples access to marriage laws applies solely to government, not to private persons or organizations, such as churches.
> 
> Both individuals and religious entities are at complete liberty to discriminate against same-sex couples in the context of religious dogma, and private citizens are at complete liberty to hate gay Americans with impunity, to believe that homosexuality is 'immoral,' and to freely express their hostility toward gay Americans, free from unwarranted interference by any government.



Dear C_Clayton_Jones and Skylar
while I AGREE with you that bans on same sex marriage
getting struck down as unconstitutional

I DISAGREE with your continued assertion that
state sanctioning and endorsing same sex marriage
isn't ALSO crossing the line and involving the
state in matters of private personal spiritual religious and political beliefs,
but I argue since the people in states DON'T agree yet on the polices
and how they are written, then no such laws should be endorsed or
enforced as public policy UNTIL and UNLESS the affected public agrees and consents.

They need to go back to the drawing board
and revise policies and programs so people DO agree
that it me ets Constitutional standards and ethics,
neither establishing or denying beliefs,
endorsing or excluding, discriminating or penalizing etc.

Then such a law can pass as Constitutional
if it lives up to equal protections of the laws for all people
WITHOUT discriminating on the basis of creed.

just because the bans that got struck down were
unconstitutional, and I agree with you they violate
the First and Fourteenth Amendment as well as other laws,
DOES NOT MEAN THE SOLUTION IS THE
STATE ENDORSING SAME SEX MARRIAGE

Just because people agree to "decriminalize" drugs
does NOT MEAN LEGALIZING THEM IS THE SOLUTION

You are making leaps in logic where
just because I agree with you
Part A was a Constitutional violation
does NOT automatically mean Part B is the Constitutional solution!

And just because you and I disagree on Part B
does not negate what we agree on in Part A!!!


----------



## Skylar

emilynghiem said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs."
> 
> Nonsense - the issue has nothing to do with the First Amendment, no government is seeking to restrict or deny anyone's beliefs.
> 
> The 14th Amendment jurisprudence that invalidated state laws denying same-sex couples access to marriage laws applies solely to government, not to private persons or organizations, such as churches.
> 
> Both individuals and religious entities are at complete liberty to discriminate against same-sex couples in the context of religious dogma, and private citizens are at complete liberty to hate gay Americans with impunity, to believe that homosexuality is 'immoral,' and to freely express their hostility toward gay Americans, free from unwarranted interference by any government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones and Skylar
> while I AGREE with you that bans on same sex marriage
> getting struck down as unconstitutional
> 
> I DISAGREE with your continued assertion that
> state sanctioning and endorsing same sex marriage
> isn't ALSO crossing the line and involving the
> state in matters of private personal spiritual religious and political beliefs,
> but I argue since the people in states DON'T agree yet on the polices
> and how they are written, then no such laws should be endorsed or
> enforced as public policy UNTIL and UNLESS the affected public agrees and consents.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. If the public wants to pass a law that violates rights, the rights of the individual trumps that authority. 

And bans on same sex marriage violated the right to marry and equal protection restrictions on state laws. Thus, they had no authority.

Universal consent is not necessary for a law to be enacted. Nor for a law to be repealed. Nor has it ever been. 



> They need to go back to the drawing board
> and revise policies and programs so people DO agree
> that it me ets Constitutional standards and ethics,
> neither establishing or denying beliefs,
> endorsing or excluding, discriminating or penalizing etc.



There is no constitutional standard about the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'.

You've made that up. And your imagination creates no constitutional crisis.


----------



## emilynghiem

Skylar said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Skylar
> It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
> to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.
> 
> 
> 
> How does gay marriage have a thing to do with the 'separation of church and state'?
> 
> Again, you can any belief you want. But it doesn't mean that your view must be represented anywhere. Let alone in public institutions, our law, or our constitution.
> 
> If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one. But denying a gay or lesbian couple the right to marry because *you* have a belief is ludicrous. As they have a right to marry. And your 'belief' doesn't have any authority over their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
> or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
> then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no mandate that 'beliefs' be equally represented. Your entire argument is based on an imaginary, false, and fallacious premise.
> 
> Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *RE: Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.
> 
> SORRY Skylar
> but by the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first amendment says no such thing. You've imagined it. And I defy you to cite the amendment indicating that the government lacks the authority to forward one belief over another.
> 
> You'll find there is no such passage.
> 
> Beliefs compete *constantly*. The entire idea of an election is predicated on people with different beliefs trying to convince a relevant majority of their fellow citizens that the laws and representatives who write it should reflect their beliefs rather than some other guy's.
> 
> *Your entire conception of the 1st amendment is imaginary nonsense.* Nor is there any mandate, anywhere, that all beliefs should be equally represented in our laws.
> 
> So far your entire argument has to been to restate the same nonsense premise, that all beliefs must be represented equally. And they don't. Nor have they ever.
> 
> So....what else have you got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. The First Amendment was written literally for Congress
> and states that
> *Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
> of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*
> 
> which has been paraphrased by the left who call it
> "separation of church and state"
> which means the govt is not to be used to endorse or impose "religious beliefs"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where does it say a thing about beliefs? If I believe there should be same sex marriage......that's not 'establishing religion'. Or inhibiting anyone else's right to practice it.
> 
> Again, your mandate that all rights must be represented equally doesn't exist in our laws, our constitution, or our nation's history. Beliefs compete. And some lose. Those that lose are no represented in our laws. Those that win are.
> 
> And your beliefs grant you no authority to abrogate anyone else's rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q:
> do you and I agree on the MEANING of the First Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not. As you've equated any belief with religion. The 1st amendment never so much as mentions beliefs. Let alone forbids laws based on them.
> 
> You've literally imagined your entire premise. And the 1st amendment makes no mention of anything you've argued. Not one thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do we agree that Congress is not supposed to pass laws
> that either "establish OR prohibit" beliefs (you can say just
> religious beliefs if you want to take this literally; but to avoid
> discrimination I interpret it to ALL beliefs so everyone's rights are
> included and defended equally, regardless if they affiliate or identify with a religion or not.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we do not agree. As beliefs aren't even mentioned in the constitution. I can hold a belief that we should have speeding laws. Per your wildly bizarre interpretation of the 1st amendment, that somehow violates the separation of church and state.
> 
> Back in reality, there's no such violation. As a belief doesn't necessarily establish any religion. You merely calling anything you disagree with 'religion' doesn't magically make it so.
> 
> All you've done is switch to a useless false equivalency fallacy....insisting that any belief on any topic is religion.
> 
> Um, no. Its not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if that's all we disagree on -- whether this applies to ALL beliefs
> or just established religions, that is normal to interpret the law as only applying to religious beliefs
> due to established precedent and case history etc.)
> 
> 2. the Fourteenth Amendment
> expanded to the STATES
> the protection of rights of people under state jurisdiction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And recognizing same sex marraige violates no rights. While denying same sex marriage violates rights. They're literal opposites.
> 
> Opposites are not 'equal'. One would think this was obvious.
> 
> Again, you bizarrely insist that beliefs and right are the same thing. And you're obviously wrong.
Click to expand...


RE: Speeding laws
These are secular issues
and we all agree there are no religious beliefs involved there.
otherwise YES if it turned out this somehow DID involve
some inherent beliefs, that would be argued about with
no chance of resolving them IF BELIEFS WERE REALLY INVOLVED.
Apparently not, with this issue. Next?

If you are going to take up an issue that is in the realm of political beliefs,
at least pick a real one that many people DO hold as sacred beliefs:

* beliefs about death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, termination of life
* beliefs about voting rights as sacred and symbolic,
gun rights as outside govt regulations
* beliefs if people born in other countries have equal rights
as people born in America
* beliefs about sovereignty of states, of Puerto Rico or Hawaii,
of Native Americans
* beliefs about nonviolence, restorative justice vs war
* beliefs about environmental preservation (not just global
warming which is a huge issue about faith-based beliefs)

These all need to be addressed 

There are PLENTY of REAL issues that get
into sacred deeply held beliefs that people
can't help and can't change without free choice to do so

Do you see the difference between
areas of laws and policies that
DO involve deeply held beliefs people cannot help
vs. group decisions on secular matters
that people AGREE to decide by "majority rule"

Do you see the difference
that this isn't just arbitrary or something people make up

People don't just fight randomly about "anything"
and that's why we DON'T see people raising
these arguments over speeding laws etc.

But if you look at the list above
there are DEFINITE issues
that fall in the category of political beliefs

some of the most vocal issues have been
* right to life "beginning at conception" (vs. free choice without govt imposing penalties)
* right to health care through govt (vs. free market without govt imposing mandates)
* marriage equality/transgender/homosexuality issues
* global warming caused by man
* gun rights and immigrant rights

The closest I have found to people with political beliefs
about speeding are some libertarians who don't believe
in driving licenses and related regulations,
or anarchists who don't believe in institutionalized authority
but might support syndicates where people of a community
form contracts among themselves unilaterally, just not imposed
by a top down hierarchy that doesn't respect direct consent by each person.

For those people, yes, I would support
them setting up their own campus communities
where they can manage themselves under policies they all agre e to.
But outside their perimeter, there would need to be security
so nobody enters who doesn't agree to live by the same laws.

So the state might still need to be involved in policìng AROUND
such a community, and/or they could agree to hire security
as part of the cost of supporting that lifestyle under their beliefs.


----------



## Skylar

emilynghiem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does gay marriage have a thing to do with the 'separation of church and state'?
> 
> Again, you can any belief you want. But it doesn't mean that your view must be represented anywhere. Let alone in public institutions, our law, or our constitution.
> 
> If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one. But denying a gay or lesbian couple the right to marry because *you* have a belief is ludicrous. As they have a right to marry. And your 'belief' doesn't have any authority over their rights.
> 
> There is no mandate that 'beliefs' be equally represented. Your entire argument is based on an imaginary, false, and fallacious premise.
> 
> Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *RE: Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.
> 
> SORRY Skylar
> but by the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first amendment says no such thing. You've imagined it. And I defy you to cite the amendment indicating that the government lacks the authority to forward one belief over another.
> 
> You'll find there is no such passage.
> 
> Beliefs compete *constantly*. The entire idea of an election is predicated on people with different beliefs trying to convince a relevant majority of their fellow citizens that the laws and representatives who write it should reflect their beliefs rather than some other guy's.
> 
> *Your entire conception of the 1st amendment is imaginary nonsense.* Nor is there any mandate, anywhere, that all beliefs should be equally represented in our laws.
> 
> So far your entire argument has to been to restate the same nonsense premise, that all beliefs must be represented equally. And they don't. Nor have they ever.
> 
> So....what else have you got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. The First Amendment was written literally for Congress
> and states that
> *Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
> of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*
> 
> which has been paraphrased by the left who call it
> "separation of church and state"
> which means the govt is not to be used to endorse or impose "religious beliefs"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where does it say a thing about beliefs? If I believe there should be same sex marriage......that's not 'establishing religion'. Or inhibiting anyone else's right to practice it.
> 
> Again, your mandate that all rights must be represented equally doesn't exist in our laws, our constitution, or our nation's history. Beliefs compete. And some lose. Those that lose are no represented in our laws. Those that win are.
> 
> And your beliefs grant you no authority to abrogate anyone else's rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q:
> do you and I agree on the MEANING of the First Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not. As you've equated any belief with religion. The 1st amendment never so much as mentions beliefs. Let alone forbids laws based on them.
> 
> You've literally imagined your entire premise. And the 1st amendment makes no mention of anything you've argued. Not one thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do we agree that Congress is not supposed to pass laws
> that either "establish OR prohibit" beliefs (you can say just
> religious beliefs if you want to take this literally; but to avoid
> discrimination I interpret it to ALL beliefs so everyone's rights are
> included and defended equally, regardless if they affiliate or identify with a religion or not.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we do not agree. As beliefs aren't even mentioned in the constitution. I can hold a belief that we should have speeding laws. Per your wildly bizarre interpretation of the 1st amendment, that somehow violates the separation of church and state.
> 
> Back in reality, there's no such violation. As a belief doesn't necessarily establish any religion. You merely calling anything you disagree with 'religion' doesn't magically make it so.
> 
> All you've done is switch to a useless false equivalency fallacy....insisting that any belief on any topic is religion.
> 
> Um, no. Its not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if that's all we disagree on -- whether this applies to ALL beliefs
> or just established religions, that is normal to interpret the law as only applying to religious beliefs
> due to established precedent and case history etc.)
> 
> 2. the Fourteenth Amendment
> expanded to the STATES
> the protection of rights of people under state jurisdiction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And recognizing same sex marraige violates no rights. While denying same sex marriage violates rights. They're literal opposites.
> 
> Opposites are not 'equal'. One would think this was obvious.
> 
> Again, you bizarrely insist that beliefs and right are the same thing. And you're obviously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RE: Speeding laws
> These are secular issues
> and we all agree there are no religious beliefs involved there.
Click to expand...


So if YOU have a religiously based problem with _anything_....suddenly someone *else's* belief about it is religion?

That's ludicrous.

If I support a woman's right to choose....and you believe that abortion is a mortal sin based on your religion....*then my belief about a woman's right to choose suddenly becomes religious?*

Um, nope. 

Nor does your belief  grant you the authority to impose your will on another woman's body. Her rights trump your beliefs regarding the use of her own body. Your beliefs grant you no authority. Nor is there any constitutional crisis as there is no constitutional restriction about 'establishing or denying beliefs'.

You made that up. And your imagination has no constitutional relevance.


----------



## emilynghiem

Skylar said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs."
> 
> Nonsense - the issue has nothing to do with the First Amendment, no government is seeking to restrict or deny anyone's beliefs.
> 
> The 14th Amendment jurisprudence that invalidated state laws denying same-sex couples access to marriage laws applies solely to government, not to private persons or organizations, such as churches.
> 
> Both individuals and religious entities are at complete liberty to discriminate against same-sex couples in the context of religious dogma, and private citizens are at complete liberty to hate gay Americans with impunity, to believe that homosexuality is 'immoral,' and to freely express their hostility toward gay Americans, free from unwarranted interference by any government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones and Skylar
> while I AGREE with you that bans on same sex marriage
> getting struck down as unconstitutional
> 
> I DISAGREE with your continued assertion that
> state sanctioning and endorsing same sex marriage
> isn't ALSO crossing the line and involving the
> state in matters of private personal spiritual religious and political beliefs,
> but I argue since the people in states DON'T agree yet on the polices
> and how they are written, then no such laws should be endorsed or
> enforced as public policy UNTIL and UNLESS the affected public agrees and consents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. If the public wants to pass a law that violates rights, the rights of the individual trumps that authority.
> 
> And bans on same sex marriage violated the right to marry and equal protection restrictions on state laws. Thus, they had no authority.
> 
> Universal consent is not necessary for a law to be enacted. Nor for a law to be repealed. Nor has it ever been.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They need to go back to the drawing board
> and revise policies and programs so people DO agree
> that it me ets Constitutional standards and ethics,
> neither establishing or denying beliefs,
> endorsing or excluding, discriminating or penalizing etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional standard about the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'.
> 
> You've made that up. And your imagination creates no constitutional crisis.
Click to expand...


For a law to have authority of the people,
consent is necessary.

* See Declaration of Independence
on the just powers of govt being DERIVED FROM CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED
* See Texas Bill of Rights

*Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.*

This is a principle from NATURAL LAW, reflecting human nature.

All people I've ever met
only consented "SO FAR" to submit to govt for collective/representative decisions
and PEOPLE GENERALLY DO NOT CONSENT to put their BELIEFS in the hands of govt to mandate for them.

I've never ever met a person who agreed to give up their
beliefs to govt.  And whenever that does happen,
such as in the case of people objecting to abortion,
the death penalty, gay marriage bans, or state endorsement of gay marriage,
they always fight and do not CONSENT.

Thus they push until laws change because they do not agree
where the govt goes against their beliefs. Thus the process
of petitioning continues until grievances are redressed.

I've never seen anyone who didn't protest
when their BELIEFS were infringed upon.

It's human nature to defend our free will and consent.


----------



## Skylar

emilynghiem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs."
> 
> Nonsense - the issue has nothing to do with the First Amendment, no government is seeking to restrict or deny anyone's beliefs.
> 
> The 14th Amendment jurisprudence that invalidated state laws denying same-sex couples access to marriage laws applies solely to government, not to private persons or organizations, such as churches.
> 
> Both individuals and religious entities are at complete liberty to discriminate against same-sex couples in the context of religious dogma, and private citizens are at complete liberty to hate gay Americans with impunity, to believe that homosexuality is 'immoral,' and to freely express their hostility toward gay Americans, free from unwarranted interference by any government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones and Skylar
> while I AGREE with you that bans on same sex marriage
> getting struck down as unconstitutional
> 
> I DISAGREE with your continued assertion that
> state sanctioning and endorsing same sex marriage
> isn't ALSO crossing the line and involving the
> state in matters of private personal spiritual religious and political beliefs,
> but I argue since the people in states DON'T agree yet on the polices
> and how they are written, then no such laws should be endorsed or
> enforced as public policy UNTIL and UNLESS the affected public agrees and consents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. If the public wants to pass a law that violates rights, the rights of the individual trumps that authority.
> 
> And bans on same sex marriage violated the right to marry and equal protection restrictions on state laws. Thus, they had no authority.
> 
> Universal consent is not necessary for a law to be enacted. Nor for a law to be repealed. Nor has it ever been.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They need to go back to the drawing board
> and revise policies and programs so people DO agree
> that it me ets Constitutional standards and ethics,
> neither establishing or denying beliefs,
> endorsing or excluding, discriminating or penalizing etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional standard about the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'.
> 
> You've made that up. And your imagination creates no constitutional crisis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For a law to have authority of the people,
> consent is necessary.
Click to expand...


Consent by a relevant majority.  Not universal consent. And the constitution is the highest law in the land. If a law passed by a given state violate this highest law, the constitution is given preference over the state law that violates it.

This is constitution 101. The relevant majority has every authority to impose its will* on the condition that it doesn't violate rights. *
When rights are violated, the laws of the relevant majority are invalid.

Your insistence on universal consent has nothing to do with our laws, nor ever has. We have always used the relevant majority as the basis of consent of the governed. Your views aren't reflected in our nation's history, our laws or our constitution.

You simply don't understand how our republic works, how democracy works, or the most fundamental tenets of governance. Universal consent and total agreement by the people is not, nor has ever been a requirement for ANY law.

Once again, you've imagined it.



> Thus they push until laws change because they do not agree
> where the govt goes against their beliefs. Thus the process
> of petitioning continues until grievances are redressed.



The redress of greviances is simply a case being heard and adjudicated. You don't understand what such redress even is. You don't follow the meaning of the terms you're trying to use.

And its this fundamental misunderstanding of basic terms that is the heart of your profound misunderstanding on how democracy works.

It has NEVER been about universal consent. It has NEVER been about absolute consensus. There have ALWAYS been disagreements. And some beliefs win while others lose. With the will of the relevant majority expressed in our law as long as those laws don't violate individual rights.


----------



## emilynghiem

Skylar said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> *RE: Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.
> 
> SORRY Skylar
> but by the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first amendment says no such thing. You've imagined it. And I defy you to cite the amendment indicating that the government lacks the authority to forward one belief over another.
> 
> You'll find there is no such passage.
> 
> Beliefs compete *constantly*. The entire idea of an election is predicated on people with different beliefs trying to convince a relevant majority of their fellow citizens that the laws and representatives who write it should reflect their beliefs rather than some other guy's.
> 
> *Your entire conception of the 1st amendment is imaginary nonsense.* Nor is there any mandate, anywhere, that all beliefs should be equally represented in our laws.
> 
> So far your entire argument has to been to restate the same nonsense premise, that all beliefs must be represented equally. And they don't. Nor have they ever.
> 
> So....what else have you got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. The First Amendment was written literally for Congress
> and states that
> *Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
> of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*
> 
> which has been paraphrased by the left who call it
> "separation of church and state"
> which means the govt is not to be used to endorse or impose "religious beliefs"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where does it say a thing about beliefs? If I believe there should be same sex marriage......that's not 'establishing religion'. Or inhibiting anyone else's right to practice it.
> 
> Again, your mandate that all rights must be represented equally doesn't exist in our laws, our constitution, or our nation's history. Beliefs compete. And some lose. Those that lose are no represented in our laws. Those that win are.
> 
> And your beliefs grant you no authority to abrogate anyone else's rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q:
> do you and I agree on the MEANING of the First Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not. As you've equated any belief with religion. The 1st amendment never so much as mentions beliefs. Let alone forbids laws based on them.
> 
> You've literally imagined your entire premise. And the 1st amendment makes no mention of anything you've argued. Not one thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do we agree that Congress is not supposed to pass laws
> that either "establish OR prohibit" beliefs (you can say just
> religious beliefs if you want to take this literally; but to avoid
> discrimination I interpret it to ALL beliefs so everyone's rights are
> included and defended equally, regardless if they affiliate or identify with a religion or not.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we do not agree. As beliefs aren't even mentioned in the constitution. I can hold a belief that we should have speeding laws. Per your wildly bizarre interpretation of the 1st amendment, that somehow violates the separation of church and state.
> 
> Back in reality, there's no such violation. As a belief doesn't necessarily establish any religion. You merely calling anything you disagree with 'religion' doesn't magically make it so.
> 
> All you've done is switch to a useless false equivalency fallacy....insisting that any belief on any topic is religion.
> 
> Um, no. Its not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if that's all we disagree on -- whether this applies to ALL beliefs
> or just established religions, that is normal to interpret the law as only applying to religious beliefs
> due to established precedent and case history etc.)
> 
> 2. the Fourteenth Amendment
> expanded to the STATES
> the protection of rights of people under state jurisdiction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And recognizing same sex marraige violates no rights. While denying same sex marriage violates rights. They're literal opposites.
> 
> Opposites are not 'equal'. One would think this was obvious.
> 
> Again, you bizarrely insist that beliefs and right are the same thing. And you're obviously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RE: Speeding laws
> These are secular issues
> and we all agree there are no religious beliefs involved there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if YOU have a religiously based problem with _anything_....suddenly someone *else's* belief about it is religion?
> 
> That's ludicrous.
> 
> If I support a woman's right to choose....and you believe that abortion is a mortal sin based on your religion....*then my belief about a woman's right to choose suddenly becomes religious?*
> 
> Um, nope.
> 
> Nor does your belief  grant you the authority to impose your will on another woman's body. Her rights trump your beliefs regarding the use of her own body. Your beliefs grant you no authority. Nor is there any constitutional crisis as there is no constitutional restriction about 'establishing or denying beliefs'.
> 
> You made that up. And your imagination has no constitutional relevance.
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't 'become' religious, randomly or suddenly.
Beliefs are already there, inherently, before the issues ever came up.

It is NOT random that people argue something affects their beliefs.

I spelled out a list of SPECIFIC areas I have found
where people have beliefs they cannot help and will fight to defend because it is inherent in their identity.

You cannot "make this stuff up"

People automatically go off about their gun rights, or right to choose,
or right to life.  

It does not have to be "religious" to be on the level of BELIEFS.

They do not "randomly decide" they have this deep an issue with something.
I find people honestly cannot help their beliefs.
No more than atheists can help not seeing the world in terms of a personified God,
or a Christian who has found the Kingdom of God through healing and prayer in Christ
cannot help their beliefs either.

Transgender people cannot help that they experience a certain spiritual identity
and that's who they are.

All these boil down to faith based beliefs,
and although "theoretically or hypothetically" people "could" change,
when it comes to people's beliefs, they believe what they believe.

So I've just learned to recognize and respect where people have
these beliefs they don't believe govt has the right to force them to change.

And I agree to work with those preferences and identities
people have, out of respect for religious freedom,
consent of the governed, democratic process, and
equal protection, inclusion and representation.

I find all that is necessary for people to have
equal access to democratic process
and equal protection of the laws.

The first step is to recognize they have the right to their
beliefs and to exercise these, and the next steps involve
mastering the communicating and relations to resolve
any conflicts in the way of equal exercise protection and inclusion;
and the last steps involve the actual implementation and how
to work and coordinate with all groups and models, so all people maximize
and realize this equal fulfillment and manifestation of all our respective parts we play
in the process of establishing peace and justice in a sustainable society.


----------



## Skylar

emilynghiem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first amendment says no such thing. You've imagined it. And I defy you to cite the amendment indicating that the government lacks the authority to forward one belief over another.
> 
> You'll find there is no such passage.
> 
> Beliefs compete *constantly*. The entire idea of an election is predicated on people with different beliefs trying to convince a relevant majority of their fellow citizens that the laws and representatives who write it should reflect their beliefs rather than some other guy's.
> 
> *Your entire conception of the 1st amendment is imaginary nonsense.* Nor is there any mandate, anywhere, that all beliefs should be equally represented in our laws.
> 
> So far your entire argument has to been to restate the same nonsense premise, that all beliefs must be represented equally. And they don't. Nor have they ever.
> 
> So....what else have you got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The First Amendment was written literally for Congress
> and states that
> *Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
> of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*
> 
> which has been paraphrased by the left who call it
> "separation of church and state"
> which means the govt is not to be used to endorse or impose "religious beliefs"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where does it say a thing about beliefs? If I believe there should be same sex marriage......that's not 'establishing religion'. Or inhibiting anyone else's right to practice it.
> 
> Again, your mandate that all rights must be represented equally doesn't exist in our laws, our constitution, or our nation's history. Beliefs compete. And some lose. Those that lose are no represented in our laws. Those that win are.
> 
> And your beliefs grant you no authority to abrogate anyone else's rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q:
> do you and I agree on the MEANING of the First Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not. As you've equated any belief with religion. The 1st amendment never so much as mentions beliefs. Let alone forbids laws based on them.
> 
> You've literally imagined your entire premise. And the 1st amendment makes no mention of anything you've argued. Not one thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do we agree that Congress is not supposed to pass laws
> that either "establish OR prohibit" beliefs (you can say just
> religious beliefs if you want to take this literally; but to avoid
> discrimination I interpret it to ALL beliefs so everyone's rights are
> included and defended equally, regardless if they affiliate or identify with a religion or not.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we do not agree. As beliefs aren't even mentioned in the constitution. I can hold a belief that we should have speeding laws. Per your wildly bizarre interpretation of the 1st amendment, that somehow violates the separation of church and state.
> 
> Back in reality, there's no such violation. As a belief doesn't necessarily establish any religion. You merely calling anything you disagree with 'religion' doesn't magically make it so.
> 
> All you've done is switch to a useless false equivalency fallacy....insisting that any belief on any topic is religion.
> 
> Um, no. Its not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if that's all we disagree on -- whether this applies to ALL beliefs
> or just established religions, that is normal to interpret the law as only applying to religious beliefs
> due to established precedent and case history etc.)
> 
> 2. the Fourteenth Amendment
> expanded to the STATES
> the protection of rights of people under state jurisdiction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And recognizing same sex marraige violates no rights. While denying same sex marriage violates rights. They're literal opposites.
> 
> Opposites are not 'equal'. One would think this was obvious.
> 
> Again, you bizarrely insist that beliefs and right are the same thing. And you're obviously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RE: Speeding laws
> These are secular issues
> and we all agree there are no religious beliefs involved there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if YOU have a religiously based problem with _anything_....suddenly someone *else's* belief about it is religion?
> 
> That's ludicrous.
> 
> If I support a woman's right to choose....and you believe that abortion is a mortal sin based on your religion....*then my belief about a woman's right to choose suddenly becomes religious?*
> 
> Um, nope.
> 
> Nor does your belief  grant you the authority to impose your will on another woman's body. Her rights trump your beliefs regarding the use of her own body. Your beliefs grant you no authority. Nor is there any constitutional crisis as there is no constitutional restriction about 'establishing or denying beliefs'.
> 
> You made that up. And your imagination has no constitutional relevance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't 'become' religious, randomly or suddenly.
> Beliefs are already there, inherently, before the issues ever came up.
Click to expand...


The constitution offers no restriction on the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'. You've made that up. The 1st amendment makes zero mention of it. No amendment does.

And your imagination has no constitutional relevance. Eliminating your entire argument.



> I spelled out a list of SPECIFIC areas I have found
> where people have beliefs they cannot help and will fight to defend because it is inherent in their identity.



None of which has a thing to do with religion. As I've addressed your 'specific area' directly: You believe that abortion is a religious sin. I think a woman should have the right to control her own body.

Q: What amendment in the constitution restrictions the establishment of the right to abortion based on the belief that a woman should have the right to control her own body?

A: There is none.

That YOU believe in a religious basis of abortion restriction has zero constitutional or rational relevance to another woman's right to have an abortion. There is no 1st amendment violation, as the 1st amendment doesn't even mention the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'. Let alone forbid either.

You've made that up. And your imagination is constitutionally irrelevant.


> The first step is to recognize they have the right to their
> beliefs and to exercise these, and the next steps involve
> mastering the communicating and relations to resolve
> any conflicts in the way of equal exercise protection and inclusion;
> and the last steps involve the actual implementation and how
> to work and coordinate with all groups and models, so all people maximize and realize this equal fulfillment and manifestation of all our respective parts we play in the process of establishing peace and justice in a sustainable society.



Nope. You having a right to your beliefs doesn't mean that you have a right for those beliefs to be equally represented in our laws.

If you believe that its a religious sin for interracial couples to marry, there is zero constitutional obligation that the law reflect your views equally with those who believe they should be able to marry inter-racially.
*
Your belief does not trump other people's rights. 
*
And when a law violates rights, the law is invalid.


----------



## emilynghiem

Skylar said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs."
> 
> Nonsense - the issue has nothing to do with the First Amendment, no government is seeking to restrict or deny anyone's beliefs.
> 
> The 14th Amendment jurisprudence that invalidated state laws denying same-sex couples access to marriage laws applies solely to government, not to private persons or organizations, such as churches.
> 
> Both individuals and religious entities are at complete liberty to discriminate against same-sex couples in the context of religious dogma, and private citizens are at complete liberty to hate gay Americans with impunity, to believe that homosexuality is 'immoral,' and to freely express their hostility toward gay Americans, free from unwarranted interference by any government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones and Skylar
> while I AGREE with you that bans on same sex marriage
> getting struck down as unconstitutional
> 
> I DISAGREE with your continued assertion that
> state sanctioning and endorsing same sex marriage
> isn't ALSO crossing the line and involving the
> state in matters of private personal spiritual religious and political beliefs,
> but I argue since the people in states DON'T agree yet on the polices
> and how they are written, then no such laws should be endorsed or
> enforced as public policy UNTIL and UNLESS the affected public agrees and consents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. If the public wants to pass a law that violates rights, the rights of the individual trumps that authority.
> 
> And bans on same sex marriage violated the right to marry and equal protection restrictions on state laws. Thus, they had no authority.
> 
> Universal consent is not necessary for a law to be enacted. Nor for a law to be repealed. Nor has it ever been.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They need to go back to the drawing board
> and revise policies and programs so people DO agree
> that it me ets Constitutional standards and ethics,
> neither establishing or denying beliefs,
> endorsing or excluding, discriminating or penalizing etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional standard about the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'.
> 
> You've made that up. And your imagination creates no constitutional crisis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For a law to have authority of the people,
> consent is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consent by a relevant majority.  Not universal consent. And the constitution is the highest law in the land. If a law passed by a given state violate this highest law, the constitution is given preference over the state law that violates it.
> 
> This is constitution 101. The relevant majority has every authority to impose its will* on the condition that it doesn't violate rights. *
> When rights are violated, the laws of the relevant majority are invalid.
> 
> Your insistence on universal consent has nothing to do with our laws, nor ever has. We have always used the relevant majority as the basis of consent of the governed. Your views aren't reflected in our nation's history, our laws or our constitution.
> 
> You simply don't understand how our republic works, how democracy works, or the most fundamental tenets of governance. Universal consent and total agreement by the people is not, nor has ever been a requirement for ANY law.
> 
> Once again, you've imagined it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus they push until laws change because they do not agree
> where the govt goes against their beliefs. Thus the process
> of petitioning continues until grievances are redressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The redress of greviances is simply a case being heard and adjudicated. You don't understand what such redress even is. You don't follow the meaning of the terms you're trying to use.
> 
> And its this fundamental misunderstanding of basic terms that is the heart of your profound misunderstanding on how democracy works.
> 
> It has NEVER been about universal consent. It has NEVER been about absolute consensus. There have ALWAYS been disagreements. And some beliefs win while others lose. With the will of the relevant majority expressed in our law as long as those laws don't violate individual rights.
Click to expand...


I AGREE with you we have never fully realized consensus, "equal justice under law"
and full and equal representation and protection of all interests.

But that IS the spirit of what our laws PRESCRIBE and ASPIRE to.

* Equal Justice Under Law
I agree the current system is bought out by the bigger bully
with more resources, and this isn't equal access to justice much less protection

I am arguing to defend the standards that WOULD
FULFILL "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

* Equal protections under law
Again, we don't have this yet.

That's why I am arguing to defend standards and principles
CONSISTENTLY THAT WOULD ALLOW EQUAL PROTECTIONS OF ALL PEOPLE'S CONSENT AND INTEREST

* our laws in the Bill of Rights (and Code of Ethics for Govt Service)
ALREADY PRESCRIBE THE STANDARDS that if we followed
would ensure all people are treated equally
See where I posted them here: http://www.ethics-commission.net

Just because we have never practiced or established this consistently
doesn't mean we shouldn't respect what are laws ALREADY claim to protect!

The problem is we aren't enforcing them equally.

We allow bigger bullies to get away with wrongs,
and don't hold them to correct those. So this pattern keeps happening.

But if you look at the pattern of behavior in RESPONDING to
these ongoing wrongs, you will always see people
* protesting or objecting
* petitioning (in one form or another)
* demanding restitution or "redress of grievances"

So that is an inherent part of the political process also.

Until people's consent is respected, this cycle will continue
to force reforms and corrections. That's justice at work.
As they say "no justice, no peace"

The process continues until objections/grievances are resolved.


----------



## Skylar

emilynghiem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs."
> 
> Nonsense - the issue has nothing to do with the First Amendment, no government is seeking to restrict or deny anyone's beliefs.
> 
> The 14th Amendment jurisprudence that invalidated state laws denying same-sex couples access to marriage laws applies solely to government, not to private persons or organizations, such as churches.
> 
> Both individuals and religious entities are at complete liberty to discriminate against same-sex couples in the context of religious dogma, and private citizens are at complete liberty to hate gay Americans with impunity, to believe that homosexuality is 'immoral,' and to freely express their hostility toward gay Americans, free from unwarranted interference by any government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones and Skylar
> while I AGREE with you that bans on same sex marriage
> getting struck down as unconstitutional
> 
> I DISAGREE with your continued assertion that
> state sanctioning and endorsing same sex marriage
> isn't ALSO crossing the line and involving the
> state in matters of private personal spiritual religious and political beliefs,
> but I argue since the people in states DON'T agree yet on the polices
> and how they are written, then no such laws should be endorsed or
> enforced as public policy UNTIL and UNLESS the affected public agrees and consents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. If the public wants to pass a law that violates rights, the rights of the individual trumps that authority.
> 
> And bans on same sex marriage violated the right to marry and equal protection restrictions on state laws. Thus, they had no authority.
> 
> Universal consent is not necessary for a law to be enacted. Nor for a law to be repealed. Nor has it ever been.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They need to go back to the drawing board
> and revise policies and programs so people DO agree
> that it me ets Constitutional standards and ethics,
> neither establishing or denying beliefs,
> endorsing or excluding, discriminating or penalizing etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional standard about the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'.
> 
> You've made that up. And your imagination creates no constitutional crisis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For a law to have authority of the people,
> consent is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consent by a relevant majority.  Not universal consent. And the constitution is the highest law in the land. If a law passed by a given state violate this highest law, the constitution is given preference over the state law that violates it.
> 
> This is constitution 101. The relevant majority has every authority to impose its will* on the condition that it doesn't violate rights. *
> When rights are violated, the laws of the relevant majority are invalid.
> 
> Your insistence on universal consent has nothing to do with our laws, nor ever has. We have always used the relevant majority as the basis of consent of the governed. Your views aren't reflected in our nation's history, our laws or our constitution.
> 
> You simply don't understand how our republic works, how democracy works, or the most fundamental tenets of governance. Universal consent and total agreement by the people is not, nor has ever been a requirement for ANY law.
> 
> Once again, you've imagined it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus they push until laws change because they do not agree
> where the govt goes against their beliefs. Thus the process
> of petitioning continues until grievances are redressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The redress of greviances is simply a case being heard and adjudicated. You don't understand what such redress even is. You don't follow the meaning of the terms you're trying to use.
> 
> And its this fundamental misunderstanding of basic terms that is the heart of your profound misunderstanding on how democracy works.
> 
> It has NEVER been about universal consent. It has NEVER been about absolute consensus. There have ALWAYS been disagreements. And some beliefs win while others lose. With the will of the relevant majority expressed in our law as long as those laws don't violate individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I AGREE with you we have never fully realized consensus, "equal justice under law"
> and full and equal representation and protection of all interests.
Click to expand...


Then you  just abandoned your own argument. As you were just arguing universal consent a few moments ago.
*
There is no obligation under our constitution that our law reflect ALL beliefs equally.* Nor has there ever been. You've made that up.
*
You're literally arguing your imagination.* Nothing you're arguing has ever been part of our law, our constitution, or our nation's history. And thus has exactly nothing to do with the constitutionality of any law or ruling.



> But that IS the spirit of what our laws PRESCRIBE and ASPIRE to.
> 
> * Equal Justice Under Law
> I agree the current system is bought out by the bigger bully
> with more resources, and this isn't equal access to justice much less protection
> 
> I am arguing to defend the standards that WOULD
> FULFILL "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
> 
> * Equal protections under law
> Again, we don't have this yet.



Yes, we do. When same sex couples are allowed to marry, they are treated the same as opposite sex couples. They are granted equal protection by the law, as the law treats them the same. No one's rights are being violated by allowing same sex couples to marry.

When we *restrict* same sex couples from gaining access to marriage, they are denied equal protection. They have a right to marry....and that right is denied them under our law. Thus, the law is invalid.

*Denying same sex couples rights is not the same thing as recognizing those rights. *And yet in defiance of all reason, you equate them.
*
Opposites are not equals. *


----------



## emilynghiem

Skylar said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The First Amendment was written literally for Congress
> and states that
> *Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
> of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*
> 
> which has been paraphrased by the left who call it
> "separation of church and state"
> which means the govt is not to be used to endorse or impose "religious beliefs"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where does it say a thing about beliefs? If I believe there should be same sex marriage......that's not 'establishing religion'. Or inhibiting anyone else's right to practice it.
> 
> Again, your mandate that all rights must be represented equally doesn't exist in our laws, our constitution, or our nation's history. Beliefs compete. And some lose. Those that lose are no represented in our laws. Those that win are.
> 
> And your beliefs grant you no authority to abrogate anyone else's rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q:
> do you and I agree on the MEANING of the First Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not. As you've equated any belief with religion. The 1st amendment never so much as mentions beliefs. Let alone forbids laws based on them.
> 
> You've literally imagined your entire premise. And the 1st amendment makes no mention of anything you've argued. Not one thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do we agree that Congress is not supposed to pass laws
> that either "establish OR prohibit" beliefs (you can say just
> religious beliefs if you want to take this literally; but to avoid
> discrimination I interpret it to ALL beliefs so everyone's rights are
> included and defended equally, regardless if they affiliate or identify with a religion or not.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we do not agree. As beliefs aren't even mentioned in the constitution. I can hold a belief that we should have speeding laws. Per your wildly bizarre interpretation of the 1st amendment, that somehow violates the separation of church and state.
> 
> Back in reality, there's no such violation. As a belief doesn't necessarily establish any religion. You merely calling anything you disagree with 'religion' doesn't magically make it so.
> 
> All you've done is switch to a useless false equivalency fallacy....insisting that any belief on any topic is religion.
> 
> Um, no. Its not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if that's all we disagree on -- whether this applies to ALL beliefs
> or just established religions, that is normal to interpret the law as only applying to religious beliefs
> due to established precedent and case history etc.)
> 
> 2. the Fourteenth Amendment
> expanded to the STATES
> the protection of rights of people under state jurisdiction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And recognizing same sex marraige violates no rights. While denying same sex marriage violates rights. They're literal opposites.
> 
> Opposites are not 'equal'. One would think this was obvious.
> 
> Again, you bizarrely insist that beliefs and right are the same thing. And you're obviously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RE: Speeding laws
> These are secular issues
> and we all agree there are no religious beliefs involved there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if YOU have a religiously based problem with _anything_....suddenly someone *else's* belief about it is religion?
> 
> That's ludicrous.
> 
> If I support a woman's right to choose....and you believe that abortion is a mortal sin based on your religion....*then my belief about a woman's right to choose suddenly becomes religious?*
> 
> Um, nope.
> 
> Nor does your belief  grant you the authority to impose your will on another woman's body. Her rights trump your beliefs regarding the use of her own body. Your beliefs grant you no authority. Nor is there any constitutional crisis as there is no constitutional restriction about 'establishing or denying beliefs'.
> 
> You made that up. And your imagination has no constitutional relevance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't 'become' religious, randomly or suddenly.
> Beliefs are already there, inherently, before the issues ever came up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution offers no restriction on the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'. You've made that up. The 1st amendment makes zero mention of it. No amendment does.
> 
> And your imagination has no constitutional relevance. Eliminating your entire argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I spelled out a list of SPECIFIC areas I have found
> where people have beliefs they cannot help and will fight to defend because it is inherent in their identity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of which has a thing to do with religion. As I've addressed your 'specific area' directly: You believe that abortion is a religious sin. I think a woman should have the right to control her own body.
> 
> Q: What amendment in the constitution restrictions the establishment of the right to abortion based on the belief that a woman should have the right to control her own body?
> 
> A: There is none.
> 
> That YOU believe in a religious basis of abortion restriction has zero constitutional or rational relevance to another woman's right to have an abortion. There is no 1st amendment violation, as the 1st amendment doesn't even mention the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'. Let alone forbid either.
> 
> You've made that up. And your imagination is constitutionally irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> The first step is to recognize they have the right to their
> beliefs and to exercise these, and the next steps involve
> mastering the communicating and relations to resolve
> any conflicts in the way of equal exercise protection and inclusion;
> and the last steps involve the actual implementation and how
> to work and coordinate with all groups and models, so all people maximize and realize this equal fulfillment and manifestation of all our respective parts we play in the process of establishing peace and justice in a sustainable society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You having a right to your beliefs doesn't mean that you have a right for those beliefs to be equally represented in our laws.
> 
> If you believe that its a religious sin for interracial couples to marry, there is zero constitutional obligation that the law reflect your views equally with those who believe they should be able to marry inter-racially.
> *
> Your belief does not trump other people's rights.
> *
> And when a law violates rights, the law is invalid.
Click to expand...


1. I was paraphrasing since I posted the First Amendment verbatim as
*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
*
So I was EXPLAINING the two parts
on "respecting an establishment of religion" as meaning ESTABLISHING or ENDORSING
and on not "prohibiting the free exercise" as meaning not DENYING OR BANNING
as in gay marriage being banned

Skylar if you are SO LITERAL
do you mean to tell me the First or the Fourteenth Amendment
has to SPECIFICALLY STATE "not to ban same sex marriage"
before it applies to that?

Isn't there something called INTERPRETATION
that allows "free exercise of religion" to INCLUDE
the "exercise of beliefs in same sex marriage"

or does the law have to say that VERBATIM to apply?

is that what's wrong with liberal minds that take laws LITERALLY?
so if they don't say that IN WRITING
you don't feel you have equal protection under the First Amendment already.
And to you it is legally necessary to have legislation to spell out
each and every application?

Is that why we aren't communicating?
Because to you it has to be that literal?


2. RE: 
*Your belief does not trump other people's rights. *
And when a law violates rights, the law is invalid

^ So when people argue this about *your belief* that "marriage is a right."
and any law you write for govt to endorse
that violates the First Amendment, Fourteenth or Tenth
is invalid?

does this same statement apply to you when
it's your beliefs that are crossing the line into govt jurisdiction?
Skylar


----------



## Skylar

emilynghiem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And where does it say a thing about beliefs? If I believe there should be same sex marriage......that's not 'establishing religion'. Or inhibiting anyone else's right to practice it.
> 
> Again, your mandate that all rights must be represented equally doesn't exist in our laws, our constitution, or our nation's history. Beliefs compete. And some lose. Those that lose are no represented in our laws. Those that win are.
> 
> And your beliefs grant you no authority to abrogate anyone else's rights.
> 
> Of course not. As you've equated any belief with religion. The 1st amendment never so much as mentions beliefs. Let alone forbids laws based on them.
> 
> You've literally imagined your entire premise. And the 1st amendment makes no mention of anything you've argued. Not one thing.
> 
> No, we do not agree. As beliefs aren't even mentioned in the constitution. I can hold a belief that we should have speeding laws. Per your wildly bizarre interpretation of the 1st amendment, that somehow violates the separation of church and state.
> 
> Back in reality, there's no such violation. As a belief doesn't necessarily establish any religion. You merely calling anything you disagree with 'religion' doesn't magically make it so.
> 
> All you've done is switch to a useless false equivalency fallacy....insisting that any belief on any topic is religion.
> 
> Um, no. Its not.
> 
> And recognizing same sex marraige violates no rights. While denying same sex marriage violates rights. They're literal opposites.
> 
> Opposites are not 'equal'. One would think this was obvious.
> 
> Again, you bizarrely insist that beliefs and right are the same thing. And you're obviously wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Speeding laws
> These are secular issues
> and we all agree there are no religious beliefs involved there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if YOU have a religiously based problem with _anything_....suddenly someone *else's* belief about it is religion?
> 
> That's ludicrous.
> 
> If I support a woman's right to choose....and you believe that abortion is a mortal sin based on your religion....*then my belief about a woman's right to choose suddenly becomes religious?*
> 
> Um, nope.
> 
> Nor does your belief  grant you the authority to impose your will on another woman's body. Her rights trump your beliefs regarding the use of her own body. Your beliefs grant you no authority. Nor is there any constitutional crisis as there is no constitutional restriction about 'establishing or denying beliefs'.
> 
> You made that up. And your imagination has no constitutional relevance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't 'become' religious, randomly or suddenly.
> Beliefs are already there, inherently, before the issues ever came up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution offers no restriction on the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'. You've made that up. The 1st amendment makes zero mention of it. No amendment does.
> 
> And your imagination has no constitutional relevance. Eliminating your entire argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I spelled out a list of SPECIFIC areas I have found
> where people have beliefs they cannot help and will fight to defend because it is inherent in their identity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of which has a thing to do with religion. As I've addressed your 'specific area' directly: You believe that abortion is a religious sin. I think a woman should have the right to control her own body.
> 
> Q: What amendment in the constitution restrictions the establishment of the right to abortion based on the belief that a woman should have the right to control her own body?
> 
> A: There is none.
> 
> That YOU believe in a religious basis of abortion restriction has zero constitutional or rational relevance to another woman's right to have an abortion. There is no 1st amendment violation, as the 1st amendment doesn't even mention the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'. Let alone forbid either.
> 
> You've made that up. And your imagination is constitutionally irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> The first step is to recognize they have the right to their
> beliefs and to exercise these, and the next steps involve
> mastering the communicating and relations to resolve
> any conflicts in the way of equal exercise protection and inclusion;
> and the last steps involve the actual implementation and how
> to work and coordinate with all groups and models, so all people maximize and realize this equal fulfillment and manifestation of all our respective parts we play in the process of establishing peace and justice in a sustainable society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You having a right to your beliefs doesn't mean that you have a right for those beliefs to be equally represented in our laws.
> 
> If you believe that its a religious sin for interracial couples to marry, there is zero constitutional obligation that the law reflect your views equally with those who believe they should be able to marry inter-racially.
> *
> Your belief does not trump other people's rights.
> *
> And when a law violates rights, the law is invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. I was paraphrasing since I posted the First Amendment verbatim as
> *Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
> of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*
Click to expand...


And by 'paraphrasing' you mean making shit up that the 1st amendment never even mentions, let alone forbids?

There is zero mention in the 1st amendment about prohibiting the establishment or denial of beliefs. You've made that up. And your imagination is constitutionally irrelevant.

You're kinda stuck here, Emily. As your entire argument is based on a premise that the 1st amendment never even mentions.



> Isn't there something called INTERPRETATION
> that allows "free exercise of religion" to INCLUDE
> the "exercise of beliefs in same sex marriage"
> 
> or does the law have to say that VERBATIM to apply?



Free excercise of religion means that you can practice and believe as you wish. It doesn't mean that you get to violate OTHER people's rights.

If you were REQUIRED to enter into a gay marriage against your religion, that would be a violation of free excercise of religion. But you're not. If you don't believe in gay marriage, you don't have to enter into one.

Yet somehow you've morphed 'free exercise' into you having the power to deny OTHER people the right to marry.....based on your 'belief'. And your belief confers no such authority.

Nor does denying you the ability to deny other people rights deny you of any right yourself.



> 2. RE:
> *Your belief does not trump other people's rights. *
> And when a law violates rights, the law is invalid
> 
> ^ So when people argue this about *your belief* that "marriage is a right."
> and any law you write for govt to endorse
> that violates the First Amendment, Fourteenth or Tenth
> is invalid?



Feel free to have those issues adjudicated by raising them in court to be judged on the merits of your argument. *You'll lose, as they're nonsense arguments. *But redress of grievances is simply the ability to bring your case to the law to be adjudicated without punishment from the government.

You won't be punished. You'll be laughed out of court for pseudo-legal nonsense. But you won't be punished. And thus, you'll have full redress of grievances.

Remember.....the mere EXISTENCE of a belief does not mean that it is legally or constitutionally valid. Or that it has the slightest relevance to either the constitution or the law. *You keep confusing anything you can possibly imagine with a constitutional crisis.*

And they aren't the same thing.


----------



## emilynghiem

Skylar said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones and Skylar
> while I AGREE with you that bans on same sex marriage
> getting struck down as unconstitutional
> 
> I DISAGREE with your continued assertion that
> state sanctioning and endorsing same sex marriage
> isn't ALSO crossing the line and involving the
> state in matters of private personal spiritual religious and political beliefs,
> but I argue since the people in states DON'T agree yet on the polices
> and how they are written, then no such laws should be endorsed or
> enforced as public policy UNTIL and UNLESS the affected public agrees and consents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. If the public wants to pass a law that violates rights, the rights of the individual trumps that authority.
> 
> And bans on same sex marriage violated the right to marry and equal protection restrictions on state laws. Thus, they had no authority.
> 
> Universal consent is not necessary for a law to be enacted. Nor for a law to be repealed. Nor has it ever been.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They need to go back to the drawing board
> and revise policies and programs so people DO agree
> that it me ets Constitutional standards and ethics,
> neither establishing or denying beliefs,
> endorsing or excluding, discriminating or penalizing etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional standard about the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'.
> 
> You've made that up. And your imagination creates no constitutional crisis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For a law to have authority of the people,
> consent is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consent by a relevant majority.  Not universal consent. And the constitution is the highest law in the land. If a law passed by a given state violate this highest law, the constitution is given preference over the state law that violates it.
> 
> This is constitution 101. The relevant majority has every authority to impose its will* on the condition that it doesn't violate rights. *
> When rights are violated, the laws of the relevant majority are invalid.
> 
> Your insistence on universal consent has nothing to do with our laws, nor ever has. We have always used the relevant majority as the basis of consent of the governed. Your views aren't reflected in our nation's history, our laws or our constitution.
> 
> You simply don't understand how our republic works, how democracy works, or the most fundamental tenets of governance. Universal consent and total agreement by the people is not, nor has ever been a requirement for ANY law.
> 
> Once again, you've imagined it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus they push until laws change because they do not agree
> where the govt goes against their beliefs. Thus the process
> of petitioning continues until grievances are redressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The redress of greviances is simply a case being heard and adjudicated. You don't understand what such redress even is. You don't follow the meaning of the terms you're trying to use.
> 
> And its this fundamental misunderstanding of basic terms that is the heart of your profound misunderstanding on how democracy works.
> 
> It has NEVER been about universal consent. It has NEVER been about absolute consensus. There have ALWAYS been disagreements. And some beliefs win while others lose. With the will of the relevant majority expressed in our law as long as those laws don't violate individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I AGREE with you we have never fully realized consensus, "equal justice under law"
> and full and equal representation and protection of all interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you  just abandoned your own argument. As you were just arguing universal consent a few moments ago.
> *
> There is no obligation under our constitution that our law reflect ALL beliefs equally.* Nor has there ever been. You've made that up.
> *
> You're literally arguing your imagination.* Nothing you're arguing has ever been part of our law, our constitution, or our nation's history. And thus has exactly nothing to do with the constitutionality of any law or ruling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that IS the spirit of what our laws PRESCRIBE and ASPIRE to.
> 
> * Equal Justice Under Law
> I agree the current system is bought out by the bigger bully
> with more resources, and this isn't equal access to justice much less protection
> 
> I am arguing to defend the standards that WOULD
> FULFILL "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
> 
> * Equal protections under law
> Again, we don't have this yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, we do. When same sex couples are allowed to marry, they are treated the same as opposite sex couples. They are granted equal protection by the law, as the law treats them the same. No one's rights are being violated by allowing same sex couples to marry.
> 
> When we *restrict* same sex couples from gaining access to marriage, they are denied equal protection. They have a right to marry....and that right is denied them under our law. Thus, the law is invalid.
> 
> *Denying same sex couples rights is not the same thing as recognizing those rights. *And yet in defiance of all reason, you equate them.
> *
> Opposites are not equals. *
Click to expand...


Skylar I didn't say that
* I said once ONE set of beliefs gets represented in govt, then the others would have to be also
* or else REMOVE them all
So I agree with you the solution IS to remove references to beliefs from govt

Same with what I MEAN about universal or neutral language in the laws.

My whole point is that when it comes to beliefs,
people need to agree by free choice and can't be coerced.

So the FIRST step is to reach an AGREEMENT

then, naturally the laws will follow
so these will either include neutral/universal language that all people AGRE E to
OR people will AGREE to remove the references to beliefs from govt
OR people will AGREE to include all references in govt
(such as the rules in some cities that don't ban nativity scenes but allow
ANY GROUP to put up their displays equally. or policies that don't ban prayers
or religious references, but allow ANY GROUP to participate in same)

I am talking about the LARGER process of
resolving conflicts and forming a consensus first,
THEN writing/revising laws to REFLECT that agreement.

this process DOES NOT WORK by trying to dictate backwards.
I am NOT SAYING to take the end product
that naturally RESULTS once agreements/consensus are reached
"and try to require that" up front as you seem to be taking this as.

That is backwards from how the consensus process works.

I am not trying to dictate it based on the
DESCRIPTIONS and EXPLANATIONS
that you seem to be taking too LITERALLY.

Do you understand that is why we are talking past each other?

I am trying to describe what the consensus process ends up looking like
and what the standards are that end up being met. This is a DESCRIPTION.

You keep taking everything I describe
and object that the laws we have don't say those things literally.

Those laws are general.

When applied to each and every case, the end results are going
to be specific to each case. They are not going to be literally what
the First Amendment says, the Fourteenth, etc.

In general, when people follow the spirit of the laws
we don't have these conflicts and arguments.
We focus on the solutions we all agree are workable
and we write THOSE up.

I am talking about the GENERAL process
where people resolve conflicts directly with each other.

Is this too far a stretch for you to see that
the "democratic process" and process
of "redressing grievances" goes beyond just the govt
but it's the PEOPLE ourselves ad dressing
conflicts, grievances, objections, wrongs and corrections
directly with each other?

is that too far a leap since you read these laws so literally?


----------



## Skylar

emilynghiem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. If the public wants to pass a law that violates rights, the rights of the individual trumps that authority.
> 
> And bans on same sex marriage violated the right to marry and equal protection restrictions on state laws. Thus, they had no authority.
> 
> Universal consent is not necessary for a law to be enacted. Nor for a law to be repealed. Nor has it ever been.
> 
> There is no constitutional standard about the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'.
> 
> You've made that up. And your imagination creates no constitutional crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For a law to have authority of the people,
> consent is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consent by a relevant majority.  Not universal consent. And the constitution is the highest law in the land. If a law passed by a given state violate this highest law, the constitution is given preference over the state law that violates it.
> 
> This is constitution 101. The relevant majority has every authority to impose its will* on the condition that it doesn't violate rights. *
> When rights are violated, the laws of the relevant majority are invalid.
> 
> Your insistence on universal consent has nothing to do with our laws, nor ever has. We have always used the relevant majority as the basis of consent of the governed. Your views aren't reflected in our nation's history, our laws or our constitution.
> 
> You simply don't understand how our republic works, how democracy works, or the most fundamental tenets of governance. Universal consent and total agreement by the people is not, nor has ever been a requirement for ANY law.
> 
> Once again, you've imagined it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus they push until laws change because they do not agree
> where the govt goes against their beliefs. Thus the process
> of petitioning continues until grievances are redressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The redress of greviances is simply a case being heard and adjudicated. You don't understand what such redress even is. You don't follow the meaning of the terms you're trying to use.
> 
> And its this fundamental misunderstanding of basic terms that is the heart of your profound misunderstanding on how democracy works.
> 
> It has NEVER been about universal consent. It has NEVER been about absolute consensus. There have ALWAYS been disagreements. And some beliefs win while others lose. With the will of the relevant majority expressed in our law as long as those laws don't violate individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I AGREE with you we have never fully realized consensus, "equal justice under law"
> and full and equal representation and protection of all interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you  just abandoned your own argument. As you were just arguing universal consent a few moments ago.
> *
> There is no obligation under our constitution that our law reflect ALL beliefs equally.* Nor has there ever been. You've made that up.
> *
> You're literally arguing your imagination.* Nothing you're arguing has ever been part of our law, our constitution, or our nation's history. And thus has exactly nothing to do with the constitutionality of any law or ruling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that IS the spirit of what our laws PRESCRIBE and ASPIRE to.
> 
> * Equal Justice Under Law
> I agree the current system is bought out by the bigger bully
> with more resources, and this isn't equal access to justice much less protection
> 
> I am arguing to defend the standards that WOULD
> FULFILL "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
> 
> * Equal protections under law
> Again, we don't have this yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, we do. When same sex couples are allowed to marry, they are treated the same as opposite sex couples. They are granted equal protection by the law, as the law treats them the same. No one's rights are being violated by allowing same sex couples to marry.
> 
> When we *restrict* same sex couples from gaining access to marriage, they are denied equal protection. They have a right to marry....and that right is denied them under our law. Thus, the law is invalid.
> 
> *Denying same sex couples rights is not the same thing as recognizing those rights. *And yet in defiance of all reason, you equate them.
> *
> Opposites are not equals. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Skylar I didn't say that
> * I said once ONE set of beliefs gets represented in govt, then the others would have to be also
Click to expand...


Nope. There's no such requirement. The entire process of elections is to promote a particular set of beliefs over another. The federalists and the anti-federalists went head to head.* The Anti-federalists lost. Thus, the constitution did not reflect their beliefs.*

And we've followed the same pattern of competing beliefs ever since. That's how our republic works. That's how democracy works.

*Your proposal is irrelevant to our republic, democracy, our history, laws or constitution. *As there has never been a mandate that all beliefs be represented equally.

You imagined it.




> * or else REMOVE them all
> So I agree with you the solution IS to remove references to beliefs from govt



No you don't. As I've never argued that. I've argued the exact opposite....that the relevant majority has EVERY authority to impose its will through law unless such laws violate rights.

So we don't agree. And I've told you as much. And you've ignored what I've said....and replaced it with your imagination. Exactly as you've done with the 1st amendment.

And its just as irrelevant to me as its irrelevant to the constitution when you do it.


----------



## emilynghiem

OK lets start here:
RE: Free excercise of religion means that you can practice and believe as you wish. It doesn't mean that you get to violate OTHER people's rights.

If you were REQUIRED to enter into a gay marriage against your religion, that would be a violation of free excercise of religion. But you're not. If you don't believe in gay marriage, you don't have to enter into one.

Yet somehow you've morphed 'free exercise' into you having the power to deny OTHER people the right to marry.....based on your 'belief'. And your belief confers no such authority.

Nor does denying you the ability to deny other people rights deny you of any right yourself.
==================

^ AGREE ^ I just apply this consistently to all sides (while you only apply this to some)
including my own beliefs which I don't go around "mandating through govt" but respect free choice and consent to accept or not.
I respect the fact people like you object, but you don't respect the fact that people object to gay marriage rights endorsed through govt.
so you don't apply this concept back to your own beliefs, only to people you disagree with.

I agree that the
* bans excluding gay marriage and beliefs/exercise thereof violated equal constitutional rights and protections
AND I ALSO ADD THAT
* establishing gay marriage beliefs through govt
was DISCRIMINATORY because Christian beliefs about prayer/God etc are not allowed to be endorsed by govt

this is DISCRIMINATION
where one set of beliefs can be ENDORSED by govt as standard policy that all people must accept as included in public institutions
but another set is still being REMOVED based on principle

So by your quotes:
*RE: Free excercise of religion means that you can practice and believe as you wish. It doesn't mean that you get to violate OTHER people's rights.

If you were REQUIRED to enter into a gay marriage against your religion, that would be a violation of free excercise of religion. But you're not. If you don't believe in gay marriage, you don't have to enter into one.

Yet somehow you've morphed 'free exercise' into you having the power to deny OTHER people the right to marry.....based on your 'belief'. And your belief confers no such authority.

Nor does denying you the ability to deny other people rights deny you of any right yourself.*

this same law applies to gay marriage:
you have the right to exercise your beliefs
but NOT THE RIGHT TO ENDORSE YOUR BELIEFS THROUGH GOVT
WHILE OTHER PEOPLE'S BELIEFS ARE BARRED FROM ENDORSEMENT

I am arguing to respect the beliefs of all people,
while you exclude the beliefs/objections of dissenters, which you dismiss as invalid
since they don't meet the requirements you made up of "stripping someone of rights" <-- which isn't in the First Amendment either

So I argue that my interpretation applies equally to the beliefs of you and others on both sides.
Where you BOTH ne ed protection from infringement by the other.

While you only recognize where the other side infringes on yours and YOU ne ed protection,
but fail to enforce equal protection for the beliefs of the other side you dismiss as invalid and unequal to yours.

NOTE: WHERE IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT
does it require that someone has to be FORCED into a belief
in order for Congress/govt to be barred from establishing that belief?

As I pointed out before,
Atheists have sued to remove crosses on public property
that weren't "forcing them" in any way.
It was argued based on PRINCIPLE of public institutions
NOT endorsing or establishing a faith based belief or religious reference.

Do you acknowledge it is not a legal requirement to be forced
in order to remove a reference to God or other faith based
references people don't believe in?

Do we agree this isn't a legal requirement or definition?


----------



## emilynghiem

Skylar said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 95419
> 
> Here Skylar
> I drew you a diagram of the different ranges and realms of people's viewpoints.
> 
> Since govt and public institutions are supposed to include and protect people equally regardless of beliefs,
> then people like you who believe marriage is a right on the level of other Constitutional rights are in one group.
> 
> 
> 
> How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?
> 
> Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, *there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally. *
> 
> You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who disagree and believe otherwise, even rejecting one form of marriage or another, are in other groups.
> And I believe in treating and including all such beliefs equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.
> 
> You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So my goal is to work toward the OUTER SQUARE that accommodates all views even if they conflict with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.
> 
> You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.
> *
> Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. *Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Skylar
> It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
> to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does gay marriage have a thing to do with the 'separation of church and state'?
> 
> Again, you can any belief you want. But it doesn't mean that your view must be represented anywhere. Let alone in public institutions, our law, or our constitution.
> 
> If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one. But denying a gay or lesbian couple the right to marry because *you* have a belief is ludicrous. As they have a right to marry. And your 'belief' doesn't have any authority over their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
> or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
> then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no mandate that 'beliefs' be equally represented. Your entire argument is based on an imaginary, false, and fallacious premise.
> 
> Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *RE: Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.
> 
> SORRY Skylar
> but by the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first amendment says no such thing. You've imagined it. And I defy you to cite the amendment indicating that the government lacks the authority to forward one belief over another.
> 
> You'll find there is no such passage.
> 
> Beliefs compete *constantly*. The entire idea of an election is predicated on people with different beliefs trying to convince a relevant majority of their fellow citizens that the laws and representatives who write it should reflect their beliefs rather than some other guy's.
> 
> *Your entire conception of the 1st amendment is imaginary nonsense.* Nor is there any mandate, anywhere, that all beliefs should be equally represented in our laws.
> 
> So far your entire argument has to been to restate the same nonsense premise, that all beliefs must be represented equally. And they don't. Nor have they ever.
> 
> So....what else have you got?
Click to expand...


PS I posted both the VERBATIM First and Fourteenth Amendments
and my DESCRIPTIONS/EXPLANATIONS of what they mean in practice.

Don't get the two confused.

Now can you answer my question Skylar
where in the First Amendment does it say someone 
has to be forced to participate in a belief in order
for "Congress not to establish it" [or govt not to endorse it]?

Can you show me that condition in the First Amendment?
Or did you just "make that up"???


----------



## Skylar

emilynghiem said:


> OK lets start here:
> RE: Free excercise of religion means that you can practice and believe as you wish. It doesn't mean that you get to violate OTHER people's rights.
> 
> If you were REQUIRED to enter into a gay marriage against your religion, that would be a violation of free excercise of religion. But you're not. If you don't believe in gay marriage, you don't have to enter into one.
> 
> Yet somehow you've morphed 'free exercise' into you having the power to deny OTHER people the right to marry.....based on your 'belief'. And your belief confers no such authority.
> 
> Nor does denying you the ability to deny other people rights deny you of any right yourself.
> ==================
> 
> ^ AGREE ^ I just apply this consistently to all sides (while you only apply this to some)
> including my own beliefs which I don't go around "mandating through govt" but respect free choice and consent to accept or not.
> I respect the fact people like you object, but you don't respect the fact that people object to gay marriage rights endorsed through govt.



No, you haven't applied it 'consistently to all sides'. *As when a gay couple is allowed to marry.....you don't lose any rights. *If they aren't allowed to marry, THEY lose rights.

*I don't think consistent means what you think it means. *As what you've proposed is wildly INconsistent. Where no rights are violated in recognizing same sex marriage. And the rights of tens of thousands are violated in denying it.

Once again, opposites are not equals.




> * establishing gay marriage beliefs through govt
> was DISCRIMINATORY because Christian beliefs about prayer/God etc are not allowed to be endorsed by govt



Your 'christian beliefs' have nothing to do with someone else's rights. Nor are your rights to excercise your religion freely violated when someone ELSE is allowed to marry.

Beliefs are not rights. Nor does your belief trump someone else's rights. Nor is there any constitutional prohibition about the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'. You made that up.

You're stuck here too, Emily.



> this is DISCRIMINATION
> where one set of beliefs can be ENDORSED by govt as standard policy that all people must accept as included in public institutions
> but another set is still being REMOVED based on principle



Christians aren't being removed from marriage. They can still marry. Negating your entire nonsense argument.



> As I pointed out before,
> Atheists have sued to remove crosses on public property
> that weren't "forcing them" in any way.
> It was argued based on PRINCIPLE of public institutions
> NOT endorsing or establishing a faith based belief or religious reference.




A gay couple being allowed civil marriage isn't establishing any religion. Negating yet another nonsense argument.


----------



## Skylar

emilynghiem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?
> 
> Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, *there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally. *
> 
> You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.
> 
> And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.
> 
> You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.
> 
> Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.
> 
> You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.
> *
> Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. *Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Skylar
> It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
> to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does gay marriage have a thing to do with the 'separation of church and state'?
> 
> Again, you can any belief you want. But it doesn't mean that your view must be represented anywhere. Let alone in public institutions, our law, or our constitution.
> 
> If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one. But denying a gay or lesbian couple the right to marry because *you* have a belief is ludicrous. As they have a right to marry. And your 'belief' doesn't have any authority over their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
> or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
> then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no mandate that 'beliefs' be equally represented. Your entire argument is based on an imaginary, false, and fallacious premise.
> 
> Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *RE: Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.
> 
> SORRY Skylar
> but by the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first amendment says no such thing. You've imagined it. And I defy you to cite the amendment indicating that the government lacks the authority to forward one belief over another.
> 
> You'll find there is no such passage.
> 
> Beliefs compete *constantly*. The entire idea of an election is predicated on people with different beliefs trying to convince a relevant majority of their fellow citizens that the laws and representatives who write it should reflect their beliefs rather than some other guy's.
> 
> *Your entire conception of the 1st amendment is imaginary nonsense.* Nor is there any mandate, anywhere, that all beliefs should be equally represented in our laws.
> 
> So far your entire argument has to been to restate the same nonsense premise, that all beliefs must be represented equally. And they don't. Nor have they ever.
> 
> So....what else have you got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PS I posted both the VERBATIM First and Fourteenth Amendments
> and my DESCRIPTIONS/EXPLANATIONS of what they mean in practice.
Click to expand...


And neither made the slightest mention of the prohibition of the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'.

You made that up. And your imagination is constitutionally irrelevant. 

Sorry, Emily....but you can't get around that.



> Now can you answer my question Skylar
> where in the First Amendment does it say someone
> has to be forced to participate in a belief in order
> for "Congress not to establish it" [or govt not to endorse it]?



How is the law recognizing someone *else's* marriage 'forcing you to participate'? 

*Again, you're not getting married. Nor are you denied ANY rights to marriage. *You can refuse to enter into a same sex marriage if you wish. And you can believe whatever you'd like on same sex marriage. 

*But the law isn't obligated to reflect your beliefs.* As there is no constitutional mandate that all beliefs be equally represented in the law.

You've made that up too. And your imagination is still gloriously irrelevant to the constitution.


----------



## emilynghiem

Skylar said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> For a law to have authority of the people,
> consent is necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consent by a relevant majority.  Not universal consent. And the constitution is the highest law in the land. If a law passed by a given state violate this highest law, the constitution is given preference over the state law that violates it.
> 
> This is constitution 101. The relevant majority has every authority to impose its will* on the condition that it doesn't violate rights. *
> When rights are violated, the laws of the relevant majority are invalid.
> 
> Your insistence on universal consent has nothing to do with our laws, nor ever has. We have always used the relevant majority as the basis of consent of the governed. Your views aren't reflected in our nation's history, our laws or our constitution.
> 
> You simply don't understand how our republic works, how democracy works, or the most fundamental tenets of governance. Universal consent and total agreement by the people is not, nor has ever been a requirement for ANY law.
> 
> Once again, you've imagined it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus they push until laws change because they do not agree
> where the govt goes against their beliefs. Thus the process
> of petitioning continues until grievances are redressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The redress of greviances is simply a case being heard and adjudicated. You don't understand what such redress even is. You don't follow the meaning of the terms you're trying to use.
> 
> And its this fundamental misunderstanding of basic terms that is the heart of your profound misunderstanding on how democracy works.
> 
> It has NEVER been about universal consent. It has NEVER been about absolute consensus. There have ALWAYS been disagreements. And some beliefs win while others lose. With the will of the relevant majority expressed in our law as long as those laws don't violate individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I AGREE with you we have never fully realized consensus, "equal justice under law"
> and full and equal representation and protection of all interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you  just abandoned your own argument. As you were just arguing universal consent a few moments ago.
> *
> There is no obligation under our constitution that our law reflect ALL beliefs equally.* Nor has there ever been. You've made that up.
> *
> You're literally arguing your imagination.* Nothing you're arguing has ever been part of our law, our constitution, or our nation's history. And thus has exactly nothing to do with the constitutionality of any law or ruling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that IS the spirit of what our laws PRESCRIBE and ASPIRE to.
> 
> * Equal Justice Under Law
> I agree the current system is bought out by the bigger bully
> with more resources, and this isn't equal access to justice much less protection
> 
> I am arguing to defend the standards that WOULD
> FULFILL "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
> 
> * Equal protections under law
> Again, we don't have this yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, we do. When same sex couples are allowed to marry, they are treated the same as opposite sex couples. They are granted equal protection by the law, as the law treats them the same. No one's rights are being violated by allowing same sex couples to marry.
> 
> When we *restrict* same sex couples from gaining access to marriage, they are denied equal protection. They have a right to marry....and that right is denied them under our law. Thus, the law is invalid.
> 
> *Denying same sex couples rights is not the same thing as recognizing those rights. *And yet in defiance of all reason, you equate them.
> *
> Opposites are not equals. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Skylar I didn't say that
> * I said once ONE set of beliefs gets represented in govt, then the others would have to be also
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. There's no such requirement. The entire process of elections is to promote a particular set of beliefs over another. The federalists and the anti-federalists went head to head.* The Anti-federalists lost. Thus, the constitution did not reflect their beliefs.*
> 
> And we've followed the same pattern of competing beliefs ever since. That's how our republic works. That's how democracy works.
> 
> *Your proposal is irrelevant to our republic, democracy, our history, laws or constitution. *As there has never been a mandate that all beliefs be represented equally.
> 
> You imagined it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * or else REMOVE them all
> So I agree with you the solution IS to remove references to beliefs from govt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you don't. As I've never argued that. I've argued the exact opposite....that the relevant majority has EVERY authority to impose its will through law unless such laws violate rights.
> 
> So we don't agree. And I've told you as much. And you've ignored what I've said....and replaced it with your imagination. Exactly as you've done with the 1st amendment.
> 
> And its just as irrelevant to me as its irrelevant to the constitution when you do it.
Click to expand...


No, Skylar
the majority only has authority where the people CONSENT to give that authority to govt.

if you have 10 people in a room and 
8 vote to rob and rape the remaining 2
does it make it legal to do so "as long as you follow the legal process"
to document the decision was made using the prescribed structure
that the 10 people previously agreed to follow.

please apply common sense.

Yes, if people AGREE to authorize certain govt decisions by majority rule
Yes, if you agree to that then you comply with that process.

But I can cite any number of Constitutional scholars, historians etc.
who will vouch that the meaning and history of the Constitution
and process that built this country NEVER authorized govt
to manage, regulate much less dictate areas of BELIEFS or SOCIAL programs.

And as many people will argue that in history we have STRAYED 
from the original intent and limitations/restrictions put on Govt by the Constitution.

Do you want to make a public bet on this?

I will bet you 10 million dollars that the Constitution
was designed to enforce limitations on govt and NEVER
intended to give federal govt authority over people's personal 
lives, decisions and especially NOT areas of beliefs and faith.

NEVER.

In fact, the people and states opposed to the Constitution only
spelling out the powers of federal govt, INSISTED on tagging on
the BILL OF RIGHTS SPELLING OUT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
AS A CONDITION FOR PASSING/RATIFYING THE CONSTITUTION

That was only agreed on with the CONDITION that the 
Bill of Rights be added as Amendments/Articles 1-10.

The spirit of the laws is based on Consent of the Governed.

This is a natural law, basic principles that govern human nature.

Nobody I knows consents to collective authority used to impose on them
UNLESS THEY AGREE WITH THE POLICY BEING IMPOSED.

And especially with BELIEFS, people do NOT agree to let govt dictate beliefs for them.

Everyone I know wants their CONSENT respected.
That is just natural law. Just human nature.
People have free will. We do not want anything forced
on us against our will, but want to share in the decision making
to make sure our interests are included and any issues resolved that would otherwise affect us adversely.

That is just common logic and conscience.

Sorry Skylar but you cannot reinvent human nature
to agree to be imposed upon by collective authority against theìr will and especially their beliefs!

You are not even willing to deal with my beliefs when I am offering them freely as an option.
What makes you think anyone would agree to have
govt impose beliefs on you or them, 
when you have shown nothing but objection to anything but defending your own beliefs.

All the fighting we see politically is people REFUSING to
let "other people and groups" take control of govt to push THEIR agenda
AGAINST THEIR BELIEFS AND WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.

Nobody I knows agrees to that. Not even you!


----------



## emilynghiem

Skylar said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Skylar
> It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
> to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.
> 
> 
> 
> How does gay marriage have a thing to do with the 'separation of church and state'?
> 
> Again, you can any belief you want. But it doesn't mean that your view must be represented anywhere. Let alone in public institutions, our law, or our constitution.
> 
> If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one. But denying a gay or lesbian couple the right to marry because *you* have a belief is ludicrous. As they have a right to marry. And your 'belief' doesn't have any authority over their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
> or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
> then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no mandate that 'beliefs' be equally represented. Your entire argument is based on an imaginary, false, and fallacious premise.
> 
> Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *RE: Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.
> 
> SORRY Skylar
> but by the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first amendment says no such thing. You've imagined it. And I defy you to cite the amendment indicating that the government lacks the authority to forward one belief over another.
> 
> You'll find there is no such passage.
> 
> Beliefs compete *constantly*. The entire idea of an election is predicated on people with different beliefs trying to convince a relevant majority of their fellow citizens that the laws and representatives who write it should reflect their beliefs rather than some other guy's.
> 
> *Your entire conception of the 1st amendment is imaginary nonsense.* Nor is there any mandate, anywhere, that all beliefs should be equally represented in our laws.
> 
> So far your entire argument has to been to restate the same nonsense premise, that all beliefs must be represented equally. And they don't. Nor have they ever.
> 
> So....what else have you got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PS I posted both the VERBATIM First and Fourteenth Amendments
> and my DESCRIPTIONS/EXPLANATIONS of what they mean in practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither made the slightest mention of the prohibition of the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'.
> 
> You made that up. And your imagination is constitutionally irrelevant.
> 
> Sorry, Emily....but you can't get around that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now can you answer my question Skylar
> where in the First Amendment does it say someone
> has to be forced to participate in a belief in order
> for "Congress not to establish it" [or govt not to endorse it]?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is the law recognizing someone *else's* marriage 'forcing you to participate'?
> 
> *Again, you're not getting married. Nor are you denied ANY rights to marriage. *You can refuse to enter into a same sex marriage if you wish. And you can believe whatever you'd like on same sex marriage.
> 
> *But the law isn't obligated to reflect your beliefs.* As there is no constitutional mandate that all beliefs be equally represented in the law.
> 
> You've made that up too. And your imagination is still gloriously irrelevant to the constitution.
Click to expand...


If you have such a problem with the PARAPHRASE I used
then I AGRE E TO STICK TO THE VERBATIM FIRST AMENDMENT
AND CITE IT AS
"neither establishing nor prohibiting"

*(A1) is THAT good enough if you don't like me paraphrasìng it as "denying" etc.
Do we agree to use THAT language
* not ESTABLISHING
* not PROHIBITING

(A2) Skylar are you okay with applying that to marriage beliefs
* not ESTABLISHING marriage beliefs
* not PROHIBITING marriage beliefs*

Now for (B)
Where does the First Amendment require that
for Congress not to respect an establishment of religion
then "someone has to be forced"

WHERE IS THAT IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT
OR DID YOU JUST MAKE THAT UP ????

If you cannot answer B,
can you answer if we can agree on A1 or A2

I cited the First Amendment verbatim so obviously I am okay with the VERBATIM
language if you are.

If you cannot deal with any paraphrasing such as "deny" or other terms I used to explain the meaning and application
* I NEVER SAID YOU OR I HAD TO USE THAT LANGUAGE
* I NEVER SAID THE FIRST AMENDMENT USED THAT LANGUAGE VERBATIM,
IN FACT, I CITED IT VERBATIM TO CLARIFY WHAT IT DOES SAY

A 1 
ARE YOU OKAY USING THE MORE EXACT WORDING OF
"NEITHER ESTABLISHING NOR PROHIBITING"

A 2
ARE YOU OKAY APPLYING THIS TO MARRIAGE BELIEFS
WHERE CONGRESS/GOVT CAN NEITHER
"ESTABLISH NOR PROHIBIT"

Thanks Skylar does this help?
to go back to the original First Amendment
language that I did cite verbatim if you'd rather stick with that?


----------



## emilynghiem

Skylar said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK lets start here:
> RE: Free excercise of religion means that you can practice and believe as you wish. It doesn't mean that you get to violate OTHER people's rights.
> 
> If you were REQUIRED to enter into a gay marriage against your religion, that would be a violation of free excercise of religion. But you're not. If you don't believe in gay marriage, you don't have to enter into one.
> 
> Yet somehow you've morphed 'free exercise' into you having the power to deny OTHER people the right to marry.....based on your 'belief'. And your belief confers no such authority.
> 
> Nor does denying you the ability to deny other people rights deny you of any right yourself.
> ==================
> 
> ^ AGREE ^ I just apply this consistently to all sides (while you only apply this to some)
> including my own beliefs which I don't go around "mandating through govt" but respect free choice and consent to accept or not.
> I respect the fact people like you object, but you don't respect the fact that people object to gay marriage rights endorsed through govt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you haven't applied it 'consistently to all sides'. *As when a gay couple is allowed to marry.....you don't lose any rights. *If they aren't allowed to marry, THEY lose rights.
> 
> *I don't think consistent means what you think it means. *As what you've proposed is wildly INconsistent. Where no rights are violated in recognizing same sex marriage. And the rights of tens of thousands are violated in denying it.
> 
> Once again, opposites are not equals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * establishing gay marriage beliefs through govt
> was DISCRIMINATORY because Christian beliefs about prayer/God etc are not allowed to be endorsed by govt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your 'christian beliefs' have nothing to do with someone else's rights. Nor are your rights to excercise your religion freely violated when someone ELSE is allowed to marry.
> 
> Beliefs are not rights. Nor does your belief trump someone else's rights. Nor is there any constitutional prohibition about the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'. You made that up.
> 
> You're stuck here too, Emily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is DISCRIMINATION
> where one set of beliefs can be ENDORSED by govt as standard policy that all people must accept as included in public institutions
> but another set is still being REMOVED based on principle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians aren't being removed from marriage. They can still marry. Negating your entire nonsense argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out before,
> Atheists have sued to remove crosses on public property
> that weren't "forcing them" in any way.
> It was argued based on PRINCIPLE of public institutions
> NOT endorsing or establishing a faith based belief or religious reference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A gay couple being allowed civil marriage isn't establishing any religion. Negating yet another nonsense argument.
Click to expand...


Again re: *As when a gay couple is allowed to marry.....you don't lose any rights.

Where in the First Amendment does it require that 'someone's rights be lost'
in order for CONGRESS not to ESTABLISH or to PROHIBIT a faith based belief.

Does the First Amendment tag on that condition that "someone's rights be lost"
Where does it say that or
did you just 'make that up' Skylar*


----------



## emilynghiem

Skylar said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?
> 
> All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.
> 
> But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SCOTUS deciding 5 to 4 on this issue simply means there is no reasonable answer either way, only a political answer.
> 
> So why are morons here arguing about it?
> 
> Just to hear themselves talking obviously.
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Not our constitution. The authority to apply the judicial power rests with the Judiciary. The Judiciary is led by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled. Thus, the Judiciary applied the Judicial power in accordance with the constitution.
Click to expand...


Skylar 
Not even the Judiciary has the "Constitutional authority" to make decision involving beliefs.

The proper answer would be for the judges to kick the cases back to the people bringing them,
and order them to resolve their own issues of beliefs first, and/or write laws that include and reflect those equally.
And if this cannot be done, then remove the issue from the state and keep it private.


----------



## emilynghiem

Skylar said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. as for the beliefs about "Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Procreation isn't a requirement for anyone's marriage. Making it irrelevant to any discussion of what is required for the validity of a marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People have the right to believe that traditional and same sex marriages/relationships are equal.
> 
> Just NOT the right to impose this through govt on everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is forcing anyone to get married....gay, straight or otherwise. Nixing the 'imposing through government' argument. Marriage is completely voluntary. Gay, straight or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless if beliefs are right or wrong, people have equal rights to exercise their beliefs without being discriminated, harassed, excluded or penalized by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not using the force of government they don't. As the power of government is limited by the rights of people. And the right to marry cannot be abrogated because you 'believe' otherwise.
Click to expand...


"Force" or "forcing someone" is not a requirement
in the First Amendment for Congress not to make laws that either
"ESTABLISH nor PROHIBIT" beliefs/free exercise of religion.

Skylar thank you for the effort to explain where you are not following
what I mean. I am crediting all your messages with "informative" and
will try to "thank" the ones I agree with, even though you don't always
apply the same principles to all beliefs and all sides of this equation.


----------



## emilynghiem

Skylar said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. as for the beliefs about "Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Procreation isn't a requirement for anyone's marriage. Making it irrelevant to any discussion of what is required for the validity of a marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People have the right to believe that traditional and same sex marriages/relationships are equal.
> 
> Just NOT the right to impose this through govt on everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is forcing anyone to get married....gay, straight or otherwise. Nixing the 'imposing through government' argument. Marriage is completely voluntary. Gay, straight or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless if beliefs are right or wrong, people have equal rights to exercise their beliefs without being discriminated, harassed, excluded or penalized by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not using the force of government they don't. As the power of government is limited by the rights of people. And the right to marry cannot be abrogated because you 'believe' otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Skylar
> 1. I agree that nobody's beliefs or 'requirement" for marriage should be pushed through govt!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're agreeing with yourself then. As I've said clearly that rights trump government powers. And when you try to use your 'believe' to abrogate someone else's rights using government, the constitution stops you.
> 
> Remember, you put 'belief' up on this bizarre absolutist pedestal. But neither the law nor the constitution does. Which is why so many court rulings and laws are at odds with your assessment of the authority of 'belief'.
> 
> 'Belief' has no authority. Rights do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Christian beliefs cannot be pushed through govt,
> then neither should beliefs about homosexuality
> or transgender identity that are faith based
> and/or considered 'behavior of choice' that not everyone has to accept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Belief isn't a basis of authority. It never has been. You've imagined it.  Thus, your 'belief should trump rights' nonsense has no rational application in the real world.
> 
> As no, Emily....your beliefs do not allow you to override anyone else's rights.
> 
> You keep coming to the same fallacy again and again, concluding that since each side of the gay marriage issue is a 'belief', that neither side should prevail. The problem with that assessment....is rights. Gays and lesbians have the right to marry. And their rights can't be abrogated by your beliefs.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Skylar
> I think we agree in principle but you are calling things rights and saying I am calling them beliefs.
> They are both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Beliefs and rights aren't the same thing. And no, we don't agree in principle. Rights trump beliefs. If you believe that gays should never been allowed to marry....and gays have the right to marry, they win.
> 
> That you have a 'belief' doesn't, in any way, provide you with any authority to strip any person of any right. Your conception of 'beliefs' is imaginary nonsense that has no reflection in the real world. As your equating rights and beliefs demonstrates.
> 
> I'm sorry, Emily....but your beliefs impart no authority on your position, mandate no recognition or representation by any public institution, nor grant you the ability to abrogate any right.
> 
> 
> 
> If your way of framing "right to marriage"
> excludes and conflicts with the beliefs of others,
> then that ISN'T UNIVERSAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor does it need to be 'universal'. Again, there's no mandate that all beliefs be equally represented.
> 
> Your position that all beliefs must be equally represented by public institutions.....is completely and utterly imaginary. There is no such mandate. Nor has their ever been. When beliefs compete, there are winners and losers.
Click to expand...


correction I did NOT "say or mean" that 
"beliefs and rights are the same thing"

Skylar 
what I meant is that
we are *talking about the same thing*
when we discuss "right to marriage"
although I refer to it as a political belief
(under religious freedom which is a Constitutional right)
and you refer to it as a right on the same level as other rights.

If we both refer to Mr Johnson
as both a Father and a Husband
we are still talking about the
same man, Mr. Johnson,
but that DOES NOT MEAN
A FATHER IS THE SAME
THING AS A HUSBAND

My point is:
we can still AGREE We
are talking about the SAME
MAN, even if we are both
using different terms for him!

our terms may not agree
but that doesn't have to get in the way
where we argue over that and
lose focus on the content....


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "Govt is being used to endorse and REPRESENT a set of beliefs"
> 
> No, it is not.
> 
> 'Government' is not being used to do any such thing.
> 
> State governments were being used to deny same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law and due process of the law by enacting measures hostile to gay Americans predicated solely on their sexual orientation.
> 
> The courts appropriately, consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, invalidated those measures.
> 
> That's it, nothing more.


 
Dear C_Clayton_Jones 
You are talking about two different things
A. it is one thing to strike down BANS that are unconstitutional
B. it is another thing to implement same sex marriage by legislation under state or federal govt
instead of say, changing all such language regarding contracts and benefits
to "civil unions and domestic partnerships" which people can choose to designate freely that make no reference
to marriage and thus carry no bias on beliefs about social relationships etc.

In fact, there was one state that at one point
struck down the ban on gay marriage
but then didn't endorse it either.

So it is possible to remove bans to it
but without endorsing it and proactively institutionalizing it through the govt.

I think the same arguments could apply to legalization of drugs
or prostitution, and agreeing to decriminalize it but not endorse or regulate it formally through the state.
At least until the people of that state agree on policy.
in the meantime, even if you don't agree, couldn't the bans or criminalization still be removed or put on moratorium
until replacement legislation is passed?


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Skylar
I see in your messages that you refer to prochoice women's right to choose
and somewhere addressed my beliefs as "Christian" instead of "Constitutionalist"

Do you understand that I also support the prochoice arguments on Constitutional
grounds, and although I defend the "right to life" as a BELIEF I enforce the Constitution
first that would bar govt from enforcing or endorsing this BELIEF (except if there is consensus by the public to write and pass such a law)

I just want to make sure you understand you are
addressing someone who believes the govt should
enforce Constitutional principles where we all AGREE
before or instead of enforcing any policies on BELIEFS
which I still argue can only be passed Constitutionally 
****IF**** THEY REFLECT INCLUDE AND REPRESENT
the consent of all people who are affected by such policies.

You keep taking what I am saying out of this context.

So if you are saying that NO LAWS can reflect and represent
the beliefs of all people, then you and I AGREE to keep those OUT of govt.

So I agree with you on that.
I just state it differently "in terms of beliefs"
but it's the same as saying "keep these out of govt"

I don't agree with your assessment that the
process has "always been" about imposing one set of beliefs over another.

And you don't agree with my view of the whole process
as addressing and resolving conflicts until consensus is reached.

the difference Skylar is that my viewpoint
can include your beliefs/viewpoints even if you and I don't agre e
and I don't have to insult you or accuse you of thing syou don't mean.l

but when it comes to your viewpoint trying to include mine,
since you can't include it in your framework,
you end up trying to insult me, attack what I said
when that's not what I mean, etc.

Your viewpoint is conflicting where it cannot
explain or accommodate mine,
but mine can accommodate both yours and mine
as equal beliefs we both have the right to live by.

So that's why I offer this more open inclusive approach
I believe should be the "govt default"
in order to protect and defend people's rights to their beliefs.

Your view fails to include and protect mine equally.
but my view can still include and protect yours and mine under a larger umbrella.

So I'd say that is the larger set, and your view is a subset.

Since your view conflicts with others, that's why I'm saying
govt cannot endorse that without discriminating and
excluding others whose views aren't being included equally.


----------



## ding

I'll go one step further... not only is gay marriage not a constitutional right, people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are not being discriminated against just because they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.


----------



## ding

emilynghiem said:


> I will bet you 10 million dollars that the Constitution
> was designed to enforce limitations on govt and NEVER
> intended to give federal govt authority over people's personal
> lives, decisions and especially NOT areas of beliefs and faith.
> 
> NEVER.


Proof of this can be found in the 1st Amendment Establishment of Religion Clause which prevented the Federal Government from establishing a state religion and interfering with the establishment of state religions of which approximately half of the 13 colonies had at the time the Constitution was ratified in 1789.


----------



## emilynghiem

ding said:


> I'll go one step further... not only is gay marriage not a constitutional right, people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are not being discriminated against just because they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.



Hi ding Yes and no.

1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.

2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.  
So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.

Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits?  Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?

Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)

BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this.  So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.


----------



## ding

emilynghiem said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll go one step further... not only is gay marriage not a constitutional right, people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are not being discriminated against just because they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi ding Yes and no.
> 
> 1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
> yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
> However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
> If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
> Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
> or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.
> 
> 2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
> So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.
> 
> Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits?  Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?
> 
> Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)
> 
> BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this.  So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.
Click to expand...

Sexual orientation is not a class of people.  It is a sexual preference.  I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day.    So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people.  Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.


----------



## emilynghiem

ding said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll go one step further... not only is gay marriage not a constitutional right, people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are not being discriminated against just because they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi ding Yes and no.
> 
> 1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
> yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
> However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
> If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
> Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
> or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.
> 
> 2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
> So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.
> 
> Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits?  Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?
> 
> Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)
> 
> BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this.  So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sexual orientation is not a class of people.  It is a sexual preference.  I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day.    So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people.  Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.
Click to expand...


1. I would say to make it an equal application, all the social conditions have to be taken out and leave the neutral template that any two people can fill in, regardless what is their personal relationship with each other.

2. yes, I would treat "sexual orientation and gender identity" as someone chooses their "spiritual identity" or "political/religious affiliation"

I find that it is more an issue of spiritual process and path in life, and yes it can change.
This is not something for govt to try to dictate, or "label" govern and manage.

We do not have a separate class protecting people who identity as "Muslim or Anarchist"
who feel oppressed by predominant social standards influenced by Christian and
Constitutionalist traditions.

However, maybe we SHOULD demand equal treatment as the LGBT.

Maybe the Libertarians and Greens should declare they need "equal protection of the laws"
from discrimination by Republicans and Democrats.

Maybe the Constitutionalists who don't believe that Courts have authority to "create rights"
such as "right to marriage" and "right to health care" can argue this is discriminating
against equal political beliefs in "right to life [beginning at conception]" and gun rights without govt regulations.

We can address this in two ways:
1. Either argue to treat LGBT as any other religious faith-based identity or following
so to argue to separate the values and beliefs from govt, the same way other faith-based groups
cannot establish their beliefs through govt for everyone else to recognize
2. or ask ALL OTHER groups that feel discriminated against to have the same freedom
NOT to be barred from recognizing their beliefs through govt

Either way, treat all faith based groups the same.

Either open the door for all of them to have special legislation and rights to protect their beliefs
from harassment infringement and discrimination by creed.

Or shut the door on this whole idea, and get ALL beliefs out of govt,
and perhaps set up separate policies and programs PER PARTY where those groups can
get what they want, but not implement that through govt without the consent of other parties and groups.

If States and State reps can bargain with each other, and get legislation passed
if they add benefits for this State or that State to get something out of the deal,
why can't Parties form their own governments to manage all the benefits they want to fund
among their own membership, and when it comes to national policy, the Parties can
meet and negotiate, and trade out getting different things into law where all the parties agree it's a fair deal.

Could we do it that way?
What do you think ding?

Would you like to start a Spiritual Senate
and ask peacemakers from each party
with visions how this could be done,
to come together and have a Constitutional Conference
on how to set up a peace and justice dept that
mediates between parties on areas of conflict over political beliefs?

Hello?


----------



## ding

emilynghiem said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll go one step further... not only is gay marriage not a constitutional right, people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are not being discriminated against just because they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi ding Yes and no.
> 
> 1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
> yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
> However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
> If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
> Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
> or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.
> 
> 2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
> So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.
> 
> Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits?  Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?
> 
> Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)
> 
> BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this.  So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sexual orientation is not a class of people.  It is a sexual preference.  I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day.    So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people.  Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. I would say to make it an equal application, all the social conditions have to be taken out and leave the neutral template that any two people can fill in, regardless what is their personal relationship with each other.
> 
> 2. yes, I would treat "sexual orientation and gender identity" as someone chooses their "spiritual identity" or "political/religious affiliation"
> 
> I find that it is more an issue of spiritual process and path in life, and yes it can change.
> This is not something for govt to try to dictate, or "label" govern and manage.
> 
> We do not have a separate class protecting people who identity as "Muslim or Anarchist"
> who feel oppressed by predominant social standards influenced by Christian and
> Constitutionalist traditions.
> 
> However, maybe we SHOULD demand equal treatment as the LGBT.
> 
> Maybe the Libertarians and Greens should declare they need "equal protection of the laws"
> from discrimination by Republicans and Democrats.
> 
> Maybe the Constitutionalists who don't believe that Courts have authority to "create rights"
> such as "right to marriage" and "right to health care" can argue this is discriminating
> against equal political beliefs in "right to life [beginning at conception]" and gun rights without govt regulations.
> 
> We can address this in two ways:
> 1. Either argue to treat LGBT as any other religious faith-based identity or following
> so to argue to separate the values and beliefs from govt, the same way other faith-based groups
> cannot establish their beliefs through govt for everyone else to recognize
> 2. or ask ALL OTHER groups that feel discriminated against to have the same freedom
> NOT to be barred from recognizing their beliefs through govt
> 
> Either way, treat all faith based groups the same.
> 
> Either open the door for all of them to have special legislation and rights to protect their beliefs
> from harassment infringement and discrimination by creed.
> 
> Or shut the door on this whole idea, and get ALL beliefs out of govt,
> and perhaps set up separate policies and programs PER PARTY where those groups can
> get what they want, but not implement that through govt without the consent of other parties and groups.
> 
> If States and State reps can bargain with each other, and get legislation passed
> if they add benefits for this State or that State to get something out of the deal,
> why can't Parties form their own governments to manage all the benefits they want to fund
> among their own membership, and when it comes to national policy, the Parties can
> meet and negotiate, and trade out getting different things into law where all the parties agree it's a fair deal.
> 
> Could we do it that way?
> What do you think ding?
> 
> Would you like to start a Spiritual Senate
> and ask peacemakers from each party
> with visions how this could be done,
> to come together and have a Constitutional Conference
> on how to set up a peace and justice dept that
> mediates between parties on areas of conflict over political beliefs?
> 
> Hello?
Click to expand...

So then, why limit it to two people, right?


----------



## emilynghiem

ding said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll go one step further... not only is gay marriage not a constitutional right, people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are not being discriminated against just because they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi ding Yes and no.
> 
> 1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
> yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
> However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
> If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
> Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
> or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.
> 
> 2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
> So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.
> 
> Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits?  Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?
> 
> Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)
> 
> BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this.  So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sexual orientation is not a class of people.  It is a sexual preference.  I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day.    So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people.  Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. I would say to make it an equal application, all the social conditions have to be taken out and leave the neutral template that any two people can fill in, regardless what is their personal relationship with each other.
> 
> 2. yes, I would treat "sexual orientation and gender identity" as someone chooses their "spiritual identity" or "political/religious affiliation"
> 
> I find that it is more an issue of spiritual process and path in life, and yes it can change.
> This is not something for govt to try to dictate, or "label" govern and manage.
> 
> We do not have a separate class protecting people who identity as "Muslim or Anarchist"
> who feel oppressed by predominant social standards influenced by Christian and
> Constitutionalist traditions.
> 
> However, maybe we SHOULD demand equal treatment as the LGBT.
> 
> Maybe the Libertarians and Greens should declare they need "equal protection of the laws"
> from discrimination by Republicans and Democrats.
> 
> Maybe the Constitutionalists who don't believe that Courts have authority to "create rights"
> such as "right to marriage" and "right to health care" can argue this is discriminating
> against equal political beliefs in "right to life [beginning at conception]" and gun rights without govt regulations.
> 
> We can address this in two ways:
> 1. Either argue to treat LGBT as any other religious faith-based identity or following
> so to argue to separate the values and beliefs from govt, the same way other faith-based groups
> cannot establish their beliefs through govt for everyone else to recognize
> 2. or ask ALL OTHER groups that feel discriminated against to have the same freedom
> NOT to be barred from recognizing their beliefs through govt
> 
> Either way, treat all faith based groups the same.
> 
> Either open the door for all of them to have special legislation and rights to protect their beliefs
> from harassment infringement and discrimination by creed.
> 
> Or shut the door on this whole idea, and get ALL beliefs out of govt,
> and perhaps set up separate policies and programs PER PARTY where those groups can
> get what they want, but not implement that through govt without the consent of other parties and groups.
> 
> If States and State reps can bargain with each other, and get legislation passed
> if they add benefits for this State or that State to get something out of the deal,
> why can't Parties form their own governments to manage all the benefits they want to fund
> among their own membership, and when it comes to national policy, the Parties can
> meet and negotiate, and trade out getting different things into law where all the parties agree it's a fair deal.
> 
> Could we do it that way?
> What do you think ding?
> 
> Would you like to start a Spiritual Senate
> and ask peacemakers from each party
> with visions how this could be done,
> to come together and have a Constitutional Conference
> on how to set up a peace and justice dept that
> mediates between parties on areas of conflict over political beliefs?
> 
> Hello?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then, why limit it to two people, right?
Click to expand...


well, ding
for most insurance or work benefits, the structure is to have the employee and one primary beneficiary.
If there are 2 dependents, then do these have to be children. Can they be an elderly family member or
a sick brother who is dependent on the main caretaker?

If we take the social relationships out of the equation
and just stick to the numbers, 2 for the partnership, then add on 2 dependents on one tier,
or the option of 2 more on the next, and so on, we could agree to a uniform structure.

But then let people fill in those positions with anyone they want where they
don't have to be husband and wife, or children, but could be pets or someone's girlfriend or boyfriend,
or a god child, etc.

What I really think we could do better to manage all this,
is to organize it by party. So instead of theorizing what should or should not be the structure
that can be enforced uniformly, just leave it to the Parties to democratically decide among their
members that they represent and who pays into their coffers. So you get what you pay for
and what you vote for. It directly affects you, and doesn't depend on other people from outside your group. Only the likeminded members within a group agreeing to the same policy decide it.


----------



## Faun

ding said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll go one step further... not only is gay marriage not a constitutional right, people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are not being discriminated against just because they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi ding Yes and no.
> 
> 1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
> yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
> However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
> If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
> Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
> or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.
> 
> 2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
> So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.
> 
> Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits?  Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?
> 
> Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)
> 
> BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this.  So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sexual orientation is not a class of people.  It is a sexual preference.  I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day.    So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people.  Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.
Click to expand...

Marriage is a right. You cannot Constitutionally deny someone that right without a compelling interest. Gender is not a compelling interest.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll go one step further... not only is gay marriage not a constitutional right, people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are not being discriminated against just because they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi ding Yes and no.
> 
> 1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
> yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
> However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
> If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
> Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
> or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.
> 
> 2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
> So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.
> 
> Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits?  Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?
> 
> Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)
> 
> BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this.  So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sexual orientation is not a class of people.  It is a sexual preference.  I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day.    So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people.  Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is a right. You cannot Constitutionally deny someone that right without a compelling interest. Gender is not a compelling interest.
Click to expand...


Preventing Discrimination by Creed is a compelling interest.

In order to enforce laws consistently, the same reason it is discriminatory to "impose beliefs through govt"
that ban gay marriage, it is still "imposing beliefs through govt" to ENDORSE gay marriage.
Govt should remain neutral and judges should have chalked up these cases as religious disputes
that the state marriage laws aren't written neutrally enough to accommodate.

So they should have ordered each state to rewrite their laws to be neutral and 
NEITHER ESTABLISH NOR PROHIBIT
one form of marriage or another, but allow for civil unions as business contracts and not dictate the social relationships. Work it out where the population of that state AGREES the law represents what
they want, no more and no less, no adding in things like gay references they don't all believe in,
and no banning of it either since not everyone agrees with those beliefs either. But it must stay
neutral and represent all citizens of that state, or else REMOVE it from the state and divide by party
or allow it by religious affiliation. I suggest by party since some people don't have enough religious
members to afford benefits; but parties do.

Faun Skylar C_Clayton_Jones


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll go one step further... not only is gay marriage not a constitutional right, people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are not being discriminated against just because they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi ding Yes and no.
> 
> 1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
> yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
> However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
> If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
> Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
> or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.
> 
> 2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
> So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.
> 
> Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits?  Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?
> 
> Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)
> 
> BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this.  So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sexual orientation is not a class of people.  It is a sexual preference.  I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day.    So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people.  Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is a right. You cannot Constitutionally deny someone that right without a compelling interest. Gender is not a compelling interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Preventing Discrimination by Creed is a compelling interest.
> 
> In order to enforce laws consistently, the same reason it is discriminatory to "impose beliefs through govt"
> that ban gay marriage, it is still "imposing beliefs through govt" to ENDORSE gay marriage.
> Govt should remain neutral and judges should have chalked up these cases as religious disputes
> that the state marriage laws aren't written neutrally enough to accommodate.
> 
> So they should have ordered each state to rewrite their laws to be neutral and
> NEITHER ESTABLISH NOR PROHIBIT
> one form of marriage or another, but allow for civil unions as business contracts and not dictate the social relationships. Work it out where the population of that state AGREES the law represents what
> they want, no more and no less, no adding in things like gay references they don't all believe in,
> and no banning of it either since not everyone agrees with those beliefs either. But it must stay
> neutral and represent all citizens of that state, or else REMOVE it from the state and divide by party
> or allow it by religious affiliation. I suggest by party since some people don't have enough religious
> members to afford benefits; but parties do.
> 
> Faun Skylar C_Clayton_Jones
Click to expand...

The government cannot, and does not, impose a ban on same-sex marriage bans instituted by churches. Churches, temples, mosques, etc., are still able to ban same-sex marriages; so there is no discrimination of creed. Same-sex marriages performed by the state are functions of the state and remain secular. There is no compelling interest based on gender to deny anyone their right to marry the person of their choice.


----------



## ding

emilynghiem said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll go one step further... not only is gay marriage not a constitutional right, people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are not being discriminated against just because they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi ding Yes and no.
> 
> 1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
> yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
> However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
> If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
> Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
> or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.
> 
> 2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
> So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.
> 
> Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits?  Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?
> 
> Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)
> 
> BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this.  So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sexual orientation is not a class of people.  It is a sexual preference.  I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day.    So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people.  Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. I would say to make it an equal application, all the social conditions have to be taken out and leave the neutral template that any two people can fill in, regardless what is their personal relationship with each other.
> 
> 2. yes, I would treat "sexual orientation and gender identity" as someone chooses their "spiritual identity" or "political/religious affiliation"
> 
> I find that it is more an issue of spiritual process and path in life, and yes it can change.
> This is not something for govt to try to dictate, or "label" govern and manage.
> 
> We do not have a separate class protecting people who identity as "Muslim or Anarchist"
> who feel oppressed by predominant social standards influenced by Christian and
> Constitutionalist traditions.
> 
> However, maybe we SHOULD demand equal treatment as the LGBT.
> 
> Maybe the Libertarians and Greens should declare they need "equal protection of the laws"
> from discrimination by Republicans and Democrats.
> 
> Maybe the Constitutionalists who don't believe that Courts have authority to "create rights"
> such as "right to marriage" and "right to health care" can argue this is discriminating
> against equal political beliefs in "right to life [beginning at conception]" and gun rights without govt regulations.
> 
> We can address this in two ways:
> 1. Either argue to treat LGBT as any other religious faith-based identity or following
> so to argue to separate the values and beliefs from govt, the same way other faith-based groups
> cannot establish their beliefs through govt for everyone else to recognize
> 2. or ask ALL OTHER groups that feel discriminated against to have the same freedom
> NOT to be barred from recognizing their beliefs through govt
> 
> Either way, treat all faith based groups the same.
> 
> Either open the door for all of them to have special legislation and rights to protect their beliefs
> from harassment infringement and discrimination by creed.
> 
> Or shut the door on this whole idea, and get ALL beliefs out of govt,
> and perhaps set up separate policies and programs PER PARTY where those groups can
> get what they want, but not implement that through govt without the consent of other parties and groups.
> 
> If States and State reps can bargain with each other, and get legislation passed
> if they add benefits for this State or that State to get something out of the deal,
> why can't Parties form their own governments to manage all the benefits they want to fund
> among their own membership, and when it comes to national policy, the Parties can
> meet and negotiate, and trade out getting different things into law where all the parties agree it's a fair deal.
> 
> Could we do it that way?
> What do you think ding?
> 
> Would you like to start a Spiritual Senate
> and ask peacemakers from each party
> with visions how this could be done,
> to come together and have a Constitutional Conference
> on how to set up a peace and justice dept that
> mediates between parties on areas of conflict over political beliefs?
> 
> Hello?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then, why limit it to two people, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, ding
> for most insurance or work benefits, the structure is to have the employee and one primary beneficiary.
> If there are 2 dependents, then do these have to be children. Can they be an elderly family member or
> a sick brother who is dependent on the main caretaker?
> 
> If we take the social relationships out of the equation
> and just stick to the numbers, 2 for the partnership, then add on 2 dependents on one tier,
> or the option of 2 more on the next, and so on, we could agree to a uniform structure.
> 
> But then let people fill in those positions with anyone they want where they
> don't have to be husband and wife, or children, but could be pets or someone's girlfriend or boyfriend,
> or a god child, etc.
> 
> What I really think we could do better to manage all this,
> is to organize it by party. So instead of theorizing what should or should not be the structure
> that can be enforced uniformly, just leave it to the Parties to democratically decide among their
> members that they represent and who pays into their coffers. So you get what you pay for
> and what you vote for. It directly affects you, and doesn't depend on other people from outside your group. Only the likeminded members within a group agreeing to the same policy decide it.
Click to expand...

All of those things can be easily resolved though, right?  It's just some computer coding change or a simple will, right?  How about 4 people being married?  Or 5?  Or 6?  Is there any number we should stop at?


----------



## WinterBorn

ding said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi ding Yes and no.
> 
> 1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
> yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
> However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
> If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
> Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
> or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.
> 
> 2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
> So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.
> 
> Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits?  Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?
> 
> Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)
> 
> BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this.  So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.
> 
> 
> 
> Sexual orientation is not a class of people.  It is a sexual preference.  I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day.    So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people.  Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. I would say to make it an equal application, all the social conditions have to be taken out and leave the neutral template that any two people can fill in, regardless what is their personal relationship with each other.
> 
> 2. yes, I would treat "sexual orientation and gender identity" as someone chooses their "spiritual identity" or "political/religious affiliation"
> 
> I find that it is more an issue of spiritual process and path in life, and yes it can change.
> This is not something for govt to try to dictate, or "label" govern and manage.
> 
> We do not have a separate class protecting people who identity as "Muslim or Anarchist"
> who feel oppressed by predominant social standards influenced by Christian and
> Constitutionalist traditions.
> 
> However, maybe we SHOULD demand equal treatment as the LGBT.
> 
> Maybe the Libertarians and Greens should declare they need "equal protection of the laws"
> from discrimination by Republicans and Democrats.
> 
> Maybe the Constitutionalists who don't believe that Courts have authority to "create rights"
> such as "right to marriage" and "right to health care" can argue this is discriminating
> against equal political beliefs in "right to life [beginning at conception]" and gun rights without govt regulations.
> 
> We can address this in two ways:
> 1. Either argue to treat LGBT as any other religious faith-based identity or following
> so to argue to separate the values and beliefs from govt, the same way other faith-based groups
> cannot establish their beliefs through govt for everyone else to recognize
> 2. or ask ALL OTHER groups that feel discriminated against to have the same freedom
> NOT to be barred from recognizing their beliefs through govt
> 
> Either way, treat all faith based groups the same.
> 
> Either open the door for all of them to have special legislation and rights to protect their beliefs
> from harassment infringement and discrimination by creed.
> 
> Or shut the door on this whole idea, and get ALL beliefs out of govt,
> and perhaps set up separate policies and programs PER PARTY where those groups can
> get what they want, but not implement that through govt without the consent of other parties and groups.
> 
> If States and State reps can bargain with each other, and get legislation passed
> if they add benefits for this State or that State to get something out of the deal,
> why can't Parties form their own governments to manage all the benefits they want to fund
> among their own membership, and when it comes to national policy, the Parties can
> meet and negotiate, and trade out getting different things into law where all the parties agree it's a fair deal.
> 
> Could we do it that way?
> What do you think ding?
> 
> Would you like to start a Spiritual Senate
> and ask peacemakers from each party
> with visions how this could be done,
> to come together and have a Constitutional Conference
> on how to set up a peace and justice dept that
> mediates between parties on areas of conflict over political beliefs?
> 
> Hello?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then, why limit it to two people, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, ding
> for most insurance or work benefits, the structure is to have the employee and one primary beneficiary.
> If there are 2 dependents, then do these have to be children. Can they be an elderly family member or
> a sick brother who is dependent on the main caretaker?
> 
> If we take the social relationships out of the equation
> and just stick to the numbers, 2 for the partnership, then add on 2 dependents on one tier,
> or the option of 2 more on the next, and so on, we could agree to a uniform structure.
> 
> But then let people fill in those positions with anyone they want where they
> don't have to be husband and wife, or children, but could be pets or someone's girlfriend or boyfriend,
> or a god child, etc.
> 
> What I really think we could do better to manage all this,
> is to organize it by party. So instead of theorizing what should or should not be the structure
> that can be enforced uniformly, just leave it to the Parties to democratically decide among their
> members that they represent and who pays into their coffers. So you get what you pay for
> and what you vote for. It directly affects you, and doesn't depend on other people from outside your group. Only the likeminded members within a group agreeing to the same policy decide it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of those things can be easily resolved though, right?  It's just some computer coding change or a simple will, right?  How about 4 people being married?  Or 5?  Or 6?  Is there any number we should stop at?
Click to expand...


I think it would be easier if we removed the gov't from the entire institution and be done with it.


----------



## Skull Pilot

IndependantAce said:


> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.


straight marriage is not a constitutional right either


----------



## Faun

Skull Pilot said:


> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> straight marriage is not a constitutional right either
Click to expand...

Not all rights are defined in the Constitution. Marriage is a fundamental right.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Faun said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> straight marriage is not a constitutional right either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all rights are defined in the Constitution. Marriage is a fundamental right.
Click to expand...


So what?  It is not a constitutional right as was stated

Marriage is nothing but a property contract


----------



## emilynghiem

ding said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi ding Yes and no.
> 
> 1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
> yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
> However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
> If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
> Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
> or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.
> 
> 2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
> So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.
> 
> Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits?  Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?
> 
> Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)
> 
> BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this.  So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.
> 
> 
> 
> Sexual orientation is not a class of people.  It is a sexual preference.  I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day.    So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people.  Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. I would say to make it an equal application, all the social conditions have to be taken out and leave the neutral template that any two people can fill in, regardless what is their personal relationship with each other.
> 
> 2. yes, I would treat "sexual orientation and gender identity" as someone chooses their "spiritual identity" or "political/religious affiliation"
> 
> I find that it is more an issue of spiritual process and path in life, and yes it can change.
> This is not something for govt to try to dictate, or "label" govern and manage.
> 
> We do not have a separate class protecting people who identity as "Muslim or Anarchist"
> who feel oppressed by predominant social standards influenced by Christian and
> Constitutionalist traditions.
> 
> However, maybe we SHOULD demand equal treatment as the LGBT.
> 
> Maybe the Libertarians and Greens should declare they need "equal protection of the laws"
> from discrimination by Republicans and Democrats.
> 
> Maybe the Constitutionalists who don't believe that Courts have authority to "create rights"
> such as "right to marriage" and "right to health care" can argue this is discriminating
> against equal political beliefs in "right to life [beginning at conception]" and gun rights without govt regulations.
> 
> We can address this in two ways:
> 1. Either argue to treat LGBT as any other religious faith-based identity or following
> so to argue to separate the values and beliefs from govt, the same way other faith-based groups
> cannot establish their beliefs through govt for everyone else to recognize
> 2. or ask ALL OTHER groups that feel discriminated against to have the same freedom
> NOT to be barred from recognizing their beliefs through govt
> 
> Either way, treat all faith based groups the same.
> 
> Either open the door for all of them to have special legislation and rights to protect their beliefs
> from harassment infringement and discrimination by creed.
> 
> Or shut the door on this whole idea, and get ALL beliefs out of govt,
> and perhaps set up separate policies and programs PER PARTY where those groups can
> get what they want, but not implement that through govt without the consent of other parties and groups.
> 
> If States and State reps can bargain with each other, and get legislation passed
> if they add benefits for this State or that State to get something out of the deal,
> why can't Parties form their own governments to manage all the benefits they want to fund
> among their own membership, and when it comes to national policy, the Parties can
> meet and negotiate, and trade out getting different things into law where all the parties agree it's a fair deal.
> 
> Could we do it that way?
> What do you think ding?
> 
> Would you like to start a Spiritual Senate
> and ask peacemakers from each party
> with visions how this could be done,
> to come together and have a Constitutional Conference
> on how to set up a peace and justice dept that
> mediates between parties on areas of conflict over political beliefs?
> 
> Hello?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then, why limit it to two people, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, ding
> for most insurance or work benefits, the structure is to have the employee and one primary beneficiary.
> If there are 2 dependents, then do these have to be children. Can they be an elderly family member or
> a sick brother who is dependent on the main caretaker?
> 
> If we take the social relationships out of the equation
> and just stick to the numbers, 2 for the partnership, then add on 2 dependents on one tier,
> or the option of 2 more on the next, and so on, we could agree to a uniform structure.
> 
> But then let people fill in those positions with anyone they want where they
> don't have to be husband and wife, or children, but could be pets or someone's girlfriend or boyfriend,
> or a god child, etc.
> 
> What I really think we could do better to manage all this,
> is to organize it by party. So instead of theorizing what should or should not be the structure
> that can be enforced uniformly, just leave it to the Parties to democratically decide among their
> members that they represent and who pays into their coffers. So you get what you pay for
> and what you vote for. It directly affects you, and doesn't depend on other people from outside your group. Only the likeminded members within a group agreeing to the same policy decide it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of those things can be easily resolved though, right?  It's just some computer coding change or a simple will, right?  How about 4 people being married?  Or 5?  Or 6?  Is there any number we should stop at?
Click to expand...

Dear ding And who says we need to stop at one marriage policy for all?
Do we have one state religion for all?
To have enough numbers per group to support collective benefits, that's why I suggest either going through religious affiliation or political party to set up terms for social benefits welfare etc.

Then ppl can elect their own terms.
Sure if you want to support the Poly crowd I know someone with a whole network of poly couples. If you organize enough ppl under one policy then you can create your own LLC and follow your own rules for benefits. I think this is good education training and experience also. If ppl learn to manage their own resources this is empowering and they can lead rather than follow, and not feel like victims to other ppl decisions they can't control.

It changes the whole dynamic toward self reliance and self govt, by mentoring and investing in ppl to organize their own plans and resources. If two groups are too small to support benefits, then they need to learn conflict resolution and diversity management to team up with another small group so they can have the collective resources of larger groups. 

What groups are you with ding
I have friends willing to propose this in Texas to set up separate tracks by party. Where are you on the map?


----------



## DOTR

Syriusly said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed.   We have moved beyond that.  Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are still shunned. But it was always illegal to kill anyone. Even homosexuals. Another lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't read the Old Testament have you.
Click to expand...


  Great...another Bible thumper.


----------



## DOTR

Syriusly said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is a union between a man and woman, or a man and several women, or a man and a man or  a woman and a woman.
> 
> Here in the United States we only recognized unions between couples- in other countries it can include a man and several women- and that tradition goes back way beyond the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No western country did. Because ultimately it is western values under attack as expressed by the US and UK. The "other countries" you speak of are backwards Muslim or primitive tribal societies. And might I add that anywhere it includes a man and several women the women are mere chattel.
> Besides simply attacking Americans what is the allure of backwards non christian societies for liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the allure for you in kicking puppies?
> 
> There is no 'allure' in pointing out the facts- and the facts are that polygamy is as old as marriage. It even existed in the Bible.
> 
> But I am glad you mentioned 'chattel' because historically women in Western until recently were chattel- to their fathers first, and then to their husbands.
> 
> Marriage law changed over time so women were no longer chattel because Western society had matured and no longer considered women to be second class citizens. Just as Western society has matured so that we no longer consider homosexuals to be second class citizens- unlike those backwards Muslim or primitive tribal societies
> 
> Why are Conservatives against marriage law changing to reflect our mature society and want our marriage laws to be more like those backwards Muslim or primitive tribal societies?
Click to expand...


  Government force does not change society. That is the tail wagging the dog. It is the government which fears change by society. That is one reason immigration is pushed by Democraps...when the government fears it may be changed by the people it moves to change the people first. Or to corrupt them. Or buy them. Whatever it takes. Exemplified by Hillary Clinton calling on Donald Trump to reject "deplorable voters". Her belief that she chooses the voter ,rather than vice versa, is deeply ingrained. Or her complaint that Trump puts American citizens before foreign non citizens (potential voters in her eyes).
    When society, the people, mature (or regress) then they will pass laws reflecting that. But they won't need to be disenfranchised and dragged towards anything. 
  Your lie is exposed by that very simple fact.


----------



## DOTR

emilynghiem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SCOTUS deciding 5 to 4 on this issue simply means there is no reasonable answer either way, only a political answer.
> 
> So why are morons here arguing about it?
> 
> Just to hear themselves talking obviously.
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Not our constitution. The authority to apply the judicial power rests with the Judiciary. The Judiciary is led by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled. Thus, the Judiciary applied the Judicial power in accordance with the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Skylar
> Not even the Judiciary has the "Constitutional authority" to make decision involving beliefs.
> 
> The proper answer would be for the judges to kick the cases back to the people bringing them,
> and order them to resolve their own issues of beliefs first, and/or write laws that include and reflect those equally.
> And if this cannot be done, then remove the issue from the state and keep it private.
Click to expand...


   Already been tried. The people of this country were very very plain in their distaste for homosexual marriage licenses. They were overruled. The elites decided they knew better. And the political environment is rigged heavily in their favor. There really is no recourse for citizens at this point except for Trump.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> straight marriage is not a constitutional right either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all rights are defined in the Constitution. Marriage is a fundamental right.
Click to expand...


Right to a funeral is that a fundamental right or is it under religious freedom.

Also Faun ppl interpret Right to Life as a fundamental Constitutional right. It's even in the founding documents.

Why is there discrimination when the Right to Life advocates lobby to incorporate and recognize that?

If you don't believe in right to life beginning at conception so that you block laws from recognizing this, why can't ppl who don't believe in marriage including gay couples block laws recognizing that.

If it's violating separation of church and state for the govt to endorse the faith based concept that human consciousness begins at conception, why isn't it a violation for govt to endorse gay marriage and homosexual relations as natural which is also a faith based choice.

Shouldn't we be fair to both beliefs and keep both out of govt and let ppl decide. Sure we strike down bans on gay marriage the same way bans were struck down on abortion; laws cannot be biased by faith based arguments.

So why isn't this standard enforced for beliefs about homosexuality and gay marriage? If we wouldn't legislate right to life through got institutions out of respect for other beliefs in opposition, but we expect "right to life to Practice in Private"

Why shouldn't All marriage be practiced in private so ppl. Can have the policy of their spiritual choice without govt endorsing one belief or another?

Just have govt recognize neutral civil unions and domestic partnerships COMPLETELY VOID of ANY BELIEFS Whatsoever.  Isn't that secular and neutral. 

While right to marriage is a political belief like right to life and is faith based and NOT NEUTRAL. Both are biased by beliefs that ppl hold sacred. Both can be protected equally under Free Exercise of religion. But if govt endorses political beliefs how can both sides be equally protected.


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> [d (2) are aimed at weakening marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm so couples wanting to get married- are aiming at weakening marriage?
> 
> How was your marriage weakened because Joe and Jim can get married now?
Click to expand...

 Syriusly
What was weakened was Constitutional standards against judicial powers stretched into matters of personal spiritual and poltical beliefs that should be individual choice under religious freedom and state neutrality and or "creating rights" that belong to legislative and Constitutional amendments. 

Cruz and the Tea Party can challenge and fix this. Too bad Trump threw him under the bus but good for Clinton who needed that. Maybe God set this up so America would have our first woman President. 

Cruz trump and sanders still need to lead the working taxpayers to fix the messes of govt that Clinton and the limousine liberals make money off as career politicians who only care about elections and office. 

The ppl are still left to do all the work to fix problems.

Including teaching Constitutional law to all the ppl hoodwinked into thinking the govt controls ppl and policy and ppl depend on govt instead of the reality that it's the other way around. Taxpayers have been footing the bill for freeloaders who get better health care than the taxpayers who paid trillions in dollars to corporate insurance under ACA. 

What a mess.

This thread shows me how many ppl still live by the belief that laws are decided top down by govt in Washington instead of the Constitution as a social contract where govt is supposed to represent the consent of the ppl and not dictate beliefs or manage social programs and benefits that belong to local states.

How do I get out of this nightmare.
How many liberals don't recognize their political beliefs about right to health care and right to marriage are beliefs just like right to life and gun rights.

Where are the self aware liberals who recognize the biases in beliefs are mutual on both sides. And if you are going to lobby one side through govt, and not respect free choice and consent of the governed,  then what's to stop right to life from being pushed through govt against free choice and consent of others who don't share those beliefs either.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> [d (2) are aimed at weakening marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm so couples wanting to get married- are aiming at weakening marriage?
> 
> How was your marriage weakened because Joe and Jim can get married now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Syriusly
> What was weakened was Constitutional standards against judicial powers stretched into matters of personal spiritual and poltical beliefs that should be individual choice under religious freedom and state neutrality  .
Click to expand...


Laws against same gender marriage violated individual choice under religious freedom.


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed.   We have moved beyond that.  Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are still shunned. But it was always illegal to kill anyone. Even homosexuals. Another lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't read the Old Testament have you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great...another Bible thumper.
Click to expand...


The lie that was stated was 'it was always illegal to kill anyone. Even homosexuals.

I pointed out that was a lie and that anyone who has read the Old Testament knows it is a lie.

Always good to point out lies.


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SCOTUS deciding 5 to 4 on this issue simply means there is no reasonable answer either way, only a political answer.
> 
> So why are morons here arguing about it?
> 
> Just to hear themselves talking obviously.
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Not our constitution. The authority to apply the judicial power rests with the Judiciary. The Judiciary is led by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled. Thus, the Judiciary applied the Judicial power in accordance with the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Skylar
> Not even the Judiciary has the "Constitutional authority" to make decision involving beliefs.
> 
> The proper answer would be for the judges to kick the cases back to the people bringing them,
> and order them to resolve their own issues of beliefs first, and/or write laws that include and reflect those equally.
> And if this cannot be done, then remove the issue from the state and keep it private.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already been tried. The people of this country were very very plain in their distaste for homosexual marriage licenses. They were overruled. The elites decided they knew better. And the political environment is rigged heavily in their favor. There really is no recourse for citizens at this point except for Trump.
Click to expand...


LOL- because Emperor Trump will end marriage for Americans who are gay?

Poor little homophobe- America has moved forward and most Americans are in favor of gay Americans being able to legally marry- of course when that happens then you don't care what most Americans want- you just want to impose your 'values' on America.


----------



## emilynghiem

DOTR said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SCOTUS deciding 5 to 4 on this issue simply means there is no reasonable answer either way, only a political answer.
> 
> So why are morons here arguing about it?
> 
> Just to hear themselves talking obviously.
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Not our constitution. The authority to apply the judicial power rests with the Judiciary. The Judiciary is led by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled. Thus, the Judiciary applied the Judicial power in accordance with the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Skylar
> Not even the Judiciary has the "Constitutional authority" to make decision involving beliefs.
> 
> The proper answer would be for the judges to kick the cases back to the people bringing them,
> and order them to resolve their own issues of beliefs first, and/or write laws that include and reflect those equally.
> And if this cannot be done, then remove the issue from the state and keep it private.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already been tried. The people of this country were very very plain in their distaste for homosexual marriage licenses. They were overruled. The elites decided they knew better. And the political environment is rigged heavily in their favor. There really is no recourse for citizens at this point except for Trump.
Click to expand...


Dear DOTR It will take Constitutionalists standing with Cruz and Libertarians to
change the Court System back to Constitutional standards. And away from
bias by political beliefs and party pressure.

For Trump, any business plans along the border, to organize deals with Mexico,
set up land to be claimed by the 12-20 million Mexican nationals living and working
illegally or undocumented in the US, and move production and jobs back to America,
will take his leadership rallying the workers and independents who are sick of paying
taxes for other people's crime, corruption, health care costs and other govt waste and abuse.

These two men will have to work together,
to lead a restitution system of paying back taxpayers
for all the wrongs and expenses on our tax dollars,
credit it back to us through the federal reserve system
where instead of debts for the wrongs of others we
keep track of credits, issue notes and/or borrow capital
from investors against these debts, and invest in rebuilding
our cities, including 4-5 city states along the border where
families of mixed status can claim dual citizenship, and Vets
and Military can have sustainable jobs in border security while
these communities are developed to provide access to jobs
education and services so nobody has to cross illegally anymore.

The Democrats will have our hands full cleaning up the prison
system and repurposing those resources and facilities to
provide sustainable health care for the greater populations
with the current tax dollars we already waste on prisons and
and equally failed mental health system that
generate worse sickness and dependence on drugs and
where private contractors and pharmaceuticals have been
profiting off sickness.  When we replace all that with cost effective
healing and preventative/correctional therapies, the lives and
money we save, the people not going to prison and losing their
ability to work while costing taxpayers 50K a year, all those
resources can go into medical programs, training residents
and interns to do the public service work to earn their education.

We have a lot of work to do, to organize and unite all the parties
on the different areas that need massive reform, so restitution
for past wrongs, abuses, violations, corruption and waste
can be assessed and credited back to taxpayers to finance
jobs doing the reform and rebuilding/redevelopment needed.

Clinton and Trump, Sanders and Cruz, Johnson and Stein
will all need to work together to take America to the next
stage of social, economic and political development.


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> [d (2) are aimed at weakening marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm so couples wanting to get married- are aiming at weakening marriage?
> 
> How was your marriage weakened because Joe and Jim can get married now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Syriusly
> What was weakened was Constitutional standards against judicial powers stretched into matters of personal spiritual and poltical beliefs that should be individual choice under religious freedom and state neutrality  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws against same gender marriage violated individual choice under religious freedom.
Click to expand...


Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.

Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.

Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
need to learn to respect that.

Same with spiritual beliefs about transgender and homosexual orientation.
This should be respected and protected as anyone's else's right to choose
and define their spiritual identity and beliefs.

We don't have "special laws" naming Anarchists, Atheists, Muslims,
Hindus, Buddhists etc. from being persecuted for their beliefs and
right to identity and expression.

But because of the legal lobby organized around LGBT, this "identity"
and set of beliefs has been able to lobby to be recognized as a class.

When I tell my Christian friends that it isn't AGAINST prolife beliefs
to enforce Constitutional standards to keep these beliefs OUT OF GOVT
and public policy because they are FAITH BASED,
most of them understand by Constitutional principles to respect
equal religious freedom. And work toward reform by free choice
and consensus on law, not by forcing it through govt which violated
religious freedom.

The same is true for banning same sex marriage.

The people who aren't getting it are the liberals and LGBT who
depend on govt to recognize them as a class in order to "feel
they have rights."

So whatever "political belief" it is that people have
who cannot exercise or experience equal protection of the laws
without Judges and Govt TELLING them they have religious
freedom to exercise their beliefs in marriage rights,
this "belief" is not shared by all people.

In fact, there are many people AGAINST teaching this "belief"
that your human rights are defined and depend on govt.

To me that is as bad if not worse than people criticizing
Christianity for depending on some outside authority
Jesus or God. Now liberals and LGBT are even more
depending on Government as their God authority
to substitute for what everyone else has who DON'T
rely on Govt to dictate their beliefs which by the 
Constitution are supposed to remain free choice.

But now the Govt is being abused to FORCE people
to recognize gay marriage as a public institution.

So this negates the prochoice arguments that
faith based standards should not be pushed through govt.

It opens the door for prolife and Christians who believe
in expressing their religious and spiritual beliefs to be integrated and
recognized in public institutions.

We can no longer argue that since those practices are biased
by beliefs that not all people share, they should be kept out of govt and public policy.

That is the precedent being set.

So if we don't agree to treat all beliefs the same,
and now there is even more discrimination going on
as a backlash to the discrimination that was intended to be corrected,
we need to go back to our legislatures and decide how to
address "political beliefs" so it's fair.

I still believe there should be a consensus on how to manage
these so that everyone has equal protection of the laws.

Either agree how to write the laws, how to separate the
policies in conflict, or agree how to trade out concessions.

So if liberals want their right to marriage and right to health care recognized
and conservatives want their right to life and right to Christian references
recognized in public institutions, the parties can agree to write joint
legislation and pass Amendments that establish how to include
these political beliefs, given that not all Americans believe in or recognize them.

How do we get to an agreement or resolution on this?

Which representatives, party leaders or other groups should we
start with to ask for a truce, a resolution to pass on political beliefs,
to recognize these and set up an agreed policy or process around them?


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.
> 
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS deciding 5 to 4 on this issue simply means there is no reasonable answer either way, only a political answer.
> 
> So why are morons here arguing about it?
> 
> Just to hear themselves talking obviously.
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Not our constitution. The authority to apply the judicial power rests with the Judiciary. The Judiciary is led by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled. Thus, the Judiciary applied the Judicial power in accordance with the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Skylar
> Not even the Judiciary has the "Constitutional authority" to make decision involving beliefs.
> 
> The proper answer would be for the judges to kick the cases back to the people bringing them,
> and order them to resolve their own issues of beliefs first, and/or write laws that include and reflect those equally.
> And if this cannot be done, then remove the issue from the state and keep it private.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already been tried. The people of this country were very very plain in their distaste for homosexual marriage licenses. They were overruled. The elites decided they knew better. And the political environment is rigged heavily in their favor. There really is no recourse for citizens at this point except for Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- because Emperor Trump will end marriage for Americans who are gay?
> 
> Poor little homophobe- America has moved forward and most Americans are in favor of gay Americans being able to legally marry- of course when that happens then you don't care what most Americans want- you just want to impose your 'values' on America.
Click to expand...


Syriusly No, Cruz and the Constitutionalists
will redirect where gay marriage should be recognized
which is through the private sectors as a free choice.

You cannot force everyone through legislation to recognize Muslims as an identity that
needs special laws and protections written just for that particular belief.

If Muslims want to practice Shariah it remains in private,
and is not endorsed or recognized through govt as a "right"
because it is already under religious freedom like anyone else's beliefs or practices.

So should gay marriage be treated the same way.
And if you want to be fair, ALL MARRIAGE should be treated the same way!

Leave it to the personal and private choice of individuals,
and neutralize the public laws where there is no mention of
anything biased one way or another. Let people and reps of
each state revise their laws to be neutral and neither
ESTABLISH NOR PROHIBIT
any beliefs about marriage, not unless people of that state agree.

If states cannot reach an agreement, that's where I would
recommend organizing policies and programs/benefits by
PARTY Where taxpayers can choose DIRECTLY which
policy for health care and benefits they want to pay into
with their tax dollars.

Again, the principle of FREE CHOICE is at stake here.
If we are going to continue arguing that right to life
cannot be mandated through govt because it involves
faith based beliefs, that same argument and standard
should be equally enforced for right to health care
and right to marriage as involving personal beliefs
that not all people share or agree on. And the govt
cannot continue to be abused to "establish beliefs"
of one side over another, regardless how harmless it appears ,
but based on principle alone.

Beliefs should remain a private choice,
and should require consent of the people if they
are going to be included in public policy or institutions.

The atheists and secularists made it VERY clear that
crosses, references to God prayer creation etc. are
NOT to be endorsed by or incorporated into public institutions.
Regardless if there was no harm or no coercion going on.

So it is only fair and equal treatment
to exclude marriage policies that one group objects to or another.
Regardless if there is no harm or coercion going on.

If Christians are expected to keep their identities, expressions,
"right to life beliefs" etc in private as a choice and not a public policy
to require everyone to recognize as "their right"

then the same should be enforced for Atheists,
Muslims, Buddhists, LGBT, and any other faith based groups.

You can claim equal religious freedom and protection
from harassment abuse and "discrimination by creed"
but so can all the other groups including Christians
who don't believe in abortion or gay marriage.

If Christians have to put their beliefs aside in order
to be Constitutionally fair to all people of all beliefs,
so should LGBT be treated equally as any others!


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS deciding 5 to 4 on this issue simply means there is no reasonable answer either way, only a political answer.
> 
> So why are morons here arguing about it?
> 
> Just to hear themselves talking obviously.
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says who? Not our constitution. The authority to apply the judicial power rests with the Judiciary. The Judiciary is led by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled. Thus, the Judiciary applied the Judicial power in accordance with the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Skylar
> Not even the Judiciary has the "Constitutional authority" to make decision involving beliefs.
> 
> The proper answer would be for the judges to kick the cases back to the people bringing them,
> and order them to resolve their own issues of beliefs first, and/or write laws that include and reflect those equally.
> And if this cannot be done, then remove the issue from the state and keep it private.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already been tried. The people of this country were very very plain in their distaste for homosexual marriage licenses. They were overruled. The elites decided they knew better. And the political environment is rigged heavily in their favor. There really is no recourse for citizens at this point except for Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- because Emperor Trump will end marriage for Americans who are gay?
> 
> Poor little homophobe- America has moved forward and most Americans are in favor of gay Americans being able to legally marry- of course when that happens then you don't care what most Americans want- you just want to impose your 'values' on America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syriusly No, Cruz and the Constitutionalists
> will redirect where gay marriage should be recognized
> which is through the private sectors as a free choice.!
Click to expand...


And what about the 'free choice' of Americans who want to get married?


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> [d (2) are aimed at weakening marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm so couples wanting to get married- are aiming at weakening marriage?
> 
> How was your marriage weakened because Joe and Jim can get married now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Syriusly
> What was weakened was Constitutional standards against judicial powers stretched into matters of personal spiritual and poltical beliefs that should be individual choice under religious freedom and state neutrality  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws against same gender marriage violated individual choice under religious freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
> That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.
> 
> Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.
> 
> Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
> No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
> need to learn to respect that.
Click to expand...


Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.

And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> straight marriage is not a constitutional right either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all rights are defined in the Constitution. Marriage is a fundamental right.
Click to expand...


^ BTW Faun I would argue
that if you include the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment
all other rights are under the ones already defined.

The problem here is we don't agree what "religious freedom and beliefs"
include. We have not come to an agreement on political beliefs,
which is what the right to life and right to marriage fall under.
Voting rights and Gun rights are also political beliefs.

If you take the First Amendment,
most rights are a form of 
religious freedom or free will / free choice,
freedom of speech or of the press ie expression which is involved in REPRESENTATION,
right to assemble and to petition to redress grievances,
also involved in "due process" which is later in the Bill of Rights.

Equal protection of the laws is written into the 14th Amendment.
And protection from "discrimination by creed" is language
introduced by Civil Rights legislation on a state and local level affecting public institutions.

The problem we are having:
if we don't recognize and respect each other's
religious beliefs as "free choice and consent"
then we end up fighting politically to try to force
this through govt or media etc.

We could solve these problems ourselves
by AGREEING TO RESPECT EACH OTHER'S RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

Then we enforce the laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS.

Instead, if one person has stronger gun rights beliefs and fights
against legislation they deem unnecessary and infringing,
or another has Voting Rights issues,
another group fights for or against prolife or prochoice
"out of fear that the other group will push their bias instead"
Then we continue wasting resources and depending on
party leaders to BULLY for one belief over another.

Someone is going to have their "equal rights beliefs and protections" 
trampled by the other group, unless they agree how to write
legislation that doesn't favor or exclude one side or the other,
but addresses the root problem without an unwelcome bias
that one side or another objects to as "promoting the other bias."

In short, we are Abridging our own rights and protections
by compromising the process to push one belief over the other
by abuse of majority rule to dictate in the area of faith based beliefs.

If we all AGREED to let govt dictate our beliefs, then we 
can't complain about this majority rule process.

But with areas of political beliefs, these are different from other
areas of legislation that are secular. People are NOT WILLING
to compromise their political beliefs to opposing beliefs policies or parties!

So there is NOT consent to use the democratic process to 
decide issues of conflicting BELIEFS. People only agree
"if their belief wins" so the end result does NOT carry
consent of the governed, but only the winning side.

That is NOT equal protection of the laws, but it is saying
only the people affiliated with the MAJORITY party
will have their beliefs protected, but not the beliefs of those in the MINORITY.

So that's why we need a better process for
resolving conflicts and writing better laws
that don't introduce or impose any such bias!


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says who? Not our constitution. The authority to apply the judicial power rests with the Judiciary. The Judiciary is led by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled. Thus, the Judiciary applied the Judicial power in accordance with the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar
> Not even the Judiciary has the "Constitutional authority" to make decision involving beliefs.
> 
> The proper answer would be for the judges to kick the cases back to the people bringing them,
> and order them to resolve their own issues of beliefs first, and/or write laws that include and reflect those equally.
> And if this cannot be done, then remove the issue from the state and keep it private.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already been tried. The people of this country were very very plain in their distaste for homosexual marriage licenses. They were overruled. The elites decided they knew better. And the political environment is rigged heavily in their favor. There really is no recourse for citizens at this point except for Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- because Emperor Trump will end marriage for Americans who are gay?
> 
> Poor little homophobe- America has moved forward and most Americans are in favor of gay Americans being able to legally marry- of course when that happens then you don't care what most Americans want- you just want to impose your 'values' on America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syriusly No, Cruz and the Constitutionalists
> will redirect where gay marriage should be recognized
> which is through the private sectors as a free choice.!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what about the 'free choice' of Americans who want to get married?
Click to expand...


Same as the free choice of Muslims who want to practice Shariah.
You already have that freedom and just have to practice it.

As for benefits, the Mormons have their own social security system they use.
Galveston Texas has its own social security program their residents pay into.

There is nothing to prevent LGBT organizations or the entire Democratic Party
from setting up a collective health care and benefits system so everyone
who believes in the right to marriage and right to health care can practice that.

We expect Catholics to set up their own right to life programs and practice
that independently.

To this day, Catholics still argue for the right to life through govt,
and in the meantime have set up their own programs themselves.

If you want to exercise and express your beliefs, you already have the right
to set up your own systems just like everyone else has to.

If you suffer persecution for it, welcome to the club.
So have Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons,
Christians, Buddhists.  Not everyone recognizes their beliefs as valid either!

But they don't go whining to govt they need special protection in order
to feel they have equal rights.

We already have rights to free will and expression as part of our human nature.
But if we don't respect our own and each other's rights, we abridge them every day.

If we start respecting each other's rights,
that's the best way to raise the standards on enforcement.

We can't tell other people to stop violating rights
if we do this to other people. Such as harassing each other
for our beliefs, or judging and condemning people without due process and defense.

So that's why I would argue equally to defend political beliefs
by setting up means to practice these WITHOUT imposing on people of other beliefs.

If we expect Christians to practice their "expressions" in private
and not establish these through public policy, we should
treat all beliefs the same way.

But if LGBT and liberals really want the right to marriage
and right to health care to become public institutions,
would we be willing to let Christians and prolife
incorporate their expressions and beliefs into public policy?

How much do we want these rights in public,
or would we say no thanks and be "content" to organize
and exercise them in private.

Because that's what we're telling Christians
and Prolife where they can take their beliefs. In private.

So which way is it going to be???


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> [Q
> But if LGBT and liberals really want the right to marriage



Americans really want the legal right to marry.

That includes liberals and LGBT.

I am ignoring your healthcare whatever because it isn't relevant.


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> [d (2) are aimed at weakening marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm so couples wanting to get married- are aiming at weakening marriage?
> 
> How was your marriage weakened because Joe and Jim can get married now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Syriusly
> What was weakened was Constitutional standards against judicial powers stretched into matters of personal spiritual and poltical beliefs that should be individual choice under religious freedom and state neutrality  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws against same gender marriage violated individual choice under religious freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
> That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.
> 
> Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.
> 
> Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
> No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
> need to learn to respect that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.
> 
> And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.
Click to expand...


Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.

You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.

The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.

That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!


----------



## DOTR

Skull Pilot said:


> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> straight marriage is not a constitutional right either
Click to expand...


  Correct. Marriage is something the people, in their various states, have decided to recognize. The power of the states to do this IS Constitutional.


----------



## DOTR

Funny they didn't for 220+ years. Not even to the men who wrote and signed our Constitution. You would think they would know wouldn't you?


----------



## DOTR

Syriusly said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.
> 
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS deciding 5 to 4 on this issue simply means there is no reasonable answer either way, only a political answer.
> 
> So why are morons here arguing about it?
> 
> Just to hear themselves talking obviously.
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Not our constitution. The authority to apply the judicial power rests with the Judiciary. The Judiciary is led by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled. Thus, the Judiciary applied the Judicial power in accordance with the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Skylar
> Not even the Judiciary has the "Constitutional authority" to make decision involving beliefs.
> 
> The proper answer would be for the judges to kick the cases back to the people bringing them,
> and order them to resolve their own issues of beliefs first, and/or write laws that include and reflect those equally.
> And if this cannot be done, then remove the issue from the state and keep it private.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already been tried. The people of this country were very very plain in their distaste for homosexual marriage licenses. They were overruled. The elites decided they knew better. And the political environment is rigged heavily in their favor. There really is no recourse for citizens at this point except for Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- because Emperor Trump will end marriage for Americans who are gay?
> 
> Poor little homophobe- America has moved forward and most Americans are in favor of gay Americans being able to legally marry- of course when that happens then you don't care what most Americans want- you just want to impose your 'values' on America.
Click to expand...


  If that were true you wouldn't have gotten your ass handed to you 30+ times at the polls when the issue was put to the voters. Deep down you know.


----------



## DOTR

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> [d (2) are aimed at weakening marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm so couples wanting to get married- are aiming at weakening marriage?
> 
> How was your marriage weakened because Joe and Jim can get married now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Syriusly
> What was weakened was Constitutional standards against judicial powers stretched into matters of personal spiritual and poltical beliefs that should be individual choice under religious freedom and state neutrality and or "creating rights" that belong to legislative and Constitutional amendments.
> 
> Cruz and the Tea Party can challenge and fix this. Too bad Trump threw him under the bus but good for Clinton who needed that. Maybe God set this up so America would have our first woman President.
> 
> Cruz trump and sanders still need to lead the working taxpayers to fix the messes of govt that Clinton and the limousine liberals make money off as career politicians who only care about elections and office.
> 
> The ppl are still left to do all the work to fix problems.
> 
> Including teaching Constitutional law to all the ppl hoodwinked into thinking the govt controls ppl and policy and ppl depend on govt instead of the reality that it's the other way around. Taxpayers have been footing the bill for freeloaders who get better health care than the taxpayers who paid trillions in dollars to corporate insurance under ACA.
> 
> What a mess.
> 
> This thread shows me how many ppl still live by the belief that laws are decided top down by govt in Washington instead of the Constitution as a social contract where govt is supposed to represent the consent of the ppl and not dictate beliefs or manage social programs and benefits that belong to local states.
> 
> How do I get out of this nightmare.
> How many liberals don't recognize their political beliefs about right to health care and right to marriage are beliefs just like right to life and gun rights.
> 
> Where are the self aware liberals who recognize the biases in beliefs are mutual on both sides. And if you are going to lobby one side through govt, and not respect free choice and consent of the governed,  then what's to stop right to life from being pushed through govt against free choice and consent of others who don't share those beliefs either.
Click to expand...


   Yes your nightmare is true. The world is full of people who want to be led and told what to do by their rulers. And yes perhaps it is Gods plan to allow us a woman ruler...along with a court which imposes its own will rather than the law and a media and education system which pushes every vile perversion it can find.

_Youths oppress my people, women rule over them.
 My people, your guides lead you astray
 they turn you from the path._
Isaiah 3:12


----------



## DOTR

emilynghiem said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.
> 
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS deciding 5 to 4 on this issue simply means there is no reasonable answer either way, only a political answer.
> 
> So why are morons here arguing about it?
> 
> Just to hear themselves talking obviously.
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? Not our constitution. The authority to apply the judicial power rests with the Judiciary. The Judiciary is led by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled. Thus, the Judiciary applied the Judicial power in accordance with the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Skylar
> Not even the Judiciary has the "Constitutional authority" to make decision involving beliefs.
> 
> The proper answer would be for the judges to kick the cases back to the people bringing them,
> and order them to resolve their own issues of beliefs first, and/or write laws that include and reflect those equally.
> And if this cannot be done, then remove the issue from the state and keep it private.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already been tried. The people of this country were very very plain in their distaste for homosexual marriage licenses. They were overruled. The elites decided they knew better. And the political environment is rigged heavily in their favor. There really is no recourse for citizens at this point except for Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear DOTR It will take Constitutionalists standing with Cruz and Libertarians to
> change the Court System back to Constitutional standards. And away from
> bias by political beliefs and party pressure.
> 
> For Trump, any business plans along the border, to organize deals with Mexico,
> set up land to be claimed by the 12-20 million Mexican nationals living and working
> illegally or undocumented in the US, and move production and jobs back to America,
> will take his leadership rallying the workers and independents who are sick of paying
> taxes for other people's crime, corruption, health care costs and other govt waste and abuse.
> 
> These two men will have to work together,
> to lead a restitution system of paying back taxpayers
> for all the wrongs and expenses on our tax dollars,
> credit it back to us through the federal reserve system
> where instead of debts for the wrongs of others we
> keep track of credits, issue notes and/or borrow capital
> from investors against these debts, and invest in rebuilding
> our cities, including 4-5 city states along the border where
> families of mixed status can claim dual citizenship, and Vets
> and Military can have sustainable jobs in border security while
> these communities are developed to provide access to jobs
> education and services so nobody has to cross illegally anymore.
> 
> The Democrats will have our hands full cleaning up the prison
> system and repurposing those resources and facilities to
> provide sustainable health care for the greater populations
> with the current tax dollars we already waste on prisons and
> and equally failed mental health system that
> generate worse sickness and dependence on drugs and
> where private contractors and pharmaceuticals have been
> profiting off sickness.  When we replace all that with cost effective
> healing and preventative/correctional therapies, the lives and
> money we save, the people not going to prison and losing their
> ability to work while costing taxpayers 50K a year, all those
> resources can go into medical programs, training residents
> and interns to do the public service work to earn their education.
> 
> We have a lot of work to do, to organize and unite all the parties
> on the different areas that need massive reform, so restitution
> for past wrongs, abuses, violations, corruption and waste
> can be assessed and credited back to taxpayers to finance
> jobs doing the reform and rebuilding/redevelopment needed.
> 
> Clinton and Trump, Sanders and Cruz, Johnson and Stein
> will all need to work together to take America to the next
> stage of social, economic and political development.
Click to expand...


  I dont think so emily. You seem like a decent person but you are like the French building the Maginot Line...you are fighting the last war. 
  Cruz is compromised. When he bowed to feminists in his virtue signaling he demonstrated that. The man called Trump out by saying "no real man attacks a woman"...then wanted the nomination to campaign against a female? She would have cleaned his clock. Then he picked a woman as VP before he was nominated mind you and a woman who has lost almost every election she ran in and driven into the ground any company she ever led. It was craven.
    He is too weak to lead us...or perhaps too kindhearted. And any of the other candidates would have fared as bad. What the elites are doing to Trump they would have done to any of them...except the others would not have fought back.
  Your country is run by globalist elites who pit men against women while they divide and denigrate families. They depend on foreign votes to swamp citizens. They have embedded themselves into power in the media, academia and corporate America. They ignore and over rule votes. They spend huge sums of taxpayer money to buy votes which allow them to rule against the wishes of the taxpayers.
   Remember Romney brought that up? He was crucified for it, cravenly apologized and was soundly beaten. They even said he hated dogs! LOL
Sanders is bowing to Hillary as we speak. 
  Nice men wont be able to fix this. It is way past that.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm so couples wanting to get married- are aiming at weakening marriage?
> 
> How was your marriage weakened because Joe and Jim can get married now?
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly
> What was weakened was Constitutional standards against judicial powers stretched into matters of personal spiritual and poltical beliefs that should be individual choice under religious freedom and state neutrality  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws against same gender marriage violated individual choice under religious freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
> That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.
> 
> Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.
> 
> Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
> No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
> need to learn to respect that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.
> 
> And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
> because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.
> 
> You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
> but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.
> 
> The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.
> 
> That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
> to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!
Click to expand...


So you only want Americans to be able to be married while they are in private?

Or do you want to deny all Americans the right to be legally married?


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS deciding 5 to 4 on this issue simply means there is no reasonable answer either way, only a political answer.
> 
> So why are morons here arguing about it?
> 
> Just to hear themselves talking obviously.
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says who? Not our constitution. The authority to apply the judicial power rests with the Judiciary. The Judiciary is led by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled. Thus, the Judiciary applied the Judicial power in accordance with the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Skylar
> Not even the Judiciary has the "Constitutional authority" to make decision involving beliefs.
> 
> The proper answer would be for the judges to kick the cases back to the people bringing them,
> and order them to resolve their own issues of beliefs first, and/or write laws that include and reflect those equally.
> And if this cannot be done, then remove the issue from the state and keep it private.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already been tried. The people of this country were very very plain in their distaste for homosexual marriage licenses. They were overruled. The elites decided they knew better. And the political environment is rigged heavily in their favor. There really is no recourse for citizens at this point except for Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- because Emperor Trump will end marriage for Americans who are gay?
> 
> Poor little homophobe- America has moved forward and most Americans are in favor of gay Americans being able to legally marry- of course when that happens then you don't care what most Americans want- you just want to impose your 'values' on America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were true you wouldn't have gotten your ass handed to you 30+ times at the polls when the issue was put to the voters. Deep down you know.
Click to expand...


Deep down you know that American's attitude has shifted, and you just can't deal with reality.

Yes- at one time Americans specifically voted to deny marriage to gay Americans......and then things began to change. 

First of all of course the Massachusetts Supreme Court recognized that banning gay marriage violated their own state constitution- that was way back in 2003. 

In 2006 voters in 7 states voted in bans on gay marriage.
In 2008 Californians voted to ban gay marriage.
in 2009 Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine's legislature legalized gay marriage.
Also in 2009 Maine's voters voted against gay marriage
2011 New York legislature legalized gay marriage.
*Nov. 6, 2012* - *Maine, Maryland and Washington Become First States to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage by Popular Vote
Also- Minnesota voters voted against a measure  to amend the State Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman,
2013- Rhode Island's. Minnesota's, Hawaii, Ilinois and Delaware's legislature makes gay marriage legal.

Meanwhile- what do the polls say? That American's attitude has been changing. 




*


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm so couples wanting to get married- are aiming at weakening marriage?
> 
> How was your marriage weakened because Joe and Jim can get married now?
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly
> What was weakened was Constitutional standards against judicial powers stretched into matters of personal spiritual and poltical beliefs that should be individual choice under religious freedom and state neutrality  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws against same gender marriage violated individual choice under religious freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
> That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.
> 
> Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.
> 
> Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
> No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
> need to learn to respect that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.
> 
> And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
> because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.
> 
> You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
> but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.
> 
> The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.
> 
> That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
> to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!
Click to expand...

Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.


----------



## ding

Faun said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll go one step further... not only is gay marriage not a constitutional right, people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are not being discriminated against just because they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi ding Yes and no.
> 
> 1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
> yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
> However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
> If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
> Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
> or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.
> 
> 2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
> So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.
> 
> Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits?  Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?
> 
> Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)
> 
> BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this.  So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sexual orientation is not a class of people.  It is a sexual preference.  I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day.    So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people.  Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is a right. You cannot Constitutionally deny someone that right without a compelling interest. Gender is not a compelling interest.
Click to expand...

Well the compelling interest is that it is not in the best interest of society, but the legal argument is that there is no discrimination.  Everyone is being treated equally.  People who prefer having sex with same gender are seeking special rights.


----------



## ding

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll go one step further... not only is gay marriage not a constitutional right, people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are not being discriminated against just because they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi ding Yes and no.
> 
> 1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
> yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
> However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
> If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
> Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
> or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.
> 
> 2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
> So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.
> 
> Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits?  Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?
> 
> Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)
> 
> BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this.  So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sexual orientation is not a class of people.  It is a sexual preference.  I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day.    So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people.  Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is a right. You cannot Constitutionally deny someone that right without a compelling interest. Gender is not a compelling interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Preventing Discrimination by Creed is a compelling interest.
> 
> In order to enforce laws consistently, the same reason it is discriminatory to "impose beliefs through govt"
> that ban gay marriage, it is still "imposing beliefs through govt" to ENDORSE gay marriage.
> Govt should remain neutral and judges should have chalked up these cases as religious disputes
> that the state marriage laws aren't written neutrally enough to accommodate.
> 
> So they should have ordered each state to rewrite their laws to be neutral and
> NEITHER ESTABLISH NOR PROHIBIT
> one form of marriage or another, but allow for civil unions as business contracts and not dictate the social relationships. Work it out where the population of that state AGREES the law represents what
> they want, no more and no less, no adding in things like gay references they don't all believe in,
> and no banning of it either since not everyone agrees with those beliefs either. But it must stay
> neutral and represent all citizens of that state, or else REMOVE it from the state and divide by party
> or allow it by religious affiliation. I suggest by party since some people don't have enough religious
> members to afford benefits; but parties do.
> 
> Faun Skylar C_Clayton_Jones
Click to expand...

I agree that government should not be defining marriage.  I also agree that states should be left to decide for themselves.   That's how this experiment was meant to work.  Natural selection at its finest.


----------



## ding

WinterBorn said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sexual orientation is not a class of people.  It is a sexual preference.  I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day.    So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people.  Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I would say to make it an equal application, all the social conditions have to be taken out and leave the neutral template that any two people can fill in, regardless what is their personal relationship with each other.
> 
> 2. yes, I would treat "sexual orientation and gender identity" as someone chooses their "spiritual identity" or "political/religious affiliation"
> 
> I find that it is more an issue of spiritual process and path in life, and yes it can change.
> This is not something for govt to try to dictate, or "label" govern and manage.
> 
> We do not have a separate class protecting people who identity as "Muslim or Anarchist"
> who feel oppressed by predominant social standards influenced by Christian and
> Constitutionalist traditions.
> 
> However, maybe we SHOULD demand equal treatment as the LGBT.
> 
> Maybe the Libertarians and Greens should declare they need "equal protection of the laws"
> from discrimination by Republicans and Democrats.
> 
> Maybe the Constitutionalists who don't believe that Courts have authority to "create rights"
> such as "right to marriage" and "right to health care" can argue this is discriminating
> against equal political beliefs in "right to life [beginning at conception]" and gun rights without govt regulations.
> 
> We can address this in two ways:
> 1. Either argue to treat LGBT as any other religious faith-based identity or following
> so to argue to separate the values and beliefs from govt, the same way other faith-based groups
> cannot establish their beliefs through govt for everyone else to recognize
> 2. or ask ALL OTHER groups that feel discriminated against to have the same freedom
> NOT to be barred from recognizing their beliefs through govt
> 
> Either way, treat all faith based groups the same.
> 
> Either open the door for all of them to have special legislation and rights to protect their beliefs
> from harassment infringement and discrimination by creed.
> 
> Or shut the door on this whole idea, and get ALL beliefs out of govt,
> and perhaps set up separate policies and programs PER PARTY where those groups can
> get what they want, but not implement that through govt without the consent of other parties and groups.
> 
> If States and State reps can bargain with each other, and get legislation passed
> if they add benefits for this State or that State to get something out of the deal,
> why can't Parties form their own governments to manage all the benefits they want to fund
> among their own membership, and when it comes to national policy, the Parties can
> meet and negotiate, and trade out getting different things into law where all the parties agree it's a fair deal.
> 
> Could we do it that way?
> What do you think ding?
> 
> Would you like to start a Spiritual Senate
> and ask peacemakers from each party
> with visions how this could be done,
> to come together and have a Constitutional Conference
> on how to set up a peace and justice dept that
> mediates between parties on areas of conflict over political beliefs?
> 
> Hello?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then, why limit it to two people, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, ding
> for most insurance or work benefits, the structure is to have the employee and one primary beneficiary.
> If there are 2 dependents, then do these have to be children. Can they be an elderly family member or
> a sick brother who is dependent on the main caretaker?
> 
> If we take the social relationships out of the equation
> and just stick to the numbers, 2 for the partnership, then add on 2 dependents on one tier,
> or the option of 2 more on the next, and so on, we could agree to a uniform structure.
> 
> But then let people fill in those positions with anyone they want where they
> don't have to be husband and wife, or children, but could be pets or someone's girlfriend or boyfriend,
> or a god child, etc.
> 
> What I really think we could do better to manage all this,
> is to organize it by party. So instead of theorizing what should or should not be the structure
> that can be enforced uniformly, just leave it to the Parties to democratically decide among their
> members that they represent and who pays into their coffers. So you get what you pay for
> and what you vote for. It directly affects you, and doesn't depend on other people from outside your group. Only the likeminded members within a group agreeing to the same policy decide it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of those things can be easily resolved though, right?  It's just some computer coding change or a simple will, right?  How about 4 people being married?  Or 5?  Or 6?  Is there any number we should stop at?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it would be easier if we removed the gov't from the entire institution and be done with it.
Click to expand...

I agree.


----------



## ding

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly
> What was weakened was Constitutional standards against judicial powers stretched into matters of personal spiritual and poltical beliefs that should be individual choice under religious freedom and state neutrality  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws against same gender marriage violated individual choice under religious freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
> That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.
> 
> Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.
> 
> Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
> No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
> need to learn to respect that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.
> 
> And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
> because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.
> 
> You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
> but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.
> 
> The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.
> 
> That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
> to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.
Click to expand...

But they have the same right to marry.  What they are seeking are special rights.


----------



## Syriusly

ding said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws against same gender marriage violated individual choice under religious freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
> That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.
> 
> Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.
> 
> Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
> No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
> need to learn to respect that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.
> 
> And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
> because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.
> 
> You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
> but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.
> 
> The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.
> 
> That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
> to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they have the same right to marry.  What they are seeking are special rights.
Click to expand...


They do have the same right- now.

Only bigots think that equal rights are special rights.


----------



## Syriusly

ding said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll go one step further... not only is gay marriage not a constitutional right, people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are not being discriminated against just because they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi ding Yes and no.
> 
> 1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
> yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
> However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
> If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
> Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
> or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.
> 
> 2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
> So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.
> 
> Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits?  Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?
> 
> Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)
> 
> BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this.  So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sexual orientation is not a class of people.  It is a sexual preference.  I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day.    So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people.  Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is a right. You cannot Constitutionally deny someone that right without a compelling interest. Gender is not a compelling interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Preventing Discrimination by Creed is a compelling interest.
> 
> In order to enforce laws consistently, the same reason it is discriminatory to "impose beliefs through govt"
> that ban gay marriage, it is still "imposing beliefs through govt" to ENDORSE gay marriage.
> Govt should remain neutral and judges should have chalked up these cases as religious disputes
> that the state marriage laws aren't written neutrally enough to accommodate.
> 
> So they should have ordered each state to rewrite their laws to be neutral and
> NEITHER ESTABLISH NOR PROHIBIT
> one form of marriage or another, but allow for civil unions as business contracts and not dictate the social relationships. Work it out where the population of that state AGREES the law represents what
> they want, no more and no less, no adding in things like gay references they don't all believe in,
> and no banning of it either since not everyone agrees with those beliefs either. But it must stay
> neutral and represent all citizens of that state, or else REMOVE it from the state and divide by party
> or allow it by religious affiliation. I suggest by party since some people don't have enough religious
> members to afford benefits; but parties do.
> 
> Faun Skylar C_Clayton_Jones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree .   That's how this experiment was meant to work.  Natural selection at its finest.
Click to expand...



_that government should not be defining marriage.  I also agree that states should be left to decide for themselves
_
State governments are governments. 

But we don't allow State governments to be unconstitutional- California can't decide to outlaw guns and Georgia can't decide to legalize slavery. 

And states can't have unconstitutional marriage laws- whether those are laws against mixed race marriage or laws against same gender marriage.


----------



## Syriusly

ding said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll go one step further... not only is gay marriage not a constitutional right, people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are not being discriminated against just because they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi ding Yes and no.
> 
> 1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
> yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
> However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
> If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
> Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
> or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.
> 
> 2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
> So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.
> 
> Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits?  Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?
> 
> Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)
> 
> BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this.  So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sexual orientation is not a class of people.  It is a sexual preference.  I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day.    So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people.  Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is a right. You cannot Constitutionally deny someone that right without a compelling interest. Gender is not a compelling interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well the compelling interest is that it is not in the best interest of society, but the legal argument is that there is no discrimination.  Everyone is being treated equally.  People who prefer having sex with same gender are seeking special rights.
Click to expand...


LOL- why do bigots always think that equal rights are special rights?

The legal argument lost- because it was false.


----------



## ding

Syriusly said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
> That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.
> 
> Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.
> 
> Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
> No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
> need to learn to respect that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.
> 
> And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
> because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.
> 
> You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
> but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.
> 
> The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.
> 
> That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
> to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they have the same right to marry.  What they are seeking are special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do have the same right- now.
> 
> Only bigots think that equal rights are special rights.
Click to expand...

I've been called worse.  Sorry, but it's just not true, my skin is too brown for that.


----------



## ding

Syriusly said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi ding Yes and no.
> 
> 1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
> yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
> However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
> If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
> Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
> or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.
> 
> 2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
> So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.
> 
> Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits?  Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?
> 
> Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)
> 
> BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this.  So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.
> 
> 
> 
> Sexual orientation is not a class of people.  It is a sexual preference.  I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day.    So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people.  Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is a right. You cannot Constitutionally deny someone that right without a compelling interest. Gender is not a compelling interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Preventing Discrimination by Creed is a compelling interest.
> 
> In order to enforce laws consistently, the same reason it is discriminatory to "impose beliefs through govt"
> that ban gay marriage, it is still "imposing beliefs through govt" to ENDORSE gay marriage.
> Govt should remain neutral and judges should have chalked up these cases as religious disputes
> that the state marriage laws aren't written neutrally enough to accommodate.
> 
> So they should have ordered each state to rewrite their laws to be neutral and
> NEITHER ESTABLISH NOR PROHIBIT
> one form of marriage or another, but allow for civil unions as business contracts and not dictate the social relationships. Work it out where the population of that state AGREES the law represents what
> they want, no more and no less, no adding in things like gay references they don't all believe in,
> and no banning of it either since not everyone agrees with those beliefs either. But it must stay
> neutral and represent all citizens of that state, or else REMOVE it from the state and divide by party
> or allow it by religious affiliation. I suggest by party since some people don't have enough religious
> members to afford benefits; but parties do.
> 
> Faun Skylar C_Clayton_Jones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree .   That's how this experiment was meant to work.  Natural selection at its finest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _that government should not be defining marriage.  I also agree that states should be left to decide for themselves
> _
> State governments are governments.
> 
> But we don't allow State governments to be unconstitutional- California can't decide to outlaw guns and Georgia can't decide to legalize slavery.
> 
> And states can't have unconstitutional marriage laws- whether those are laws against mixed race marriage or laws against same gender marriage.
Click to expand...

Yes, state governments are governments.  That's very perceptive of you, but the difference is that we can always move to like minded states and we can see which states have the most success.  After all we live in a Darwinian world where successful behaviors lead to success and failed behavior lead to failure.  At the end of the day it is outcome which determine which policies are the most successful.  As long as we are prevented from competing, we'll never get to see who was really right.  Like I already said before, I don't think defining marriage as one man and one woman is unconstitutional, not as long as it is applied equally to everyone anyway.


----------



## ding

Syriusly said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll go one step further... not only is gay marriage not a constitutional right, people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are not being discriminated against just because they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi ding Yes and no.
> 
> 1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
> yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
> However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
> If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
> Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
> or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.
> 
> 2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
> So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.
> 
> Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits?  Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?
> 
> Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)
> 
> BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this.  So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sexual orientation is not a class of people.  It is a sexual preference.  I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day.    So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people.  Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is a right. You cannot Constitutionally deny someone that right without a compelling interest. Gender is not a compelling interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well the compelling interest is that it is not in the best interest of society, but the legal argument is that there is no discrimination.  Everyone is being treated equally.  People who prefer having sex with same gender are seeking special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- why do bigots always think that equal rights are special rights?
> 
> The legal argument lost- because it was false.
Click to expand...

I believe I already addressed this one.  Your opinion of me has been duly noted.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

ding said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll go one step further... not only is gay marriage not a constitutional right, people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are not being discriminated against just because they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi ding Yes and no.
> 
> 1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
> yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
> However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
> If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
> Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
> or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.
> 
> 2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
> So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.
> 
> Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits?  Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?
> 
> Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)
> 
> BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this.  So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sexual orientation is not a class of people.  It is a sexual preference.  I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day.    So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people.  Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.
Click to expand...

Homosexuals constitute a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections – specifically the right to freedom of choice and expressions of individual liberty:

‘When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.
[…]
In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:

“ These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”

Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.’

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Consequently, it is the right of choice concerning personal, private matters which is immune from attack by the state, where those who have chosen to conduct their lives in a certain manner – even if the majority of the state considers that choice to be ‘offensive’ – the state may not seek to discriminate against that class of persons because of their choice, by denying them access to state laws they are eligible to participate in, such as marriage contract law.

Therefore, sexual orientation is a protected liberty, those who make the decision to live their lives as homosexuals are a class of persons, a class of persons entitled to equal protection and due process of the law.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Skull Pilot said:


> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> straight marriage is not a constitutional right either
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

There exists neither ‘straight’ marriage nor ‘gay’ marriage – marriage exists as a single legal entity, contract law as written by the states and administered by state courts.

And marriage contract law can accommodate two consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

The Constitution therefore protects the right to access marriage law by all persons eligible to enter into such a contract, both homosexual and heterosexual, such as an interracial heterosexual couple.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

DOTR said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> straight marriage is not a constitutional right either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct. Marriage is something the people, in their various states, have decided to recognize. The power of the states to do this IS Constitutional.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

The states are subject to the Constitution and its case law – in this case 14th Amendment jurisprudence which prohibits the states from seeking to disadvantage a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.

State measures which sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law gay Americans are eligible to participate in were invalidated by the courts pursuant to this settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence forbidding the states from engaging in class legislation:

‘_ndividual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.”’
Ibid

The rights and protected liberties of citizens who reside in the states are paramount, where the Constitution and its case law are binding on the states and local jurisdictions, and the states are subordinate to the rights and protected liberties of citizens._


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

ding said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll go one step further... not only is gay marriage not a constitutional right, people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are not being discriminated against just because they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi ding Yes and no.
> 
> 1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
> yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
> However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
> If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
> Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
> or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.
> 
> 2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
> So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.
> 
> Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits?  Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?
> 
> Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)
> 
> BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this.  So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sexual orientation is not a class of people.  It is a sexual preference.  I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day.    So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people.  Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is a right. You cannot Constitutionally deny someone that right without a compelling interest. Gender is not a compelling interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Preventing Discrimination by Creed is a compelling interest.
> 
> In order to enforce laws consistently, the same reason it is discriminatory to "impose beliefs through govt"
> that ban gay marriage, it is still "imposing beliefs through govt" to ENDORSE gay marriage.
> Govt should remain neutral and judges should have chalked up these cases as religious disputes
> that the state marriage laws aren't written neutrally enough to accommodate.
> 
> So they should have ordered each state to rewrite their laws to be neutral and
> NEITHER ESTABLISH NOR PROHIBIT
> one form of marriage or another, but allow for civil unions as business contracts and not dictate the social relationships. Work it out where the population of that state AGREES the law represents what
> they want, no more and no less, no adding in things like gay references they don't all believe in,
> and no banning of it either since not everyone agrees with those beliefs either. But it must stay
> neutral and represent all citizens of that state, or else REMOVE it from the state and divide by party
> or allow it by religious affiliation. I suggest by party since some people don't have enough religious
> members to afford benefits; but parties do.
> 
> Faun Skylar C_Clayton_Jones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that government should not be defining marriage.  I also agree that states should be left to decide for themselves.   That's how this experiment was meant to work.  Natural selection at its finest.
Click to expand...

The states may decide all manner of issues for themselves, provided any decision that manifest as compelling law is consistent with the Constitution and its case law, and that any law or measure enacted by the states repugnant to the Constitution is appropriately invalidated – such as laws and measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their 14th Amendment right to access marriage law.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

ding said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws against same gender marriage violated individual choice under religious freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
> That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.
> 
> Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.
> 
> Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
> No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
> need to learn to respect that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.
> 
> And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
> because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.
> 
> You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
> but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.
> 
> The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.
> 
> That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
> to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they have the same right to marry.  What they are seeking are special rights.
Click to expand...

Wrong. 

The states violated the Constitution by enacting illegal measures hostile to gay Americans, same-sex couples seeking relief from those un-Constitutional measures in the courts is not to advocate for ‘special rights,’ but to compel the states’ to acknowledge rights which have always existed, consistent with the 14th Amendment.


----------



## WinterBorn

ding said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws against same gender marriage violated individual choice under religious freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
> That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.
> 
> Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.
> 
> Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
> No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
> need to learn to respect that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.
> 
> And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
> because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.
> 
> You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
> but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.
> 
> The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.
> 
> That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
> to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they have the same right to marry.  What they are seeking are special rights.
Click to expand...


They want the right to marry the consenting adult that they love.   And Love is the basis for marriage.


----------



## ding

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The states may decide all manner of issues for themselves, provided any decision that manifest as compelling law is consistent with the Constitution and its case law, and that any law or measure enacted by the states repugnant to the Constitution is appropriately invalidated – such as laws and measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their 14th Amendment right to access marriage law.



That would be a misapplication of the 14th Amendment.  Of course it's not the first time the 14th Amendment has been misapplied it has been misapplied to the establishment clause as well.  When  the 14th Amendment was written, blacks were being denied marriage period.  That was discrimination.  All men and women today have the right to be married.  People who have a sexual preference to have sex with the same gender still have the right to be married.  Just because they are limited to marrying someone from the opposite sex doesn't mean they are being prevented from marrying as the blacks at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified.


----------



## ding

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
> That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.
> 
> Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.
> 
> Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
> No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
> need to learn to respect that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.
> 
> And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
> because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.
> 
> You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
> but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.
> 
> The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.
> 
> That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
> to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they have the same right to marry.  What they are seeking are special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The states violated the Constitution by enacting illegal measures hostile to gay Americans, same-sex couples seeking relief from those un-Constitutional measures in the courts is not to advocate for ‘special rights,’ but to compel the states’ to acknowledge rights which have always existed, consistent with the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...

No one is being hostile to anyone.  What we have here is a difference of opinion.  That's not hostility.  If anyone is being hostile, it is the pro-homosexual crowd who brands anyone who disagrees with them as bigots and haters just because they have a difference of opinion.


----------



## ding

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Homosexuals constitute a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections – specifically the right to freedom of choice and expressions of individual liberty:
> 
> ‘When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.
> […]
> In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:
> 
> “ These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”
> 
> Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.’
> 
> LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
> 
> Consequently, it is the right of choice concerning personal, private matters which is immune from attack by the state, where those who have chosen to conduct their lives in a certain manner – even if the majority of the state considers that choice to be ‘offensive’ – the state may not seek to discriminate against that class of persons because of their choice, by denying them access to state laws they are eligible to participate in, such as marriage contract law.
> 
> Therefore, sexual orientation is a protected liberty, those who make the decision to live their lives as homosexuals are a class of persons, a class of persons entitled to equal protection and due process of the law.


I understand the rulings.  I don't agree with them.  Let's not forget that SCOTUS ruled in Dred Scott that blacks were not human beings, but were property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.  So let's not pretend that these rulings are infallible, Ok?


----------



## dblack

IndependantAce said:


> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.



The problem is government giving marriages special legal status in the first place. It's none of their business.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

dblack said:


> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is government giving marriages special legal status in the first place. It's none of their business.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. 

Marriage as contract law is the creation of government, binding between and among the state and the individuals entering into the marriage contract, where the contract law is written by the states and administered by state courts.

Government can’t be ‘separated’ from the laws it creates and administers at the behest of the people and as authorized by the people.

And the issue concerns solely marriage as contract law, not marriage as religious practice, as religious entities are not subject to 14th Amendment jurisprudence, and at liberty to not afford same-sex couples marriage as part of a religious ritual.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

“Since gays cannot make children…”

Actually, gay Americans can have children. 

There are opposite-sex couples who cannot have children because either the man or woman is infertile, yet they are not prohibited to marry.

Consequently, the ability to procreate is not a legitimate criterion for marriage eligibility, and is not ‘justification’ to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, in violation of the Constitution.


----------



## emilynghiem

ding said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.
> 
> And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
> because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.
> 
> You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
> but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.
> 
> The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.
> 
> That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
> to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they have the same right to marry.  What they are seeking are special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The states violated the Constitution by enacting illegal measures hostile to gay Americans, same-sex couples seeking relief from those un-Constitutional measures in the courts is not to advocate for ‘special rights,’ but to compel the states’ to acknowledge rights which have always existed, consistent with the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is being hostile to anyone.  What we have here is a difference of opinion.  That's not hostility.  If anyone is being hostile, it is the pro-homosexual crowd who brands anyone who disagrees with them as bigots and haters just because they have a difference of opinion.
Click to expand...


Thank you ding and C_Clayton_Jones
and may I also add
the Christian and anti-gay lobby is not without fault
but equally guilty of the "bad karma and relations"
that are historically hostile between the two.

The problem that both sides have difficulty coming to grips with
is both are right and both are wrong
* yes there are some people for which homosexuality is a choice
and it can be changed and/or has changed
* yes there are some people for which it is NOT a choice,
natural or not naturally, and it cannot be changed

So both are going on.

The ones most hostile take one side and discount the other as invalid.

The ones most accepting and forgiving
RECOGNIZE there are both types of cases going on
and these cannot be painted, either way, with the same broad brush
* people who can change
* people who cannot

Thanks CCJ and Ding and others for addressing this.
Love and hugs and THANKS!!!


----------



## Faun

ding said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws against same gender marriage violated individual choice under religious freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
> That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.
> 
> Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.
> 
> Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
> No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
> need to learn to respect that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.
> 
> And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
> because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.
> 
> You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
> but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.
> 
> The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.
> 
> That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
> to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they have the same right to marry.  What they are seeking are special rights.
Click to expand...

You say that as though Obergfell never happened. That aside, they did not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, Before Obergfell, heterosexuals had the right to marry the person they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, pursuant to their unalienable rights that the government cannot abolish. Homosexuals were being denied that same fundamental right.

Hence Obergfell.


----------



## Faun

ding said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states may decide all manner of issues for themselves, provided any decision that manifest as compelling law is consistent with the Constitution and its case law, and that any law or measure enacted by the states repugnant to the Constitution is appropriately invalidated – such as laws and measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their 14th Amendment right to access marriage law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a misapplication of the 14th Amendment.  Of course it's not the first time the 14th Amendment has been misapplied it has been misapplied to the establishment clause as well.  When  the 14th Amendment was written, blacks were being denied marriage period.  That was discrimination.  All men and women today have the right to be married.  People who have a sexual preference to have sex with the same gender still have the right to be married.  Just because they are limited to marrying someone from the opposite sex doesn't mean they are being prevented from marrying as the blacks at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified.
Click to expand...

WTF??

Exactly what is it about marriage that you think makes it a right?


----------



## DOTR

WinterBorn said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
> That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.
> 
> Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.
> 
> Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
> No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
> need to learn to respect that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.
> 
> And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
> because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.
> 
> You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
> but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.
> 
> The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.
> 
> That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
> to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they have the same right to marry.  What they are seeking are special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They want the right to marry the consenting adult that they love.   And Love is the basis for marriage.
Click to expand...


  "the consenting adult"? You bigot I thought you said 14 men should be able to marry as a group.


----------



## DOTR

Faun said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
> That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.
> 
> Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.
> 
> Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
> No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
> need to learn to respect that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.
> 
> And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
> because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.
> 
> You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
> but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.
> 
> The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.
> 
> That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
> to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they have the same right to marry.  What they are seeking are special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that as though Obergfell never happened. That aside, they did not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, Before Obergfell, heterosexuals had the right to marry the person they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, pursuant to their unalienable rights that the government cannot abolish. Homosexuals were being denied that same fundamental right.
> 
> Hence Obergfell.
Click to expand...


  They had exactly the same right. To marry a person of the opposite sex.


----------



## DOTR

"Keep the government out of my bedroom!. And I demand the government give me a license for my bedroom!"


----------



## ding

Faun said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
> That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.
> 
> Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.
> 
> Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
> No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
> need to learn to respect that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.
> 
> And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
> because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.
> 
> You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
> but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.
> 
> The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.
> 
> That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
> to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they have the same right to marry.  What they are seeking are special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that as though Obergfell never happened. That aside, they did not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, Before Obergfell, heterosexuals had the right to marry the person they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, pursuant to their unalienable rights that the government cannot abolish. Homosexuals were being denied that same fundamental right.
> 
> Hence Obergfell.
Click to expand...

No. I say that because they ARE seeking special rights.  I don't care about what the courts say.  The courst said that black people were property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.  Why would I care about what the courts say.  Common sense tell us that all men and women can be married.  This isn't like after the Civil War when blacks could not get married.  That was discrimination.


----------



## ding

emilynghiem said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
> because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.
> 
> You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
> but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.
> 
> The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.
> 
> That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
> to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they have the same right to marry.  What they are seeking are special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The states violated the Constitution by enacting illegal measures hostile to gay Americans, same-sex couples seeking relief from those un-Constitutional measures in the courts is not to advocate for ‘special rights,’ but to compel the states’ to acknowledge rights which have always existed, consistent with the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is being hostile to anyone.  What we have here is a difference of opinion.  That's not hostility.  If anyone is being hostile, it is the pro-homosexual crowd who brands anyone who disagrees with them as bigots and haters just because they have a difference of opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you ding and C_Clayton_Jones
> and may I also add
> the Christian and anti-gay lobby is not without fault
> but equally guilty of the "bad karma and relations"
> that are historically hostile between the two.
> 
> The problem that both sides have difficulty coming to grips with
> is both are right and both are wrong
> * yes there are some people for which homosexuality is a choice
> and it can be changed and/or has changed
> * yes there are some people for which it is NOT a choice,
> natural or not naturally, and it cannot be changed
> 
> So both are going on.
> 
> The ones most hostile take one side and discount the other as invalid.
> 
> The ones most accepting and forgiving
> RECOGNIZE there are both types of cases going on
> and these cannot be painted, either way, with the same broad brush
> * people who can change
> * people who cannot
> 
> Thanks CCJ and Ding and others for addressing this.
> Love and hugs and THANKS!!!
Click to expand...

Thank you.  I am happy to particulate in the conflict and confusion process.  At the end of the day, error cannot stand.  Error will eventually fail.  I'm happy enough to wait for that day.  Everything will work itself out.... eventually.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

DOTR said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.
> 
> And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
> because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.
> 
> You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
> but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.
> 
> The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.
> 
> That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
> to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they have the same right to marry.  What they are seeking are special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that as though Obergfell never happened. That aside, they did not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, Before Obergfell, heterosexuals had the right to marry the person they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, pursuant to their unalienable rights that the government cannot abolish. Homosexuals were being denied that same fundamental right.
> 
> Hence Obergfell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had exactly the same right. To marry a person of the opposite sex.
Click to expand...

But not a person of the same-sex, which marriage law allows them to do.

Denying same-sex couples access to marriage laws they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the 14th Amendment:

“The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.”

OBERGEFELL v. HODGES


----------



## ding

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> But not a person of the same-sex, which marriage law allows them to do.
> 
> Denying same-sex couples access to marriage laws they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the 14th Amendment:
> 
> “The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.”
> 
> OBERGEFELL v. HODGES


That would be a misapplication of the 14th Amendment. Of course it's not the first time the 14th Amendment has been misapplied it has been misapplied to the establishment clause as well. When the 14th Amendment was written, blacks were being denied marriage period. That was discrimination. All men and women today have the right to be married. People who have a sexual preference to have sex with the same gender still have the right to be married. Just because they are limited to marrying someone from the opposite sex doesn't mean they are being prevented from marrying as the blacks were at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified.


----------



## WinterBorn

DOTR said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.
> 
> And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
> because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.
> 
> You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
> but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.
> 
> The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.
> 
> That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
> to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they have the same right to marry.  What they are seeking are special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They want the right to marry the consenting adult that they love.   And Love is the basis for marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "the consenting adult"? You bigot I thought you said 14 men should be able to marry as a group.
Click to expand...


I said I didn't care if they did.    No bigotry.   "Consenting adult" is always assumed.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

ding said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.
> 
> And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
> because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.
> 
> You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
> but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.
> 
> The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.
> 
> That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
> to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they have the same right to marry.  What they are seeking are special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that as though Obergfell never happened. That aside, they did not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, Before Obergfell, heterosexuals had the right to marry the person they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, pursuant to their unalienable rights that the government cannot abolish. Homosexuals were being denied that same fundamental right.
> 
> Hence Obergfell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I say that because they ARE seeking special rights.  I don't care about what the courts say.  The courst said that black people were property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.  Why would I care about what the courts say.  Common sense tell us that all men and women can be married.  This isn't like after the Civil War when blacks could not get married.  That was discrimination.
Click to expand...

Again, this is nonsense – no one is seeking ‘special rights’; indeed, there is no such thing as ‘special rights.’

For example, if a state were to pass a law prohibiting Asian-Americans from marrying, the same Constitutional principle would apply, and such a measure would be just as much a violation of the 14th Amendment as seeking to deny gay Americans access to marriage law.

The states cannot disadvantage a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are – to do so would violate the same Equal Protection and Due Process rights afforded to every citizen, regardless who they are, Asian-American or gay American.


----------



## ding

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Again, this is nonsense – no one is seeking ‘special rights’; indeed, there is no such thing as ‘special rights.’
> 
> For example, if a state were to pass a law prohibiting Asian-Americans from marrying, the same Constitutional principle would apply, and such a measure would be just as much a violation of the 14th Amendment as seeking to deny gay Americans access to marriage law.
> 
> The states cannot disadvantage a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are – to do so would violate the same Equal Protection and Due Process rights afforded to every citizen, regardless who they are, Asian-American or gay American.



Again?  You never responded to it the first time.  The 14th Amendment was written because Democrats were denying blacks the right to marry.  Period.  A black man could not marry a black woman.  That was discrimination because the law was not applied equally.  Fast forward to today.  People who prefer to have sex with the same gender are not being denied the right to marriage.  They can get married just like everyone else.  The same limitation that is applied (i.e. one man and one woman) applies equally to everyone.


----------



## ding

I think you all need to face the reality that people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are seeking special rights.


----------



## emilynghiem

ding said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.
> 
> And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
> because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.
> 
> You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
> but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.
> 
> The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.
> 
> That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
> to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they have the same right to marry.  What they are seeking are special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that as though Obergfell never happened. That aside, they did not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, Before Obergfell, heterosexuals had the right to marry the person they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, pursuant to their unalienable rights that the government cannot abolish. Homosexuals were being denied that same fundamental right.
> 
> Hence Obergfell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I say that because they ARE seeking special rights.  I don't care about what the courts say.  The courst said that black people were property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.  Why would I care about what the courts say.  Common sense tell us that all men and women can be married.  This isn't like after the Civil War when blacks could not get married.  That was discrimination.
Click to expand...


Dear ding 
It was discrimination when whites and blacks could not marry each other.
But they could both marry (as men and women pairs) as long as they weren't black/white mixed race.

The problem here is gender orientation is
NOT THE SAME AS RACE

No one has ever changed race, back and forth, by coming out,
or by healing and then changing, as with orientation and gender identity.

Physical gender is determined by genetics like race.
Now if you go into "spiritual identity" beyond what is physical,
that is FAITH BASED unlike race that is genetic.

Again I compare this with
* defining life legally as being recognized by BIRTH
vs.
* recognizing life spiritually and consciousness/will/identity
at conception or some other FAITH based point

For legal reasons, we draw the line at BIRTH.
And with Gender, states like Texas recognize BIRTH gender as the LEGAL definition.

If people want it changed to something else,
then if that criteria is FAITH BASED
then the govt cannot dictate that for the people.
The people must consent to any FAITH based policy.
If people contest a FAITH based bias, then the state
should remove that, to be consistent.

Same with BELIEFS if someone is homosexual as
an IDENTITY or if homosexuality is only a choice of BEHAVIOR.

Since this is FAITH BASED, again
govt cannot decide such a policy for people
or it is ESTABLISHING A BELIEF.

That is not the authority of govt to do so.

Skylar has argued that the whole system and
history of the country is a battle of political beliefs
and fighting to establish one or another by majority rule.

I am saying if people  CONSENTED to that, such
as when people USED to consent to marriage laws being man/woman only,
then it is accepted UP TO THAT POINT

But when people clearly establish they do NOT agree
then it is NOT constitutional to bypass and ignore the beliefs
being violated and make laws anyway.

Thus it was NOT fully constitutional for
* gay marriage bans to be passed by majority rule where 
half the population of states were objecting by their beliefs
* right to marriage or endorsing same sex marriage
through states where half the population objects by their beliefs

Marriage policies involve beliefs.
Trying to take shortcuts and force a policy by majority rule is stll not going to be accepted because of
clashing beliefs.

The root issues still need to be addressed, before policies can be established that will stand as truly representing the public. There are no shortcuts. The laws will need to be reworked until all parties feel equaly represented in public policy without discrimination.


----------



## ding

emilynghiem said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
> because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.
> 
> You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
> but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.
> 
> The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.
> 
> That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
> to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they have the same right to marry.  What they are seeking are special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that as though Obergfell never happened. That aside, they did not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, Before Obergfell, heterosexuals had the right to marry the person they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, pursuant to their unalienable rights that the government cannot abolish. Homosexuals were being denied that same fundamental right.
> 
> Hence Obergfell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I say that because they ARE seeking special rights.  I don't care about what the courts say.  The courst said that black people were property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.  Why would I care about what the courts say.  Common sense tell us that all men and women can be married.  This isn't like after the Civil War when blacks could not get married.  That was discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear ding
> It was discrimination when whites and blacks could not marry each other.
> But they could both marry (as men and women pairs) as long as they weren't black/white mixed race.
> 
> The problem here is gender orientation is
> NOT THE SAME AS RACE
> 
> No one has ever changed race, back and forth, by coming out,
> or by healing and then changing, as with orientation and gender identity.
> 
> Physical gender is determined by genetics like race.
> Now if you go into "spiritual identity" beyond what is physical,
> that is FAITH BASED unlike race that is genetic.
> 
> Again I compare this with
> * defining life legally as being recognized by BIRTH
> vs.
> * recognizing life spiritually and consciousness/will/identity
> at conception or some other FAITH based point
> 
> For legal reasons, we draw the line at BIRTH.
> And with Gender, states like Texas recognize BIRTH gender as the LEGAL definition.
> 
> If people want it changed to something else,
> then if that criteria is FAITH BASED
> then the govt cannot dictate that for the people.
> The people must consent to any FAITH based policy.
> If people contest a FAITH based bias, then the state
> should remove that, to be consistent.
> 
> Same with BELIEFS if someone is homosexual as
> an IDENTITY or if homosexuality is only a choice of BEHAVIOR.
> 
> Since this is FAITH BASED, again
> govt cannot decide such a policy for people
> or it is ESTABLISHING A BELIEF.
> 
> That is not the authority of govt to do so.
> 
> Skylar has argued that the whole system and
> history of the country is a battle of political beliefs
> and fighting to establish one or another by majority rule.
> 
> I am saying if people  CONSENTED to that, such
> as when people USED to consent to marriage laws being man/woman only,
> then it is accepted UP TO THAT POINT
> 
> But when people clearly establish they do NOT agree
> then it is NOT constitutional to bypass and ignore the beliefs
> being violated and make laws anyway.
> 
> Thus it was NOT fully constitutional for
> * gay marriage bans to be passed by majority rule where
> half the population of states were objecting by their beliefs
> * right to marriage or endorsing same sex marriage
> through states where half the population objects by their beliefs
> 
> Marriage policies involve beliefs.
> Trying to take shortcuts and force a policy by majority rule is stll not going to be accepted because of
> clashing beliefs.
> 
> The root issues still need to be addressed, before policies can be established that will stand as truly representing the public. There are no shortcuts. The laws will need to be reworked until all parties feel equaly represented in public policy without discrimination.
Click to expand...

Emily, the 14th Amendment was written because blacks could not marry period.  A black man could not marry a black woman.  Did you know that?


----------



## emilynghiem

ding said:


> I think you all need to face the reality that people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are seeking special rights.



Dear ding
It's a matter of the shoe being on the other foot.

1. When Prolife believe SO MUCH that it is just universal TRUTH, a GIVEN, that life beings at conception, they don't consider that a belief but a  RIGHT for that soul to be born and not a choice of the mother to abort or not.
which is to them murder and not a choice. Not a belief but a natural right.

But when it comes to the right to marriage as a belief, that is just the truth, and it takes the court to establish it as law. Not because it is a belief, but because the views against it are beliefs and this is the truth.

2. When Christians argue for the right to express their beliefs as prayer or reference to God and Jesus, or Christmas etc. this is argued as needing to be REMOVED from public policy and institutions. Individual students may pray, but whole classes cannot be led in prayer.

Christians do not get special rights just because of believing in group prayer joined in Christ. That is the practice, but it is not allowed.

But when it comes to LGBT beliefs, then it's the other way around.

Suddenly this needs to be tolerated.
And anyone who objects and says that they don't believe in that, suddenly that person is labeled and harassed as in the wrong.

But not so for the Atheist who sues to remove references to crosses.

So it's a double standard.

It seems to be happening so the LEFT goes through the same or similar process as what the RIGHT goes through, so they know what it feels like to be on the opposite side of that equation!

If prolife people don't understand prochoice, then the right to health care mandates teach that lesson, what it feels like when someone ELSE mandates THEIR beliefs through govt and tramples your free choice with penalties if you don't comply.

And if LGBT people don't get how Christians can hold their beliefs as TRUTH and not see them as BELIEFS that are a CHOICE, suddenly the tables are turned. And now the LGBT are pushing their beliefs as if these are the TRUTH and everyone should accept it or be WRONG, and this is like when Christians push their beliefs through govt thinking they are true and anyone who negates those beliefs are WRONG.

They are playing the opposite roles to learn a lesson.

How long will it take to recognize the experience is MUTUAL. Both sides are learning what the other side feels like when put in that position. So whichever group you were criticizing before, now you get to know that experience and what that side was thinking.


----------



## emilynghiem

ding said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.
> 
> 
> 
> But they have the same right to marry.  What they are seeking are special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that as though Obergfell never happened. That aside, they did not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, Before Obergfell, heterosexuals had the right to marry the person they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, pursuant to their unalienable rights that the government cannot abolish. Homosexuals were being denied that same fundamental right.
> 
> Hence Obergfell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I say that because they ARE seeking special rights.  I don't care about what the courts say.  The courst said that black people were property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.  Why would I care about what the courts say.  Common sense tell us that all men and women can be married.  This isn't like after the Civil War when blacks could not get married.  That was discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear ding
> It was discrimination when whites and blacks could not marry each other.
> But they could both marry (as men and women pairs) as long as they weren't black/white mixed race.
> 
> The problem here is gender orientation is
> NOT THE SAME AS RACE
> 
> No one has ever changed race, back and forth, by coming out,
> or by healing and then changing, as with orientation and gender identity.
> 
> Physical gender is determined by genetics like race.
> Now if you go into "spiritual identity" beyond what is physical,
> that is FAITH BASED unlike race that is genetic.
> 
> Again I compare this with
> * defining life legally as being recognized by BIRTH
> vs.
> * recognizing life spiritually and consciousness/will/identity
> at conception or some other FAITH based point
> 
> For legal reasons, we draw the line at BIRTH.
> And with Gender, states like Texas recognize BIRTH gender as the LEGAL definition.
> 
> If people want it changed to something else,
> then if that criteria is FAITH BASED
> then the govt cannot dictate that for the people.
> The people must consent to any FAITH based policy.
> If people contest a FAITH based bias, then the state
> should remove that, to be consistent.
> 
> Same with BELIEFS if someone is homosexual as
> an IDENTITY or if homosexuality is only a choice of BEHAVIOR.
> 
> Since this is FAITH BASED, again
> govt cannot decide such a policy for people
> or it is ESTABLISHING A BELIEF.
> 
> That is not the authority of govt to do so.
> 
> Skylar has argued that the whole system and
> history of the country is a battle of political beliefs
> and fighting to establish one or another by majority rule.
> 
> I am saying if people  CONSENTED to that, such
> as when people USED to consent to marriage laws being man/woman only,
> then it is accepted UP TO THAT POINT
> 
> But when people clearly establish they do NOT agree
> then it is NOT constitutional to bypass and ignore the beliefs
> being violated and make laws anyway.
> 
> Thus it was NOT fully constitutional for
> * gay marriage bans to be passed by majority rule where
> half the population of states were objecting by their beliefs
> * right to marriage or endorsing same sex marriage
> through states where half the population objects by their beliefs
> 
> Marriage policies involve beliefs.
> Trying to take shortcuts and force a policy by majority rule is stll not going to be accepted because of
> clashing beliefs.
> 
> The root issues still need to be addressed, before policies can be established that will stand as truly representing the public. There are no shortcuts. The laws will need to be reworked until all parties feel equaly represented in public policy without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, the 14th Amendment was written because blacks could not marry period.  A black man could not marry a black woman.  Did you know that?
Click to expand...


I knew that black people did not own their own bodies but were considered property of their owners.
So whatever laws came from that, I am not surprised.  I had not heard specifically of THIS law, but it makes sense in a context where it was even practice to have the stronger males rape the women slaves to breed more slaves. I understand Irish slaves were also raped by black slaves in order for the children to have darker skin which was considered more valuable for identification purposes.

What I was referring to was people who argue against the religious Christian belief against miscenagation or race mixing.

People tend to cite that as a closer example of religious beliefs against same sexes marrying.

But as pointed out before, there are no bans against gay people marrying people of the opposite gender; and it is just as unlawful for heterosexual people to marry people of the same gender. Nobody is allowed to do it.


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
> because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.
> 
> You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
> but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.
> 
> The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.
> 
> That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
> to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they have the same right to marry.  What they are seeking are special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that as though Obergfell never happened. That aside, they did not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, Before Obergfell, heterosexuals had the right to marry the person they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, pursuant to their unalienable rights that the government cannot abolish. Homosexuals were being denied that same fundamental right.
> 
> Hence Obergfell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I say that because they ARE seeking special rights.  I don't care about what the courts say.  The courst said that black people were property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.  Why would I care about what the courts say.  Common sense tell us that all men and women can be married.  This isn't like after the Civil War when blacks could not get married.  That was discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, this is nonsense – no one is seeking ‘special rights’; indeed, there is no such thing as ‘special rights.’
> 
> For example, if a state were to pass a law prohibiting Asian-Americans from marrying, the same Constitutional principle would apply, and such a measure would be just as much a violation of the 14th Amendment as seeking to deny gay Americans access to marriage law.
> 
> The states cannot disadvantage a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are – to do so would violate the same Equal Protection and Due Process rights afforded to every citizen, regardless who they are, Asian-American or gay American.
Click to expand...


Dear C_Clayton_Jones

The difference is
Asian Americans already recognize they are protected under RACE

but people who believe in gay or transgender orientation and expression don't recognize this is equally protected under CREED or BELIEF as a PRACTICE or spiritual identity that is FAITH based.

That's FINE if you want to teach people to recognize LGBT orientation as an identity.

But the same way Christians want to teach people GOD is real or JESUS is real, that has to be by FREE CHOICE. These are both SPIRITUAL issues of BELIEF.

You are supporting establishing a faith based belief similar to believing in Christianity as a WAY OF LIFE that needs to be Respected and Protected and is NOT a choice of belief.

Sorry but the fact people don't agree and don't BELIEVE the same proves it is a BELIEF.

If it were PROVEABLE like how race and gender determined by birth can be proven not to be the person's choice, that's one thing.

But this is NOT Proven but remains FAITH BASED.

And there are as many who have seen proof and believe that orientation can change and is a choice of behavior.

That is a belief too!

So both sides beliefs deserve EQUAL protection from imposition BY THE OTHER.

The problem with you is you don't believe in treating both beliefs equally as belonging to people to choose and being outside govt.

You only believe in defending one side, just like Christians who only rally for freedom of religions for Christians but not Muslims or Atheists.

Religious applies to all.

So again the fairest way I see to address this is to treat it as belief or creed, so that all beliefs on all sides are equally protected and none are penalized for not agreeing with others.

C_Clayton_Jones 
maybe I would believe you if you supported giving the same protections
to Christians who want to practice group and intercessory prayer in
public schools and other institutions.

They also believe it is part of their identity and expression,
and that barring them from this on grounds it is a private belief
is a form of censorship and judging Christians and rejecting them.

So sure, if you would agree to open the door for Christian expression
and identity NOT to be discriminated against, harassed, EXCLUDED
from public institutions etc. I might believe you.

I just ask that we be fair.

If we bar Christians from "imposing" their expressions of belief on
others who don't share those beliefs or even oppose them,
and we don't consider that intolerant but just policy
to separate private personal beliefs from public policy,
then the LGBT beliefs values and expressions/identity/standards
should be treated the same way.

Otherwise it is discrimination by CREED.
to push one through govt and PENALIZE and harass
anyone who disagrees,
but when Christians push their beliefs and expressions through govt
they claim are part of their spiritual identity and truth
people who disagree are supported legally on Constitutional grounds.

Can you explain how that is considered fair treatment
to advocate one while penalizing and excluding the other.

Expecting Christians to keep their identity and expression/beliefs
to themselves in private
but when it comes to LGBT beliefs then people are insulted
harassed and namecalled if they ask to keep those beliefs in private
and out of public policy.

Why the double standard.
isn't that causing the appearance of special rights?


----------



## ding

emilynghiem said:


> I knew that black people did not own their own bodies but were considered property of their owners.
> So whatever laws came from that, I am not surprised.


I don't think you understand.  After they were freed, they were denied the right to marry.


----------



## emilynghiem

ding said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that black people did not own their own bodies but were considered property of their owners.
> So whatever laws came from that, I am not surprised.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you understand.  After they were freed, they were denied the right to marry.  People who prefer to have sex with the opposite gender were not being denied the right to marry.
Click to expand...


So you are comparing when blacks were barred from marrying
even the opposite gender.

To laws that allow all people including gays to marry the opposite gender.

Yes, I said that at the end.

That 1. no one is being barred from marrying opposite gender,
whether they are homosexual or heterosexual
2. no one is allowed to marry the same sex,
whether heterosexual or homosexual

and you are contrasting this with laws that actually
DID bar blacks from marrying when other races could


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"Gay marriage is not a constitutional right"

Again, there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only one marriage law available to both same- and opposite-sex couples.

And because marriage is in fact a right, to deny a couple eligible to marry access to marriage law is a violation of the Constitution, whether that couple is same-sex or opposite-sex.


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "Gay marriage is not a constitutional right"
> 
> Again, there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only one marriage law available to both same- and opposite-sex couples.
> 
> And because marriage is in fact a right, to deny a couple eligible to marry access to marriage law is a violation of the Constitution, whether that couple is same-sex or opposite-sex.



C_Clayton_Jones
and if the people argue NO we don't believe in that standard of law/marriage
the way it is set up because it violates our beliefs,
then whatever is wrong with how that law is written
to impose a bias against someone's beliefs,
shouldn't it be revised to be neutral where nobody objects on grounds of
violating or excluding their beliefs.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
> That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.
> 
> Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.
> 
> Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
> No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
> need to learn to respect that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.
> 
> And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
> because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.
> 
> You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
> but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.
> 
> The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.
> 
> That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
> to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they have the same right to marry.  What they are seeking are special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that as though Obergfell never happened. That aside, they did not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, Before Obergfell, heterosexuals had the right to marry the person they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, pursuant to their unalienable rights that the government cannot abolish. Homosexuals were being denied that same fundamental right.
> 
> Hence Obergfell.
Click to expand...


Dear Faun 
Since people have objected to both versions,
shouldn't this be rejected again
until finally laws are written that
are truly neutral and free of bias
toward or against either sides beliefs.

If you are content to stop here while people
are complaining the law is biased against their beliefs,
how are you any different from people who were
happy with the previous marriage laws, or the bans
against gay marriage, while people were complaining that was biased against them.

How are you any different
if you equally discount and exclude objections
as if these aren't valid?


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "Gay marriage is not a constitutional right"
> 
> Again, there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only one marriage law available to both same- and opposite-sex couples.



BTW C_Clayton_Jones
For you not to make a distinction between traditional marriage and same sex marriage
reminds me of people who
* equate abortion with murder
* executions with murder (and the cause of death is listed in some states
as HOMOCIDE so the same legal term is used)

Just because SOME people see these as the same
doesn't mean other people do.

Most people I know can be against murder but not see executions the same.
They both can be called homocide.

Clearly the process is different, as with abortion as well.

And people who see a huge difference between traditional 
marriage and same sex marriage are talking about the relationship
and whole process of recognizing that to be DIFFERENT.

And if they don't agree with that BELIEF that these are the same,
then why should the govt force them to change their beliefs.

Many Christians I know would LOVE if the govt established their beliefs!
So if they equate abortion with murder, do they have the right
to establish that and say the right to life needs to be recognized by all
people, even if you don't see it and believe it the same was as they do???


----------



## ding

emilynghiem said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that black people did not own their own bodies but were considered property of their owners.
> So whatever laws came from that, I am not surprised.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you understand.  After they were freed, they were denied the right to marry.  People who prefer to have sex with the opposite gender were not being denied the right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are comparing when blacks were barred from marrying
> even the opposite gender.
> 
> To laws that allow all people including gays to marry the opposite gender.
> 
> Yes, I said that at the end.
> 
> That 1. no one is being barred from marrying opposite gender,
> whether they are homosexual or heterosexual
> 2. no one is allowed to marry the same sex,
> whether heterosexual or homosexual
> 
> and you are contrasting this with laws that actually
> DID bar blacks from marrying when other races could
Click to expand...

Yes.  Pretty much.  The 14th Amendment was narrowly focused.  It was not intended to be a catch all.  On a side note, I believe the justification used for denying them marriage after they became emancipated is that they were not citizens and were not afforded those rights.  It wasn't just marriage that was being denied to them.


----------



## Faun

DOTR said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.
> 
> And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
> because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.
> 
> You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
> but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.
> 
> The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.
> 
> That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
> to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they have the same right to marry.  What they are seeking are special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that as though Obergfell never happened. That aside, they did not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, Before Obergfell, heterosexuals had the right to marry the person they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, pursuant to their unalienable rights that the government cannot abolish. Homosexuals were being denied that same fundamental right.
> 
> Hence Obergfell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had exactly the same right. To marry a person of the opposite sex.
Click to expand...

That's not the same right. That denied them the right to marry the person they wanted to be legally committed to.


----------



## Faun

ding said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.
> 
> And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
> because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.
> 
> You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
> but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.
> 
> The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.
> 
> That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
> to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they have the same right to marry.  What they are seeking are special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that as though Obergfell never happened. That aside, they did not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, Before Obergfell, heterosexuals had the right to marry the person they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, pursuant to their unalienable rights that the government cannot abolish. Homosexuals were being denied that same fundamental right.
> 
> Hence Obergfell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I say that because they ARE seeking special rights.  I don't care about what the courts say.  The courst said that black people were property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.  Why would I care about what the courts say.  Common sense tell us that all men and women can be married.  This isn't like after the Civil War when blacks could not get married.  That was discrimination.
Click to expand...

Exactly what compelling interest is there to deny consenting adult gay people from legally marrying the person they love?


----------



## Faun

ding said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> But not a person of the same-sex, which marriage law allows them to do.
> 
> Denying same-sex couples access to marriage laws they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the 14th Amendment:
> 
> “The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.”
> 
> OBERGEFELL v. HODGES
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a misapplication of the 14th Amendment. Of course it's not the first time the 14th Amendment has been misapplied it has been misapplied to the establishment clause as well. When the 14th Amendment was written, blacks were being denied marriage period. That was discrimination. All men and women today have the right to be married. People who have a sexual preference to have sex with the same gender still have the right to be married. Just because they are limited to marrying someone from the opposite sex doesn't mean they are being prevented from marrying as the blacks were at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified.
Click to expand...

You never answered the question ....

What is it about marriage that you believe makes it a right?


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is government giving marriages special legal status in the first place. It's none of their business.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Marriage as contract law is ...
Click to expand...


The issue isn't the contract. The issue is the special legal privileges extended to those who enter into the contract.


----------



## Faun

dblack said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is government giving marriages special legal status in the first place. It's none of their business.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Marriage as contract law is ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue isn't the contract. The issue is the special legal privileges extended to those who enter into the contract.
Click to expand...

There are no "special legal privileges."


----------



## dblack

Faun said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is government giving marriages special legal status in the first place. It's none of their business.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Marriage as contract law is ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue isn't the contract. The issue is the special legal privileges extended to those who enter into the contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no "special legal privileges."
Click to expand...


Sure there are. That's why gays are fighting for marriage rights.


----------



## Faun

dblack said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is government giving marriages special legal status in the first place. It's none of their business.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Marriage as contract law is ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue isn't the contract. The issue is the special legal privileges extended to those who enter into the contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no "special legal privileges."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure there are. That's why gays are fighting for marriage rights.
Click to expand...

What they fought for, and won, were equal rights, not special rights.


----------



## dblack

Faun said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is government giving marriages special legal status in the first place. It's none of their business.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Marriage as contract law is ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue isn't the contract. The issue is the special legal privileges extended to those who enter into the contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no "special legal privileges."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure there are. That's why gays are fighting for marriage rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What they fought for, and won, were equal rights, not special rights.
Click to expand...


They're privileges non-married people don't get.


----------



## Faun

dblack said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Marriage as contract law is ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue isn't the contract. The issue is the special legal privileges extended to those who enter into the contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no "special legal privileges."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure there are. That's why gays are fighting for marriage rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What they fought for, and won, were equal rights, not special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're privileges non-married people don't get.
Click to expand...

Non-married people have the right to get married to the person of their choice. Until Obergfell, that right was denied to non-married gays.


----------



## dblack

Faun said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue isn't the contract. The issue is the special legal privileges extended to those who enter into the contract.
> 
> 
> 
> There are no "special legal privileges."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure there are. That's why gays are fighting for marriage rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What they fought for, and won, were equal rights, not special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're privileges non-married people don't get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non-married people have the right to get married to the person of their choice. Until Obergfell, that right was denied to non-married gays.
Click to expand...

And the reason that "right" is important is because of the legal benefits granted to those who are married.


----------



## Syriusly

ding said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that black people did not own their own bodies but were considered property of their owners.
> So whatever laws came from that, I am not surprised.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you understand.  After they were freed, they were denied the right to marry.  People who prefer to have sex with the opposite gender were not being denied the right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are comparing when blacks were barred from marrying
> even the opposite gender.
> 
> To laws that allow all people including gays to marry the opposite gender.
> 
> Yes, I said that at the end.
> 
> That 1. no one is being barred from marrying opposite gender,
> whether they are homosexual or heterosexual
> 2. no one is allowed to marry the same sex,
> whether heterosexual or homosexual
> 
> and you are contrasting this with laws that actually
> DID bar blacks from marrying when other races could
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  Pretty much.  The 14th Amendment was narrowly focused.  It was not intended to be a catch all.  On a side note, I believe the justification used for denying them marriage after they became emancipated is that they were not citizens and were not afforded those rights.  It wasn't just marriage that was being denied to them.
Click to expand...


Black Americans were not being denied their right to marriage- mixed race couples were being denied their right to marry.

Just as the law allowed a white man to marry a white woman- but not a white man to marry a black woman- the laws overturned by Obergefell allowed a man to marry a woman- but not a man to marry a man. 

Both denied Americans their right to legal marriage.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no "special legal privileges."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure there are. That's why gays are fighting for marriage rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What they fought for, and won, were equal rights, not special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're privileges non-married people don't get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non-married people have the right to get married to the person of their choice. Until Obergfell, that right was denied to non-married gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the reason that "right" is important is because of the legal benefits granted to those who are married.
Click to expand...

That is but one of the reasons the courts have recognized as being an important reason. Even without any legal benefits we would still have a legal right to marriage.


----------



## Syriusly

ding said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that black people did not own their own bodies but were considered property of their owners.
> So whatever laws came from that, I am not surprised.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you understand.  After they were freed, they were denied the right to marry.
Click to expand...

No- they were not. 

The law denied a mixed race couple to marry- but a black was free to marry a black.

The State of Virginia claimed since that black could marry black and a white could marry a white- there was no discrimination. 

Sound familiar?


----------



## Syriusly

ding said:


> I think you all need to face the reality that people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are seeking special rights.



Why should any of us 'face' what the voices in your head are telling you? 

Equal rights are not special rights- only bigots think that they are.


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> "Keep the government out of my bedroom!. And I demand the government give me a license for my bedroom!"



Wow-you want a license for your bedroom?


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure there are. That's why gays are fighting for marriage rights.
> 
> 
> 
> What they fought for, and won, were equal rights, not special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're privileges non-married people don't get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non-married people have the right to get married to the person of their choice. Until Obergfell, that right was denied to non-married gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the reason that "right" is important is because of the legal benefits granted to those who are married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is but one of the reasons the courts have recognized as being an important reason. Even without any legal benefits we would still have a legal right to marriage.
Click to expand...

Sure, but the legal benes are why it's contentious. Conservative fans of marriage don't want to let gays on their gravy train.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - Ninth Amendment

In other words, the federal government has no power to outlaw any marriage, gay or otherwise.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is government giving marriages special legal status in the first place. It's none of their business.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Marriage as contract law is ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue isn't the contract. The issue is the special legal privileges extended to those who enter into the contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no "special legal privileges."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure there are. That's why gays are fighting for marriage rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What they fought for, and won, were equal rights, not special rights.
Click to expand...


Dear Faun 
1. RE: What are the govt's compelling interest
The argument to remove ALL biases and beliefs in marriage policy from govt, including either pro or anti gay or pro or anti traditional marriage etc.
is to PREVENT discrimination by creed
Both sides argue their version of the marriage laws defends their beliefs;
and both sides argue the other sides version discriminates against their beliefs.

So the solution is to rewrite laws where both sides agree that all beliefs
are accommodated equally and NEITHER side is objecting to bias in belief.
That's the compelling interest
* equal protection of the laws
* equal First Amendment rights neither to establish nor prohibit
the free exercise of beliefs of either side
* no discrimination on the basis of creed

2. equal rights vs special rights
both the laws for traditional marriage
and the laws endorsing same sex marriage
would be establishing "special rights" for pepole of those beliefs.

this violates the beliefs of people
* against excluding same sex if traditional marriage is endorsed 
* against including same sex if same sex marriage is endorsed
* against EITHER being endorsed by govt instead of removing marriage
and/or beliefs about it altogether and only having govt recognize civil unions

so if any marriage policy, either pro traditional pro same sex anti same sex etc etc get passed through govt, those people who believe in that are
getting "special rights" to have govt endorse THEIR beliefs
at the expense of people of opposing beliefs

it's not just the LGBT that were pushing for special rights.
But two wrongs don't make it right.
To correct the problem of special rights for traditional marraige
beliefs, it doesn't fix the problem by pushing for special rights for
those who agree that same sex marriage shoudl be endorsed by govt.
That's EQUALLY a belief not all people share.

You are substituting one belief for another and both are violations of
freedom of religion barring govt from establishing or prohibiting either way.

You are like the equivalent of trying to correct
the problem of Christians wanting prayer in public institutions
by instituting Muslim prayer to be included.

Well what about people arguing ALL prayer should be removed
and not have govt endorse ANY or EITHER type of prayer.

Right to prayer is as fundamental a right and freedom
under religious free exercise as is
right to marriage.

Trying to establish marriage through govt
causes just as much complications over beliefs
as trying to establish marriage through govt.

Either agree on a policy or remove it.
Or its just different groups competing for
THEIR beliefs about prayer (or marriage) being endorsed through govt.

Christians don't have to change their beliefs about marriage for govt,
anymore than atheists should have to tolerate prayers in Christ Jesus
as a govt endorsed policy for states to endorse for all people to participate in.

However, maybe Christians would accept such a tradeoff;
if we wrote up and passed a Constitutional Amendment on political beliefs
and allows right to health care equally as right to life,
and right to prayer equally as right to marriage,
maybe both sides would AGREE to include and tolerate the other's beliefs
that are part of their spiritual identity and public expression.

Again the compelling interest is
equal treatment and protection of the laws
without discrimination by creed.


----------



## emilynghiem

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - Ninth Amendment
> 
> In other words, the federal government has no power to outlaw any marriage, gay or otherwise.



Kevin_Kennedy
and by the First Amendment,
neither can govt ESTABLISH nor PROHIBIT
the free exercise of one's personal or spiritual beliefs about marriage.

marriage beliefs cannot be endorsed or penalized by govt without violating 
Amendment one, and thus Fourteenth and Civil Rights principles
on equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Marriage as contract law is ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue isn't the contract. The issue is the special legal privileges extended to those who enter into the contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no "special legal privileges."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure there are. That's why gays are fighting for marriage rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What they fought for, and won, were equal rights, not special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. RE: What are the govt's compelling interest
> The argument to remove ALL biases and beliefs in marriage policy from govt, including either pro or anti gay or pro or anti traditional marriage etc.
> is to PREVENT discrimination by creed
> Both sides argue their version of the marriage laws defends their beliefs;
> and both sides argue the other sides version discriminates against their beliefs.
> 
> So the solution is to rewrite laws where both sides agree that all beliefs
> are accommodated equally and NEITHER side is objecting to bias in belief.
> That's the compelling interest
> * equal protection of the laws
> * equal First Amendment rights neither to establish nor prohibit
> the free exercise of beliefs of either side
> * no discrimination on the basis of creed
> 
> 2. equal rights vs special rights
> both the laws for traditional marriage
> and the laws endorsing same sex marriage
> would be establishing "special rights" for pepole of those beliefs.
> 
> this violates the beliefs of people
> * against excluding same sex if traditional marriage is endorsed
> * against including same sex if same sex marriage is endorsed
> * against EITHER being endorsed by govt instead of removing marriage
> and/or beliefs about it altogether and only having govt recognize civil unions
> 
> so if any marriage policy, either pro traditional pro same sex anti same sex etc etc get passed through govt, those people who believe in that are
> getting "special rights" to have govt endorse THEIR beliefs
> at the expense of people of opposing beliefs
> 
> it's not just the LGBT that were pushing for special rights.
> But two wrongs don't make it right.
> To correct the problem of special rights for traditional marraige
> beliefs, it doesn't fix the problem by pushing for special rights for
> those who agree that same sex marriage shoudl be endorsed by govt.
> That's EQUALLY a belief not all people share.
> 
> You are substituting one belief for another and both are violations of
> freedom of religion barring govt from establishing or prohibiting either way.
> 
> You are like the equivalent of trying to correct
> the problem of Christians wanting prayer in public institutions
> by instituting Muslim prayer to be included.
> 
> Well what about people arguing ALL prayer should be removed
> and not have govt endorse ANY or EITHER type of prayer.
> 
> Right to prayer is as fundamental a right and freedom
> under religious free exercise as is
> right to marriage.
> 
> Trying to establish marriage through govt
> causes just as much complications over beliefs
> as trying to establish marriage through govt.
> 
> Either agree on a policy or remove it.
> Or its just different groups competing for
> THEIR beliefs about prayer (or marriage) being endorsed through govt.
> 
> Christians don't have to change their beliefs about marriage for govt,
> anymore than atheists should have to tolerate prayers in Christ Jesus
> as a govt endorsed policy for states to endorse for all people to participate in.
> 
> However, maybe Christians would accept such a tradeoff;
> if we wrote up and passed a Constitutional Amendment on political beliefs
> and allows right to health care equally as right to life,
> and right to prayer equally as right to marriage,
> maybe both sides would AGREE to include and tolerate the other's beliefs
> that are part of their spiritual identity and public expression.
> 
> Again the compelling interest is
> equal treatment and protection of the laws
> without discrimination by creed.
Click to expand...

A compelling interest would be when it encroaches on the rights of others. As far as discrimination by creed, that is not the case here since any creed can marry.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

dblack said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Marriage as contract law is ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue isn't the contract. The issue is the special legal privileges extended to those who enter into the contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no "special legal privileges."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure there are. That's why gays are fighting for marriage rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What they fought for, and won, were equal rights, not special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're privileges non-married people don't get.
Click to expand...

And?

This fails as a non-sequitur fallacy.

That you perceive marriage law to be ‘unfair’ to unmarried persons has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, and that it is un-Constitutional for the states to deny them access to marriage law for no other reason than being gay.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> What they fought for, and won, were equal rights, not special rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're privileges non-married people don't get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non-married people have the right to get married to the person of their choice. Until Obergfell, that right was denied to non-married gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the reason that "right" is important is because of the legal benefits granted to those who are married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is but one of the reasons the courts have recognized as being an important reason. Even without any legal benefits we would still have a legal right to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, but the legal benes are why it's contentious. Conservative fans of marriage don't want to let gays on their gravy train.
Click to expand...

Which is un-Constitutional.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're privileges non-married people don't get.
> 
> 
> 
> Non-married people have the right to get married to the person of their choice. Until Obergfell, that right was denied to non-married gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the reason that "right" is important is because of the legal benefits granted to those who are married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is but one of the reasons the courts have recognized as being an important reason. Even without any legal benefits we would still have a legal right to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, but the legal benes are why it's contentious. Conservative fans of marriage don't want to let gays on their gravy train.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is un-Constitutional.
Click to expand...


So is extending special privileges. Like begets like I suppose.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - Ninth Amendment
> 
> In other words, the federal government has no power to outlaw any marriage, gay or otherwise.


The issue has nothing to do with the 9th Amendment or the Federal government.  

This is a 14th Amendment issue concerning state marriage law, where the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Amendment prohibit the states from denying same-sex couples access to their marriage laws.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - Ninth Amendment
> 
> In other words, the federal government has no power to outlaw any marriage, gay or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> The issue has nothing to do with the 9th Amendment or the Federal government.
> 
> This is a 14th Amendment issue concerning state marriage law, where the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Amendment prohibit the states from denying same-sex couples access to their marriage laws.
Click to expand...


C - don't think you'd know equal protection if it bit you in the ass. The fact is that the preferential treatment afforded to married couples is, in and of itself, and violation of equal protection.


----------



## Faun

dblack said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Non-married people have the right to get married to the person of their choice. Until Obergfell, that right was denied to non-married gays.
> 
> 
> 
> And the reason that "right" is important is because of the legal benefits granted to those who are married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is but one of the reasons the courts have recognized as being an important reason. Even without any legal benefits we would still have a legal right to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, but the legal benes are why it's contentious. Conservative fans of marriage don't want to let gays on their gravy train.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is un-Constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So is extending special privileges. Like begets like I suppose.
Click to expand...

And still, no special privileges were extended.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

“equal rights vs special rights”

Wrong.

Again, there are no ‘special rights.’

All citizens are afforded the same rights, including heterosexual white Christians.

And should a state enact a measure prohibiting heterosexual white Christians from accessing a given state law for no other reason than being a heterosexual white Christian, heterosexual white Christians would file suit in Federal court and have such a law or measure invalidated because it violated the equal protection and due process rights of heterosexual white Christians.


----------



## dblack

Faun said:


> no special privileges were extended.


Try again...  do some reading: http://bfy.tw/8Tbs


----------



## Faun

dblack said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> no special privileges were extended.
> 
> 
> 
> Try again...  do some reading: http://bfy.tw/8Tbs
Click to expand...

You're conflating marriage benefits who can marry. That has nothing to do with this thread.


----------



## dblack

Faun said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> no special privileges were extended.
> 
> 
> 
> Try again...  do some reading: http://bfy.tw/8Tbs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're conflating marriage benefits who can marry. That has nothing to do with this thread.
Click to expand...


No I'm not. I'm pointing out that the reason marriage is problematic is that the government grants special privileges to those it allows to marry. The state shouldn't be in the business of rewarding people who get married and it shouldn't be deciding who is allowed to marry.


----------



## Faun

dblack said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> no special privileges were extended.
> 
> 
> 
> Try again...  do some reading: http://bfy.tw/8Tbs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're conflating marriage benefits who can marry. That has nothing to do with this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm not. I'm pointing out that the reason marriage is problematic is that the government grants special privileges to those it allows to marry. The state shouldn't be in the business of rewarding people who get married and it shouldn't be deciding who is allowed to marry.
Click to expand...

And this thread is not about whether or not the government should be providing marriage benefits. You're in the wrong thread with that argument.


----------



## dblack

Faun said:


> And this thread is not about whether or not the government should be providing marriage benefits. You're in the wrong thread with that argument.



I don't think so. Especially if we're invoking equal protection as an argument.


----------



## Tennyson

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - Ninth Amendment
> 
> In other words, the federal government has no power to outlaw any marriage, gay or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> The issue has nothing to do with the 9th Amendment or the Federal government.
> 
> This is a 14th Amendment issue concerning state marriage law, where the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Amendment prohibit the states from denying same-sex couples access to their marriage laws.
Click to expand...


There was never any discussions in the debates of the 39th Congress regarding the equal protection clause or the due precess clause having any affect on the states other than in legal proceedings, and substantive due process did not appear until Lochner. The primary attempt by a few was adding the privilege and immunities clause so that the privilege and immunities clause of Article IV could be enforced on the states. A few of the dumber members of Congress were under the illusion that some of the Bill of Rights could be incorporated under the privilege and immunities clause because they stated that the privilege and immunities clause of Article IV was intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights, and we all know that is not true. The court shot that down by correctly interpreting the privilege and immunities clause in the Slaughter House cases.


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.
> 
> And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
> because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.
> 
> You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
> but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.
> 
> The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.
> 
> That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
> to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they have the same right to marry.  What they are seeking are special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that as though Obergfell never happened. That aside, they did not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, Before Obergfell, heterosexuals had the right to marry the person they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, pursuant to their unalienable rights that the government cannot abolish. Homosexuals were being denied that same fundamental right.
> 
> Hence Obergfell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had exactly the same right. To marry a person of the opposite sex.
Click to expand...


Just as blacks and whites had exactly the same right. To marry a person of the same race.

Which is why the both Loving and Obergefell overturned unconstitutional state laws.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is government giving marriages special legal status in the first place. It's none of their business.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Marriage as contract law is ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue isn't the contract. The issue is the special legal privileges extended to those who enter into the contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no "special legal privileges."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure there are. That's why gays are fighting for marriage rights.
Click to expand...


Gays aren't fighting for marriage rights- because they have the same right to marriage as we all do. 

Which is why they are getting married in all 50 states.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> no special privileges were extended.
> 
> 
> 
> Try again...  do some reading: http://bfy.tw/8Tbs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're conflating marriage benefits who can marry. That has nothing to do with this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm not. I'm pointing out that the reason marriage is problematic is that the government grants special privileges to those it allows to marry. The state shouldn't be in the business of rewarding people who get married and it shouldn't be deciding who is allowed to marry.
Click to expand...


That is of course an entirely different argument- but if you want to end all legal marriage- it is your right to pursue that pipe dream. 

The issue you will face is that most Americans disagree with you.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - Ninth Amendment
> 
> In other words, the federal government has no power to outlaw any marriage, gay or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> The issue has nothing to do with the 9th Amendment or the Federal government.
> 
> This is a 14th Amendment issue concerning state marriage law, where the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Amendment prohibit the states from denying same-sex couples access to their marriage laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C - don't think you'd know equal protection if it bit you in the ass. The fact is that the preferential treatment afforded to married couples is, in and of itself, and violation of equal protection.
Click to expand...


Well you can go to court and make that case.  You have that right. 

Go for it.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> What they fought for, and won, were equal rights, not special rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're privileges non-married people don't get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non-married people have the right to get married to the person of their choice. Until Obergfell, that right was denied to non-married gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the reason that "right" is important is because of the legal benefits granted to those who are married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is but one of the reasons the courts have recognized as being an important reason. Even without any legal benefits we would still have a legal right to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, but the legal benes are why it's contentious. Conservative fans of marriage don't want to let gays on their gravy train.
Click to expand...


No- frankly the legal benefits are not why its contentious.


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
> because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.
> 
> You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
> but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.
> 
> The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.
> 
> That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
> to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they have the same right to marry.  What they are seeking are special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that as though Obergfell never happened. That aside, they did not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, Before Obergfell, heterosexuals had the right to marry the person they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, pursuant to their unalienable rights that the government cannot abolish. Homosexuals were being denied that same fundamental right.
> 
> Hence Obergfell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had exactly the same right. To marry a person of the opposite sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as blacks and whites had exactly the same right. To marry a person of the same race.
> 
> Which is why the both Loving and Obergefell overturned unconstitutional state laws.
Click to expand...


Dear Syriusly
(A) To marry the person you want to spend the rest of your life with is as personal a choice (and becomes a faith based issue if you believe in same sex partnerships or not),
as the choice to "pray to God or Allah" is a personal spiritual belief or choice.

But that doesn't make it the govt's responsibility to ENDORSE prayer to Allah
IN RESPONSE to this being denied by laws that only recognized prayer to God
or prayer to God through Christ.

Sure, if laws only let govt endorse right to prayers as long as this was to God through Christ only,
as "traditional" prayer, that would be unconstitutional to exclude others to the right to prayer.

But it is NOT the solution to demand that Govt open up "right to prayer" and ENDORSE
prayers to Allah or other types of prayers in order to protect them equally as Christian prayers.

*The solution would be to RECOGNIZE that 'right to prayer' like "right to marriage"
is a spiritual and religious practice and is not the govt's place to endorse one belief or another on this practice!*

(B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?

To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.

But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people.

Similar to not making govt policy on SHARIAH law which means the practices of Muslim believers,
including prayer and charity. This would be govt dictating someone's religion. Just because
"shariah law" means one thing to some people does not mean that definition can be
IMPOSED on Muslims for whom Shariah means something else that govt has no authority to regulate.

Just because Shariah means something secular to people writing laws concerning it,
doesn't mean this won't cause "religious conflicts" with people where that term meaning something
else and ends up imposing on their practice by using that word in secular context of law and govt.

(C)  I have compared with people who believe that a conceived person
has the same rights as a person born and out of the womb.

But not all people believe and AGREE to that same legal standard.

Because we don't AGREE on the standard to consider life at conception
the SAME as life of a born person, the legal standard is set where we
at least agree that a born person has rights to life.

Likewise, if the most we agree on marriage is for the state to
recognize CIVIL UNIONS and we can't agree on the definition or terms of "marriage"
then we would have to stick with CIVIL UNIONS being the basis of secular law.

That would be the agreed common standard, while the other terms are subjective to BELIEFS.

Does that example/comparison work well enough?

If not, how about this one:

(B)  Where people objected to public prayer, in Texas laws were passed regarding
"moment of silence"

Of course, many Christians argued that it was a natural expression of faith to
ask to join in prayer, but other people did not agree with that.

So the compromise was to go with the next closest secular term or
practice, where the Christians could still use that for prayer, but Christian
prayer was not going to be imposed on people who believe otherwise.

So that's another example of something close to
sticking with CIVIL UNIONS as neutral and secular enough to
satisfy all people, and not impose beliefs in addition to it that people oppose.

Is it really the position of Govt to dictate which word people use?

So again with the term MARRIAGE if this connotes religious or spiritual meaning
to some people, then if that word in that context of public law imposes a bias in belief
that conflicts with others, then why not use SECULAR terms such as civil union or domestic partnership.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue isn't the contract. The issue is the special legal privileges extended to those who enter into the contract.
> 
> 
> 
> There are no "special legal privileges."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure there are. That's why gays are fighting for marriage rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What they fought for, and won, were equal rights, not special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. RE: What are the govt's compelling interest
> The argument to remove ALL biases and beliefs in marriage policy from govt, including either pro or anti gay or pro or anti traditional marriage etc.
> is to PREVENT discrimination by creed
> Both sides argue their version of the marriage laws defends their beliefs;
> and both sides argue the other sides version discriminates against their beliefs.
> 
> So the solution is to rewrite laws where both sides agree that all beliefs
> are accommodated equally and NEITHER side is objecting to bias in belief.
> That's the compelling interest
> * equal protection of the laws
> * equal First Amendment rights neither to establish nor prohibit
> the free exercise of beliefs of either side
> * no discrimination on the basis of creed
> 
> 2. equal rights vs special rights
> both the laws for traditional marriage
> and the laws endorsing same sex marriage
> would be establishing "special rights" for pepole of those beliefs.
> 
> this violates the beliefs of people
> * against excluding same sex if traditional marriage is endorsed
> * against including same sex if same sex marriage is endorsed
> * against EITHER being endorsed by govt instead of removing marriage
> and/or beliefs about it altogether and only having govt recognize civil unions
> 
> so if any marriage policy, either pro traditional pro same sex anti same sex etc etc get passed through govt, those people who believe in that are
> getting "special rights" to have govt endorse THEIR beliefs
> at the expense of people of opposing beliefs
> 
> it's not just the LGBT that were pushing for special rights.
> But two wrongs don't make it right.
> To correct the problem of special rights for traditional marraige
> beliefs, it doesn't fix the problem by pushing for special rights for
> those who agree that same sex marriage shoudl be endorsed by govt.
> That's EQUALLY a belief not all people share.
> 
> You are substituting one belief for another and both are violations of
> freedom of religion barring govt from establishing or prohibiting either way.
> 
> You are like the equivalent of trying to correct
> the problem of Christians wanting prayer in public institutions
> by instituting Muslim prayer to be included.
> 
> Well what about people arguing ALL prayer should be removed
> and not have govt endorse ANY or EITHER type of prayer.
> 
> Right to prayer is as fundamental a right and freedom
> under religious free exercise as is
> right to marriage.
> 
> Trying to establish marriage through govt
> causes just as much complications over beliefs
> as trying to establish marriage through govt.
> 
> Either agree on a policy or remove it.
> Or its just different groups competing for
> THEIR beliefs about prayer (or marriage) being endorsed through govt.
> 
> Christians don't have to change their beliefs about marriage for govt,
> anymore than atheists should have to tolerate prayers in Christ Jesus
> as a govt endorsed policy for states to endorse for all people to participate in.
> 
> However, maybe Christians would accept such a tradeoff;
> if we wrote up and passed a Constitutional Amendment on political beliefs
> and allows right to health care equally as right to life,
> and right to prayer equally as right to marriage,
> maybe both sides would AGREE to include and tolerate the other's beliefs
> that are part of their spiritual identity and public expression.
> 
> Again the compelling interest is
> equal treatment and protection of the laws
> without discrimination by creed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A compelling interest would be when it encroaches on the rights of others. As far as discrimination by creed, that is not the case here since any creed can marry.
Click to expand...


Dear Faun
(1) That is like saying that Govt can endorse "right to prayer" because people
"can pray to anyone they want."

That still does not give Govt to endorse ANY faith based practice
which violates Amendment One.

(2) the DISCRIMINATION BY CREED occurs when you compare how
homosexual beliefs expressions and practices are treated 
compared with Christian beliefs practices and expressions in public policy:

The examples I gave before
A. when Atheists or religious freedom groups sue to remove Christian references in public schools or property,
instead of arguing as LGBT do to "embrace diversity" and ALLOW diverse expressions of BELIEFS
(as is argued for LGBT beliefs in tolerating public expression of homosexuality and transgender identity)
instead of tolerance and inclusion,
these secular groups SUE for removal on the PRINCIPLE ALONE
because of separating SECULAR GOVT from biased BELIEFS that belong in PRIVATE
(where beliefs they don't share, or may be against in the case of Atheists,
should NOT be "endorsed" or integrated into public institutions)

B. however, when Christians argue similarly against expressions against THEIR beliefs,
ie that gay marriage and expressions of homosexuality as natural and/or
beliefs in transgender identity (all being faith based, whether for or against these things)
then Christians who don't accept homosexuality by force of govt
(unlike Atheists who don't accept Christian beliefs by force of govt)
are met with harassment and claims of discrimination.

They are NOT defended on the same grounds as before of "including and tolerating diversity"
and "respecting different views" as the anti-Christian atheists or secularists are defended
when THEY ask for REMOVAL from public institutions and policies based on PRINCIPLE.

Public policy and perception are being pressured to ACCEPT one side and REJECT the other,
instead of treating beliefs equally.

So this is unequal treatment of beliefs.

And that's where I am saying it is DISCRIMINATION BY CREED.


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're privileges non-married people don't get.
> 
> 
> 
> Non-married people have the right to get married to the person of their choice. Until Obergfell, that right was denied to non-married gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the reason that "right" is important is because of the legal benefits granted to those who are married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is but one of the reasons the courts have recognized as being an important reason. Even without any legal benefits we would still have a legal right to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, but the legal benes are why it's contentious. Conservative fans of marriage don't want to let gays on their gravy train.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- frankly the legal benefits are not why its contentious.
Click to expand...


Syriusly it's contentious because both the Christian beliefs and LGBT beliefs
are fighting to get their beliefs established by govt,
INSTEAD of sticking to neutral secular terms on "civil unions, domestic partnerships etc."
that AVOID biased language for or against either sides beliefs about marriage.

When people on either side don't see their values are BELIEFS, but both hold that their way is the UNIVERSAL TRUTH while the other side is biased and wrong, then it gets doubly contentious.

If they BOTH saw their sides as equally valid beliefs,
they'd agree to either keep BOTH out of govt,
or open up the floodgates and let ALL beliefs be established by govt without
fighting over one group or another pushing their rights to their beliefs as a  protected practice.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no "special legal privileges."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure there are. That's why gays are fighting for marriage rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What they fought for, and won, were equal rights, not special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. RE: What are the govt's compelling interest
> The argument to remove ALL biases and beliefs in marriage policy from govt, including either pro or anti gay or pro or anti traditional marriage etc.
> is to PREVENT discrimination by creed
> Both sides argue their version of the marriage laws defends their beliefs;
> and both sides argue the other sides version discriminates against their beliefs.
> 
> So the solution is to rewrite laws where both sides agree that all beliefs
> are accommodated equally and NEITHER side is objecting to bias in belief.
> That's the compelling interest
> * equal protection of the laws
> * equal First Amendment rights neither to establish nor prohibit
> the free exercise of beliefs of either side
> * no discrimination on the basis of creed
> 
> 2. equal rights vs special rights
> both the laws for traditional marriage
> and the laws endorsing same sex marriage
> would be establishing "special rights" for pepole of those beliefs.
> 
> this violates the beliefs of people
> * against excluding same sex if traditional marriage is endorsed
> * against including same sex if same sex marriage is endorsed
> * against EITHER being endorsed by govt instead of removing marriage
> and/or beliefs about it altogether and only having govt recognize civil unions
> 
> so if any marriage policy, either pro traditional pro same sex anti same sex etc etc get passed through govt, those people who believe in that are
> getting "special rights" to have govt endorse THEIR beliefs
> at the expense of people of opposing beliefs
> 
> it's not just the LGBT that were pushing for special rights.
> But two wrongs don't make it right.
> To correct the problem of special rights for traditional marraige
> beliefs, it doesn't fix the problem by pushing for special rights for
> those who agree that same sex marriage shoudl be endorsed by govt.
> That's EQUALLY a belief not all people share.
> 
> You are substituting one belief for another and both are violations of
> freedom of religion barring govt from establishing or prohibiting either way.
> 
> You are like the equivalent of trying to correct
> the problem of Christians wanting prayer in public institutions
> by instituting Muslim prayer to be included.
> 
> Well what about people arguing ALL prayer should be removed
> and not have govt endorse ANY or EITHER type of prayer.
> 
> Right to prayer is as fundamental a right and freedom
> under religious free exercise as is
> right to marriage.
> 
> Trying to establish marriage through govt
> causes just as much complications over beliefs
> as trying to establish marriage through govt.
> 
> Either agree on a policy or remove it.
> Or its just different groups competing for
> THEIR beliefs about prayer (or marriage) being endorsed through govt.
> 
> Christians don't have to change their beliefs about marriage for govt,
> anymore than atheists should have to tolerate prayers in Christ Jesus
> as a govt endorsed policy for states to endorse for all people to participate in.
> 
> However, maybe Christians would accept such a tradeoff;
> if we wrote up and passed a Constitutional Amendment on political beliefs
> and allows right to health care equally as right to life,
> and right to prayer equally as right to marriage,
> maybe both sides would AGREE to include and tolerate the other's beliefs
> that are part of their spiritual identity and public expression.
> 
> Again the compelling interest is
> equal treatment and protection of the laws
> without discrimination by creed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A compelling interest would be when it encroaches on the rights of others. As far as discrimination by creed, that is not the case here since any creed can marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> (1) That is like saying that Govt can endorse "right to prayer" because people
> "can pray to anyone they want."
> 
> That still does not give Govt to endorse ANY faith based practice
> which violates Amendment One.
> 
> (2) the DISCRIMINATION BY CREED occurs when you compare how
> homosexual beliefs expressions and practices are treated
> compared with Christian beliefs practices and expressions in public policy:
> 
> The examples I gave before
> A. when Atheists or religious freedom groups sue to remove Christian references in public schools or property,
> instead of arguing as LGBT do to "embrace diversity" and ALLOW diverse expressions of BELIEFS
> (as is argued for LGBT beliefs in tolerating public expression of homosexuality and transgender identity)
> instead of tolerance and inclusion,
> these secular groups SUE for removal on the PRINCIPLE ALONE
> because of separating SECULAR GOVT from biased BELIEFS that belong in PRIVATE
> (where beliefs they don't share, or may be against in the case of Atheists,
> should NOT be "endorsed" or integrated into public institutions)
> 
> B. however, when Christians argue similarly against expressions against THEIR beliefs,
> ie that gay marriage and expressions of homosexuality as natural and/or
> beliefs in transgender identity (all being faith based, whether for or against these things)
> then Christians who don't accept homosexuality by force of govt
> (unlike Atheists who don't accept Christian beliefs by force of govt)
> are met with harassment and claims of discrimination.
> 
> They are NOT defended on the same grounds as before of "including and tolerating diversity"
> and "respecting different views" as the anti-Christian atheists or secularists are defended
> when THEY ask for REMOVAL from public institutions and policies based on PRINCIPLE.
> 
> Public policy and perception are being pressured to ACCEPT one side and REJECT the other,
> instead of treating beliefs equally.
> 
> So this is unequal treatment of beliefs.
> 
> And that's where I am saying it is DISCRIMINATION BY CREED.
Click to expand...

Laws are not bound by religious tenets. No religion is being discriminated against by Obergfell because no one from any religion is being forced to marry someone of tne same gender.


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're privileges non-married people don't get.
> 
> 
> 
> Non-married people have the right to get married to the person of their choice. Until Obergfell, that right was denied to non-married gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the reason that "right" is important is because of the legal benefits granted to those who are married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is but one of the reasons the courts have recognized as being an important reason. Even without any legal benefits we would still have a legal right to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, but the legal benes are why it's contentious. Conservative fans of marriage don't want to let gays on their gravy train.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- frankly the legal benefits are not why its contentious.
Click to expand...


Of course they are. The legal benefits are why government regulates marriage in the first place. Otherwise it would be just another contract.


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> no special privileges were extended.
> 
> 
> 
> Try again...  do some reading: http://bfy.tw/8Tbs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're conflating marriage benefits who can marry. That has nothing to do with this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm not. I'm pointing out that the reason marriage is problematic is that the government grants special privileges to those it allows to marry. The state shouldn't be in the business of rewarding people who get married and it shouldn't be deciding who is allowed to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is of course an entirely different argument- but if you want to end all legal marriage- it is your right to pursue that pipe dream.
> 
> The issue you will face is that most Americans disagree with you.
Click to expand...


Duh?


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - Ninth Amendment
> 
> In other words, the federal government has no power to outlaw any marriage, gay or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> The issue has nothing to do with the 9th Amendment or the Federal government.
> 
> This is a 14th Amendment issue concerning state marriage law, where the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Amendment prohibit the states from denying same-sex couples access to their marriage laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C - don't think you'd know equal protection if it bit you in the ass. The fact is that the preferential treatment afforded to married couples is, in and of itself, and violation of equal protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you can go to court and make that case.  You have that right.
> 
> Go for it.
Click to expand...


Yep. And the first step toward any sensible reform campaign is to raise awareness. We blithely accept government policies that undermine equal protection and then don't understand why they cause problems. It's time to wake up.


----------



## Faun

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Non-married people have the right to get married to the person of their choice. Until Obergfell, that right was denied to non-married gays.
> 
> 
> 
> And the reason that "right" is important is because of the legal benefits granted to those who are married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is but one of the reasons the courts have recognized as being an important reason. Even without any legal benefits we would still have a legal right to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, but the legal benes are why it's contentious. Conservative fans of marriage don't want to let gays on their gravy train.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- frankly the legal benefits are not why its contentious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they are. The legal benefits are why government regulates marriage in the first place. Otherwise it would be just another contract.
Click to expand...

That's still not this thread's topic. Can you stop trying to divert away from the thread topic? Straight folks already had the right to legally marry the person of their choice. Before Obergfell, gays were denied that right. What compelling interest was there to treat gay couples differently? THAT'S the topic. Not that no one should be getting marriage benefits from the government.


----------



## dblack

Faun said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the reason that "right" is important is because of the legal benefits granted to those who are married.
> 
> 
> 
> That is but one of the reasons the courts have recognized as being an important reason. Even without any legal benefits we would still have a legal right to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, but the legal benes are why it's contentious. Conservative fans of marriage don't want to let gays on their gravy train.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- frankly the legal benefits are not why its contentious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they are. The legal benefits are why government regulates marriage in the first place. Otherwise it would be just another contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's still not this thread's topic.
Click to expand...


It's directly related. This ignorant pissing match between homophobes and gay rights advocates is an argument that doesn't need to happen because the problem is created by government in the first place. It's similar to the campaign to add gays to the protected classes list. It's a problem that shouldn't exist because protected classes themselves are a violation of equal protection.


----------



## Faun

dblack said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is but one of the reasons the courts have recognized as being an important reason. Even without any legal benefits we would still have a legal right to marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but the legal benes are why it's contentious. Conservative fans of marriage don't want to let gays on their gravy train.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- frankly the legal benefits are not why its contentious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they are. The legal benefits are why government regulates marriage in the first place. Otherwise it would be just another contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's still not this thread's topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's directly related. This ignorant pissing match between homophobes and gay rights advocates is an argument that doesn't need to happen because the problem is created by government in the first place. It's similar to the campaign to add gay to the protected classes list. It's a problem that should exist because protected classes themselves are a violation of equal protection.
Click to expand...

It's not the topic of this thread. If that's what you want to talk about, why don't you start a thread on that topic?


----------



## Wry Catcher

DOTR said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?
> 
> All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.
> 
> But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.
Click to expand...


Maybe you ought to study some history.  I don't mean that as a personal attack at all, the history of bigotry is deeply ingrained in our history, and BTW, Jefferson's words in the second paragraph of the DoI seem essential to this issue:  

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that *all* men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"​


----------



## dblack

Faun said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but the legal benes are why it's contentious. Conservative fans of marriage don't want to let gays on their gravy train.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- frankly the legal benefits are not why its contentious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they are. The legal benefits are why government regulates marriage in the first place. Otherwise it would be just another contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's still not this thread's topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's directly related. This ignorant pissing match between homophobes and gay rights advocates is an argument that doesn't need to happen because the problem is created by government in the first place. It's similar to the campaign to add gay to the protected classes list. It's a problem that should exist because protected classes themselves are a violation of equal protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not the topic of this thread. If that's what you want to talk about, why don't you start a thread on that topic?
Click to expand...


Its totally on topic. You have interest in root causes?


----------



## Faun

dblack said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No- frankly the legal benefits are not why its contentious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they are. The legal benefits are why government regulates marriage in the first place. Otherwise it would be just another contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's still not this thread's topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's directly related. This ignorant pissing match between homophobes and gay rights advocates is an argument that doesn't need to happen because the problem is created by government in the first place. It's similar to the campaign to add gay to the protected classes list. It's a problem that should exist because protected classes themselves are a violation of equal protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not the topic of this thread. If that's what you want to talk about, why don't you start a thread on that topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its totally on topic. You have interest in root causes?
Click to expand...

No one is arguing here if the government should be in the business of regulating marriage.

Stop diverting.


----------



## dblack

Faun said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they are. The legal benefits are why government regulates marriage in the first place. Otherwise it would be just another contract.
> 
> 
> 
> That's still not this thread's topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's directly related. This ignorant pissing match between homophobes and gay rights advocates is an argument that doesn't need to happen because the problem is created by government in the first place. It's similar to the campaign to add gay to the protected classes list. It's a problem that should exist because protected classes themselves are a violation of equal protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not the topic of this thread. If that's what you want to talk about, why don't you start a thread on that topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its totally on topic. You have interest in root causes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is arguing here if the government should be in the business of regulating marriage.
> 
> Stop diverting.
Click to expand...


I'm not diverting. I'm talking about the root cause of your little squabble.


----------



## Tennyson

Wry Catcher said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you ought to study some history.  I don't mean that as a personal attack at all, the history of bigotry is deeply ingrained in our history, and BTW, Jefferson's words in the second paragraph of the DoI seem essential to this issue:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that *all* men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"​
Click to expand...


That phrase actually relates to Article I, Section 2, clause 5's natural born citizen clause and the Fifth Amendment's life, liberty, and property clause. The Declaration of Independence was written to King George. That phrase regarded equal in the eyes of God and that no man is born a subject of a King, which was a natural born subject, and became a natural born citizen in Article I.


----------



## Faun

dblack said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's still not this thread's topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's directly related. This ignorant pissing match between homophobes and gay rights advocates is an argument that doesn't need to happen because the problem is created by government in the first place. It's similar to the campaign to add gay to the protected classes list. It's a problem that should exist because protected classes themselves are a violation of equal protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not the topic of this thread. If that's what you want to talk about, why don't you start a thread on that topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its totally on topic. You have interest in root causes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is arguing here if the government should be in the business of regulating marriage.
> 
> Stop diverting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not diverting. I'm talking about the root cause of your little squabble.
Click to expand...

No, you're not. You're trying to argue that the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage.

That is not the thread topic. Your argument is that gays and straights should be treated the same in that no one should get benefits.

That's not the topic of this thread.


----------



## dblack

Faun said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's directly related. This ignorant pissing match between homophobes and gay rights advocates is an argument that doesn't need to happen because the problem is created by government in the first place. It's similar to the campaign to add gay to the protected classes list. It's a problem that should exist because protected classes themselves are a violation of equal protection.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the topic of this thread. If that's what you want to talk about, why don't you start a thread on that topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its totally on topic. You have interest in root causes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is arguing here if the government should be in the business of regulating marriage.
> 
> Stop diverting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not diverting. I'm talking about the root cause of your little squabble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you're not. You're trying to argue that the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage.
> 
> That is not the thread topic. Your argument is that gays and straights should be treated the same in that no one should get benefits.
> 
> That's not the topic of this thread.
Click to expand...


Yeah. Topic policeman, got it.

The issue I'm raising is directly related. I think it's worth talking about, so I am. If you don't, don't.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Tennyson said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
> 
> The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> *Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. *We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the _same_ society.
> 
> Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you ought to study some history.  I don't mean that as a personal attack at all, the history of bigotry is deeply ingrained in our history, and BTW, Jefferson's words in the second paragraph of the DoI seem essential to this issue:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that *all* men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That phrase actually relates to Article I, Section 2, clause 5's natural born citizen clause and the Fifth Amendment's life, liberty, and property clause. The Declaration of Independence was written to King George. That phrase regarded equal in the eyes of God and that no man is born a subject of a King, which was a natural born subject, and became a natural born citizen in Article I.
Click to expand...


Huh?  

The only reference to a natural citizen is in Art. II and is about eligibility to be POTUS;

As for The 5th Amendment:

*No person* shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; *nor shall any person *be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

There is no mention of a natural person anywhere else in COTUS, and Jefferson wrote the DoI well before the COTUS was even thought of.  What source gave you the claim you've made about Natural Born Citizens?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Faun said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's directly related. This ignorant pissing match between homophobes and gay rights advocates is an argument that doesn't need to happen because the problem is created by government in the first place. It's similar to the campaign to add gay to the protected classes list. It's a problem that should exist because protected classes themselves are a violation of equal protection.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the topic of this thread. If that's what you want to talk about, why don't you start a thread on that topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its totally on topic. You have interest in root causes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is arguing here if the government should be in the business of regulating marriage.
> 
> Stop diverting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not diverting. I'm talking about the root cause of your little squabble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you're not. You're trying to argue that the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage.
> 
> That is not the thread topic. Your argument is that gays and straights should be treated the same in that no one should get benefits.
> 
> That's not the topic of this thread.
Click to expand...


Marriage is a CONTRACT.  If State A recognizes a contract, and state B  refuses to honor it, the result will be chaos.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure there are. That's why gays are fighting for marriage rights.
> 
> 
> 
> What they fought for, and won, were equal rights, not special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. RE: What are the govt's compelling interest
> The argument to remove ALL biases and beliefs in marriage policy from govt, including either pro or anti gay or pro or anti traditional marriage etc.
> is to PREVENT discrimination by creed
> Both sides argue their version of the marriage laws defends their beliefs;
> and both sides argue the other sides version discriminates against their beliefs.
> 
> So the solution is to rewrite laws where both sides agree that all beliefs
> are accommodated equally and NEITHER side is objecting to bias in belief.
> That's the compelling interest
> * equal protection of the laws
> * equal First Amendment rights neither to establish nor prohibit
> the free exercise of beliefs of either side
> * no discrimination on the basis of creed
> 
> 2. equal rights vs special rights
> both the laws for traditional marriage
> and the laws endorsing same sex marriage
> would be establishing "special rights" for pepole of those beliefs.
> 
> this violates the beliefs of people
> * against excluding same sex if traditional marriage is endorsed
> * against including same sex if same sex marriage is endorsed
> * against EITHER being endorsed by govt instead of removing marriage
> and/or beliefs about it altogether and only having govt recognize civil unions
> 
> so if any marriage policy, either pro traditional pro same sex anti same sex etc etc get passed through govt, those people who believe in that are
> getting "special rights" to have govt endorse THEIR beliefs
> at the expense of people of opposing beliefs
> 
> it's not just the LGBT that were pushing for special rights.
> But two wrongs don't make it right.
> To correct the problem of special rights for traditional marraige
> beliefs, it doesn't fix the problem by pushing for special rights for
> those who agree that same sex marriage shoudl be endorsed by govt.
> That's EQUALLY a belief not all people share.
> 
> You are substituting one belief for another and both are violations of
> freedom of religion barring govt from establishing or prohibiting either way.
> 
> You are like the equivalent of trying to correct
> the problem of Christians wanting prayer in public institutions
> by instituting Muslim prayer to be included.
> 
> Well what about people arguing ALL prayer should be removed
> and not have govt endorse ANY or EITHER type of prayer.
> 
> Right to prayer is as fundamental a right and freedom
> under religious free exercise as is
> right to marriage.
> 
> Trying to establish marriage through govt
> causes just as much complications over beliefs
> as trying to establish marriage through govt.
> 
> Either agree on a policy or remove it.
> Or its just different groups competing for
> THEIR beliefs about prayer (or marriage) being endorsed through govt.
> 
> Christians don't have to change their beliefs about marriage for govt,
> anymore than atheists should have to tolerate prayers in Christ Jesus
> as a govt endorsed policy for states to endorse for all people to participate in.
> 
> However, maybe Christians would accept such a tradeoff;
> if we wrote up and passed a Constitutional Amendment on political beliefs
> and allows right to health care equally as right to life,
> and right to prayer equally as right to marriage,
> maybe both sides would AGREE to include and tolerate the other's beliefs
> that are part of their spiritual identity and public expression.
> 
> Again the compelling interest is
> equal treatment and protection of the laws
> without discrimination by creed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A compelling interest would be when it encroaches on the rights of others. As far as discrimination by creed, that is not the case here since any creed can marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> (1) That is like saying that Govt can endorse "right to prayer" because people
> "can pray to anyone they want."
> 
> That still does not give Govt to endorse ANY faith based practice
> which violates Amendment One.
> 
> (2) the DISCRIMINATION BY CREED occurs when you compare how
> homosexual beliefs expressions and practices are treated
> compared with Christian beliefs practices and expressions in public policy:
> 
> The examples I gave before
> A. when Atheists or religious freedom groups sue to remove Christian references in public schools or property,
> instead of arguing as LGBT do to "embrace diversity" and ALLOW diverse expressions of BELIEFS
> (as is argued for LGBT beliefs in tolerating public expression of homosexuality and transgender identity)
> instead of tolerance and inclusion,
> these secular groups SUE for removal on the PRINCIPLE ALONE
> because of separating SECULAR GOVT from biased BELIEFS that belong in PRIVATE
> (where beliefs they don't share, or may be against in the case of Atheists,
> should NOT be "endorsed" or integrated into public institutions)
> 
> B. however, when Christians argue similarly against expressions against THEIR beliefs,
> ie that gay marriage and expressions of homosexuality as natural and/or
> beliefs in transgender identity (all being faith based, whether for or against these things)
> then Christians who don't accept homosexuality by force of govt
> (unlike Atheists who don't accept Christian beliefs by force of govt)
> are met with harassment and claims of discrimination.
> 
> They are NOT defended on the same grounds as before of "including and tolerating diversity"
> and "respecting different views" as the anti-Christian atheists or secularists are defended
> when THEY ask for REMOVAL from public institutions and policies based on PRINCIPLE.
> 
> Public policy and perception are being pressured to ACCEPT one side and REJECT the other,
> instead of treating beliefs equally.
> 
> So this is unequal treatment of beliefs.
> 
> And that's where I am saying it is DISCRIMINATION BY CREED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laws are not bound by religious tenets. No religion is being discriminated against by Obergfell because no one from any religion is being forced to marry someone of tne same gender.
Click to expand...


Dear Faun as discussed with Skylar
the First Amendment does not require anyone to be "forced or coerced"
in order for Govt
neither to ESTABLISH nor PROHIBIT a belief.

Now you and Skylar don't consider right to marriage a belief.
I have pointed out, neither do prolife consider right to life
starting at conception a belief either, but both are faith-based and relative.

If anyone else complains of a faith based bias in the law,
that's enough to ask to remove it.  it does NOT have to be "coercing or forcing" anyone
in order to be removed -- like crosses on public property that are sued to
be removed when that isn't forcing someone to believe in it either.  It's
still a faith based reference and govt cannot be used to endorse it.
Before when people consented to it, nobody challenged it; but as soon
as people said no we don't agree to "tolerate that expression of faith"
the lawsuits started and these things got removed from public institutions
or property; even changing buildings to private in order to preserve crosses,
which is what we are saying could be done here by changing marriage to private
and only keep civil unions through the state that are secular and devoid of bias.

So to cite cases of discrimination by creed:
I compared to ATHEISTS who remove crosses from public property.
Even the case of a religious freedom organization 'across the county'
suing a school over a teacher's memorial on site that displayed cross
symbols because the students wanted to honor that teacher in her way.

it was NOT COERCING OR FORCING ANYONE.
but these atheists and secular groups WIN CASES
to remove these things ***BASED ON PRINCIPLE ALONE***.
In fact, that was one reason they deliberately pursued this case across the country as to make that point that no imposition was necessary, but just the existence of it the
expression of a faith based belief on property owned by a public institution.

*Coercion is NOT REQUIRED.
In cases where people reject Christian expression and beliefs, on principle alone.
Why is coercion required in cases where people reject LGBT expression and beliefs.
Why is that treated different from Christian right to prayer endorsed by govt?*

Faun and Skylar if you enforce two different standards,
where Atheists can argue to remove faith based beliefs and biases
they reject "on principle alone" of "separation of church and state"
but different standards apply where your beliefs "have to impose or coerce
someone before they can be removed" then that's
what I mean by DISCRIMINATION BY CREED.

if you embrace diversity by letting Atheists reject Christianity
without harassing them for it or calling them wrong or names,
then why this harassment and namecalling of Christians
who don't believe in homosexuality as natural.

That is a double standard
AND IT IS CAUSING HARM.

You are enabling govt to be used to remove Christian beliefs,
while DEFENDING the equal rights of Atheist to be against those,
but when it comes to Christians "not believing in homosexuality"
they are to be rejected and punished for their beliefs,
harassed and name called and you don't support govt in equally defending them from exclusion by pushing for "inclusion of diversity and equal accommodations"
as you do people who support LGBT beliefs.

So these PEOPLE are treated different by law
BASED ON THE CONTENT OF THEIR BELIEFS
EVEN WHEN THE CHRISTIANS WERE NOT IMPOSING EITHER.

They were just expressing their beliefs, and this was
demanded to be REMOVED from public institutions
because it is faith based on principle.

in that case of the crosses on the teacher's memorial
the group that sued did so on purpose to make the statement
that whether or not they are forced or imposed upon (they don't
even see the memorial because it's across the country)
THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUE ON PRINCIPLE ALONE.

So there's your double standard.
Discrimination by creed.

If you don't see this well neither do Christians
think they are h arming anyone or imposing
when they ask for the right to pray in public!

The right to prayer and right to marriage are fundamental
but that doesn't mean govt needs to endorse either one.

Prayer does not have to impose or coerce anyone
and it's been reduced to "moment of silence" to be secular.

So ppl have the right to reduce marriage to "civil unions" to be secular
and void of faith based beliefs biases or references that others object to.
(otherwise if civil unions "aren't the same and people want marriage"
then "right to prayer" should be allowed in govt and public policy and institutions
instead of reducing this to "moments of silence" to appease objectors.)

The arguments and standards should be enforced the same
for both groups in both cases.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.
> 
> 
> 
> But they have the same right to marry.  What they are seeking are special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that as though Obergfell never happened. That aside, they did not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, Before Obergfell, heterosexuals had the right to marry the person they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, pursuant to their unalienable rights that the government cannot abolish. Homosexuals were being denied that same fundamental right.
> 
> Hence Obergfell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had exactly the same right. To marry a person of the opposite sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as blacks and whites had exactly the same right. To marry a person of the same race.
> 
> Which is why the both Loving and Obergefell overturned unconstitutional state laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Syriusly
> (A) To marry the person you want to spend the rest of your life with is as personal a choice (and becomes a faith based issue if you believe in same sex partnerships or not),
> as the choice to "pray to God or Allah" is a personal spiritual belief or choice.
> 
> But that doesn't make it the govt's responsibility to ENDORSE prayer to Allah
> IN RESPONSE to this being denied by laws that only recognized prayer to God
> or prayer to God through Christ.
> 
> Sure, if laws only let govt endorse right to prayers as long as this was to God through Christ only,
> as "traditional" prayer, that would be unconstitutional to exclude others to the right to prayer.
> 
> But it is NOT the solution to demand that Govt open up "right to prayer" and ENDORSE
> prayers to Allah or other types of prayers in order to protect them equally as Christian prayers.
> 
> *The solution would be to RECOGNIZE that 'right to prayer' like "right to marriage"
> is a spiritual and religious practice and is not the govt's place to endorse one belief or another on this practice!*.
Click to expand...


Everyone does have a right to prayer. No one can be denied their right to prayer- they do not however have the right to impose those prayers on others in a government funded space.

Just everyone does have a right to marriage- but that doesn't mean that such marriages can be imposed upon others, or that they have a right to have marriages performed in a government funded space.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> [
> (B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
> are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?
> 
> To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.
> 
> But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
> NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
> and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..



Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.

Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.

Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> [
> Is it really the position of Govt to dictate which word people use?
> 
> So again with the term MARRIAGE if this connotes religious or spiritual meaning
> to some people, then if that word in that context of public law imposes a bias in belief
> that conflicts with others, then why not use SECULAR terms such as civil union or domestic partnership.



We have no right to a civil union- we all have a right to a marriage. 

If you want to change your state laws so that the term 'marriage' is eliminated, and replaced by the term 'civil union' then that is of course your right to do so.  I don't see any pressing need to do so, but I likewise feel no pressing need to oppose such a campaign.


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they have the same right to marry.  What they are seeking are special rights.
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as though Obergfell never happened. That aside, they did not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, Before Obergfell, heterosexuals had the right to marry the person they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, pursuant to their unalienable rights that the government cannot abolish. Homosexuals were being denied that same fundamental right.
> 
> Hence Obergfell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had exactly the same right. To marry a person of the opposite sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as blacks and whites had exactly the same right. To marry a person of the same race.
> 
> Which is why the both Loving and Obergefell overturned unconstitutional state laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Syriusly
> (A) To marry the person you want to spend the rest of your life with is as personal a choice (and becomes a faith based issue if you believe in same sex partnerships or not),
> as the choice to "pray to God or Allah" is a personal spiritual belief or choice.
> 
> But that doesn't make it the govt's responsibility to ENDORSE prayer to Allah
> IN RESPONSE to this being denied by laws that only recognized prayer to God
> or prayer to God through Christ.
> 
> Sure, if laws only let govt endorse right to prayers as long as this was to God through Christ only,
> as "traditional" prayer, that would be unconstitutional to exclude others to the right to prayer.
> 
> But it is NOT the solution to demand that Govt open up "right to prayer" and ENDORSE
> prayers to Allah or other types of prayers in order to protect them equally as Christian prayers.
> 
> *The solution would be to RECOGNIZE that 'right to prayer' like "right to marriage"
> is a spiritual and religious practice and is not the govt's place to endorse one belief or another on this practice!*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone does have a right to prayer. No one can be denied their right to prayer- they do not however have the right to impose those prayers on others in a government funded space.
> 
> Just everyone does have a right to marriage- but that doesn't mean that such marriages can be imposed upon others, or that they have a right to have marriages performed in a government funded space.
Click to expand...


Now we're getting closer Syriusly THANK YOU.
The argument is that Govt cannot establish a belief period.
And people either BELIEVE in same sex couples getting married,
or they do not.

so no, Govt does NOT have authority to establish beliefs.

And this would be like Govt endorsing that Muslims have
the right to pray to Allah. Equally as Christians have the right
to pray to God through Jesus.

With "marriage" state govts are involved in the issuing of licenses.
So it is part of govt function.

And that's why they are saying it is introducing or establishing
a belief within a govt institution.

Very close, Syriusly.
If this is the closest we can get, I'm not going to complain
but at least be happy for that.

My prolife friends also don't want abortion to be practiced at all.
But if we can even agree to separate funding and policy by party,
I can probably convince them to let that slide instead of trying to ban altogether.

Same with the death penalty
If at most we can separate funding but can't outright ban it because
some people still believe in it and have the right to fund and exercise it,
that may be the best we can do.

I'm okay with that, if other people can handle just
separating the funding and policy by party
so they don't feel forced to endorse it through govt!!!


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Non-married people have the right to get married to the person of their choice. Until Obergfell, that right was denied to non-married gays.
> 
> 
> 
> And the reason that "right" is important is because of the legal benefits granted to those who are married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is but one of the reasons the courts have recognized as being an important reason. Even without any legal benefits we would still have a legal right to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, but the legal benes are why it's contentious. Conservative fans of marriage don't want to let gays on their gravy train.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- frankly the legal benefits are not why its contentious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they are. The legal benefits are why government regulates marriage in the first place. Otherwise it would be just another contract.
Click to expand...


No- frankly its not. Marriage originally was just a matter of confirming legitimacy to heirs. 

Government regulates marriages for a multiplicity of reasons- and that includes preventing the abuse of minors, and mentally unfit.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> no special privileges were extended.
> 
> 
> 
> Try again...  do some reading: http://bfy.tw/8Tbs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're conflating marriage benefits who can marry. That has nothing to do with this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm not. I'm pointing out that the reason marriage is problematic is that the government grants special privileges to those it allows to marry. The state shouldn't be in the business of rewarding people who get married and it shouldn't be deciding who is allowed to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is of course an entirely different argument- but if you want to end all legal marriage- it is your right to pursue that pipe dream.
> 
> The issue you will face is that most Americans disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duh?
Click to expand...


Most Americans want legal marriage.


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> (B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
> are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?
> 
> To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.
> 
> But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
> NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
> and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.
> 
> Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.
> 
> Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.
Click to expand...


Yes Syriusly and
laws banning certain beliefs on marriage from being practiced equally are
DIFFERENT
from laws establishing beliefs on marriage through govt

Do you agree these are two different things?? 

A court can strike down slavery as violating rights.
But it takes the legislature to write laws outlawing slavery.

We can decide that drugs should be "decriminalized" and
strike down the criminal statutes that are excessive or biased by beliefs.

And that's not the same as legislation that legalizes it.

We still have to agree how to write that separately,
OR ELSE WE CAN RUN INTO THE SAME PROBLEM AGAIN.

We could replace one bad law with one biased another way
that someone else argues is biased and needs to be revised
or it's unconstitutional.

Just because you strike out a wrong math answer
doesn't mean "anything you replace it with is right."

You can keep offering several wrong answers
and they can all be wrong FOR DIFFERENT REASONS
until you get one that is consistent across the board
solves all the variables in the equations and meets
ALL requirements by ALL conditions of ALL factors.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as though Obergfell never happened. That aside, they did not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, Before Obergfell, heterosexuals had the right to marry the person they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, pursuant to their unalienable rights that the government cannot abolish. Homosexuals were being denied that same fundamental right.
> 
> Hence Obergfell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had exactly the same right. To marry a person of the opposite sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as blacks and whites had exactly the same right. To marry a person of the same race.
> 
> Which is why the both Loving and Obergefell overturned unconstitutional state laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Syriusly
> (A) To marry the person you want to spend the rest of your life with is as personal a choice (and becomes a faith based issue if you believe in same sex partnerships or not),
> as the choice to "pray to God or Allah" is a personal spiritual belief or choice.
> 
> But that doesn't make it the govt's responsibility to ENDORSE prayer to Allah
> IN RESPONSE to this being denied by laws that only recognized prayer to God
> or prayer to God through Christ.
> 
> Sure, if laws only let govt endorse right to prayers as long as this was to God through Christ only,
> as "traditional" prayer, that would be unconstitutional to exclude others to the right to prayer.
> 
> But it is NOT the solution to demand that Govt open up "right to prayer" and ENDORSE
> prayers to Allah or other types of prayers in order to protect them equally as Christian prayers.
> 
> *The solution would be to RECOGNIZE that 'right to prayer' like "right to marriage"
> is a spiritual and religious practice and is not the govt's place to endorse one belief or another on this practice!*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone does have a right to prayer. No one can be denied their right to prayer- they do not however have the right to impose those prayers on others in a government funded space.
> 
> Just everyone does have a right to marriage- but that doesn't mean that such marriages can be imposed upon others, or that they have a right to have marriages performed in a government funded space.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now we're getting closer Syriusly THANK YOU.
> The argument is that Govt cannot establish a belief period.
> And people either BELIEVE in same sex couples getting married,
> or they do not.
> 
> so no, Govt does NOT have authority to establish beliefs.
> 
> And this would be like Govt endorsing that Muslims have
> the right to pray to Allah. Equally as Christians have the right
> to pray to God through Jesus.
> 
> With "marriage" state govts are involved in the issuing of licenses.
> So it is part of govt function.
> 
> And that's why they are saying it is introducing or establishing
> a belief within a govt institution.
> 
> Very close, Syriusly.
> If this is the closest we can get, I'm not going to complain
> but at least be happy for that.
> 
> My prolife friends also don't want abortion to be practiced at all.
> But if we can even agree to separate funding and policy by party,
> I can probably convince them to let that slide instead of trying to ban altogether.
> 
> Same with the death penalty
> If at most we can separate funding but can't outright ban it because
> some people still believe in it and have the right to fund and exercise it,
> that may be the best we can do.
> 
> I'm okay with that, if other people can handle just
> separating the funding and policy by party
> so they don't feel forced to endorse it through govt!!!
Click to expand...


I really don't know what you mean- leaving out abortion, the death penalty and marriage- what are you suggesting?


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the reason that "right" is important is because of the legal benefits granted to those who are married.
> 
> 
> 
> That is but one of the reasons the courts have recognized as being an important reason. Even without any legal benefits we would still have a legal right to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, but the legal benes are why it's contentious. Conservative fans of marriage don't want to let gays on their gravy train.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- frankly the legal benefits are not why its contentious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they are. The legal benefits are why government regulates marriage in the first place. Otherwise it would be just another contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- frankly its not. Marriage originally was just a matter of confirming legitimacy to heirs.
> 
> Government regulates marriages for a multiplicity of reasons- and that includes preventing the abuse of minors, and mentally unfit.
Click to expand...


And people AGREE to those terms and AUTHORIZE govt for the reasons
we agree to.

But if you add conditions, such as the ones you object to that marriage
be only for one man and one woman, and people of a state DON"T agree
to govt regulations on those terms, then that law is biased by beliefs
and people demand to change it.

This is why LGBT argued to change laws because it does not represent their beliefs I don't have to agree with those beliefs to RESPECT when LGBT argue
NO we don't consent and believe in that.

So I'm saying the same for Christians or others even Gay people
who don't believe in pushing gay marriage through the govt.
If they don't believe in that, I don't have to agree with their beliefs
to see this needs to be changed or removed.

Marriage and benefits can still be organized and managed in private.

The Catholic Church organizes its own resources for its members.

The Mormons have their own social security on a temporary 2 year basis.

Anyone can do this, and going through govt is NOT required to set up
benefits, health care, etc just like Prolife Networks do.

If all people will agree to is CIVIL unions through the state
and use THAT to govern regulations on legal competence etc.
that doesn't have to introduce define or decide any terms of
"marriage" attached to the civil union or domestic contract.

The Catholic Church teaches its own rules through its schools.
If we AGREE on rules sure they can stay public through govt.
But where we disagree, those can still be established and followed in private.


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> They had exactly the same right. To marry a person of the opposite sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as blacks and whites had exactly the same right. To marry a person of the same race.
> 
> Which is why the both Loving and Obergefell overturned unconstitutional state laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Syriusly
> (A) To marry the person you want to spend the rest of your life with is as personal a choice (and becomes a faith based issue if you believe in same sex partnerships or not),
> as the choice to "pray to God or Allah" is a personal spiritual belief or choice.
> 
> But that doesn't make it the govt's responsibility to ENDORSE prayer to Allah
> IN RESPONSE to this being denied by laws that only recognized prayer to God
> or prayer to God through Christ.
> 
> Sure, if laws only let govt endorse right to prayers as long as this was to God through Christ only,
> as "traditional" prayer, that would be unconstitutional to exclude others to the right to prayer.
> 
> But it is NOT the solution to demand that Govt open up "right to prayer" and ENDORSE
> prayers to Allah or other types of prayers in order to protect them equally as Christian prayers.
> 
> *The solution would be to RECOGNIZE that 'right to prayer' like "right to marriage"
> is a spiritual and religious practice and is not the govt's place to endorse one belief or another on this practice!*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone does have a right to prayer. No one can be denied their right to prayer- they do not however have the right to impose those prayers on others in a government funded space.
> 
> Just everyone does have a right to marriage- but that doesn't mean that such marriages can be imposed upon others, or that they have a right to have marriages performed in a government funded space.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now we're getting closer Syriusly THANK YOU.
> The argument is that Govt cannot establish a belief period.
> And people either BELIEVE in same sex couples getting married,
> or they do not.
> 
> so no, Govt does NOT have authority to establish beliefs.
> 
> And this would be like Govt endorsing that Muslims have
> the right to pray to Allah. Equally as Christians have the right
> to pray to God through Jesus.
> 
> With "marriage" state govts are involved in the issuing of licenses.
> So it is part of govt function.
> 
> And that's why they are saying it is introducing or establishing
> a belief within a govt institution.
> 
> Very close, Syriusly.
> If this is the closest we can get, I'm not going to complain
> but at least be happy for that.
> 
> My prolife friends also don't want abortion to be practiced at all.
> But if we can even agree to separate funding and policy by party,
> I can probably convince them to let that slide instead of trying to ban altogether.
> 
> Same with the death penalty
> If at most we can separate funding but can't outright ban it because
> some people still believe in it and have the right to fund and exercise it,
> that may be the best we can do.
> 
> I'm okay with that, if other people can handle just
> separating the funding and policy by party
> so they don't feel forced to endorse it through govt!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really don't know what you mean- leaving out abortion, the death penalty and marriage- what are you suggesting?
Click to expand...


The prolife can argue for a state alternative such as through party
where their taxes and any mandates get paid into a hospital,
collective insurance or health share system, that doesn't have
abortions or recreational drugs etc.

The prochoice can argue for a collective system they pay into
that doesn't have the death penalty or ban drugs or abortion, so all the resources
they save from not paying for failed prisons and waste on bureaucracy fighting over this
can go into health care services they want to make universal and affordable for all.

These can be divided by party since health care
involves private beliefs, about right to health care, right to life.

Where people AGREE govt needs to be involved such as with prisons
or medical regulations, sure, we keep that since nobody is opposed.

But as for funding which programs people don't believe the same on,
this can be separated by tracks
and let taxpayers choose according to their beliefs.

The parties can organize most of the nation to
form collective networks statewide and nationwide,
and decide on their own groups policies and terms.
Those who don't fall under any group can either choose
the public option or choose any of the other options or create their own.

So there is no more fighting, just like Catholics
agreeing to the rules of their own programs they fund
apart from Hindus or Muslims who fund their own networks.

Only if they all agree on what is policy, that can be public;
but where their beliefs disagree, we can all agree that
stays private so everyone funds their own.

The benefits is we all have equal right to fund what they believe
in and not what the other group believes. And everyone can
help each other with mentoring to teach whole groups
how to set up their own systems so they become
independent and exercise equal empowerment, education and authority.
that's where the real power is, when you can set up and
manage your own schools, hospitals and cities yourself.
Train all the parties and groups to do this, and
we won't have such overreliance on govt that
it becomes top heavy with too few people "in charge"
fighting for control of mass resources and demands of everyone else.
That's not balanced or manageable.

We need to set up tracks for training whole communities,
cities and states to manage their own populations resources.
So this requires breaking it down by groups to organize
and I suggest by party since likeminded people are already
choosing to represent and work together as a group,
and won't fight over beliefs they don't all share.

We've already organized by party, why not use that
to set up equal resources training and facilities
for all people to use to access equal services.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is but one of the reasons the courts have recognized as being an important reason. Even without any legal benefits we would still have a legal right to marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but the legal benes are why it's contentious. Conservative fans of marriage don't want to let gays on their gravy train.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- frankly the legal benefits are not why its contentious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they are. The legal benefits are why government regulates marriage in the first place. Otherwise it would be just another contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- frankly its not. Marriage originally was just a matter of confirming legitimacy to heirs.
> 
> Government regulates marriages for a multiplicity of reasons- and that includes preventing the abuse of minors, and mentally unfit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And people AGREE to those terms and AUTHORIZE govt for the reasons
> we agree to.
> 
> But if you add conditions, such as the ones you object to that marriage
> be only for one man and one woman, and people of a state DON"T agree
> to govt regulations on those terms, then that law is biased by beliefs
> and people demand to change it.
> 
> This is why LGBT argued to change laws because it does not represent their beliefs I don't have to agree with those beliefs to RESPECT when LGBT argue
> NO we don't consent and believe in that.
> 
> So I'm saying the same for Christians or others even Gay people
> who don't believe in pushing gay marriage through the govt.
> If they don't believe in that, I don't have to agree with their beliefs
> to see this needs to be changed or removed.
> 
> Marriage and benefits can still be organized and managed in private.
> 
> The Catholic Church organizes its own resources for its members.
> 
> The Mormons have their own social security on a temporary 2 year basis.
> 
> Anyone can do this, and going through govt is NOT required to set up
> benefits, health care, etc just like Prolife Networks do.
> 
> If all people will agree to is CIVIL unions through the state
> and use THAT to govern regulations on legal competence etc.
> that doesn't have to introduce define or decide any terms of
> "marriage" attached to the civil union or domestic contract.
> 
> The Catholic Church teaches its own rules through its schools.
> If we AGREE on rules sure they can stay public through govt.
> But where we disagree, those can still be established and followed in private.
Click to expand...


Emily- you tend to use 100 words when 10 words would do. I am trying to parse down to what you are suggesting

Are you suggesting changing the current term we use for marriage from 'marriage' to 'civil unions' but have all of the legal obligations/responsibilities etc remain the same?

Or are you suggesting privatizing all of the legal obligations- for example- Social Security?


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try again...  do some reading: http://bfy.tw/8Tbs
> 
> 
> 
> You're conflating marriage benefits who can marry. That has nothing to do with this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm not. I'm pointing out that the reason marriage is problematic is that the government grants special privileges to those it allows to marry. The state shouldn't be in the business of rewarding people who get married and it shouldn't be deciding who is allowed to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is of course an entirely different argument- but if you want to end all legal marriage- it is your right to pursue that pipe dream.
> 
> The issue you will face is that most Americans disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Americans want legal marriage.
Click to expand...

OK so make it fair.
Whatever state you are in,
either make it where all those American citizens get "civil unions" under an agreed policy,
or they all get "marriage" under policies that ALL those citizens
or all Americans believe in as equally representing and not discriminating against them 
under public policy, since their beliefs are involved.

That's fair Syriusly
(and if you think this is a pipedream, the motto on the
Supreme Court states "equal justice under law" which
is the motto and goal, even though you can say that's a pipe dream.
but that's our standard as equal protections of the law, another goal
we have yet to achieve)

If their conditions are if you want to include gay marriage
and transgender expression in public institutions
then no more suing harassment or discrimination
against people wanting to express their beliefs
through Christian prayer, preaching proselytizing
teaching and practicing spiritual healing.

All this can be included in govt recognition as a fundamental right.

Whatever terms people agree on in order to
have marriage through govt, those need to be settled!

Because marriage involves people's beliefs
it can't be decided by govt in ways that other people
 object to as conflicting or violating their beliefs.

it's not my place to say that a cross "isn't imposing on an Atheist"
if they don't consent, and they say that isn't neutral and
has to be removed, then treat that person equally
as someone saying marriage laws that endorse same sex couples
is not neutral enough and that needs to be removed.

If they agree to civil unions instead, that's one way to resolve it.
Or if they agree for govt to endorse Christian healing prayer
as a protected practice that can't be discriminated against or excluded,
that's another way an AGREED policy might be reached.

But no group can decide for another group what is against their beliefs.
And whether or not it imposes is also not a criteria
because removing references to God or crosses
was not because this was "forcing anyone" into  a particular practice.

If people object, that means there is something wrong they
don't consent to which needs to be resolved.

So we keep working till we agree all such conflicts are resolved.
and then yes, states can pass laws on marriage and there
could be a national consensus on these issues.
If people truly agree that the issues were addressed,
it can't be forced by govt because beliefs are inherently involved.


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try again...  do some reading: http://bfy.tw/8Tbs
> 
> 
> 
> You're conflating marriage benefits who can marry. That has nothing to do with this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm not. I'm pointing out that the reason marriage is problematic is that the government grants special privileges to those it allows to marry. The state shouldn't be in the business of rewarding people who get married and it shouldn't be deciding who is allowed to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is of course an entirely different argument- but if you want to end all legal marriage- it is your right to pursue that pipe dream.
> 
> The issue you will face is that most Americans disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Americans want legal marriage.
Click to expand...


Yep. Captain Obvious?


----------



## Tennyson

Wry Catcher said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you ought to study some history.  I don't mean that as a personal attack at all, the history of bigotry is deeply ingrained in our history, and BTW, Jefferson's words in the second paragraph of the DoI seem essential to this issue:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that *all* men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That phrase actually relates to Article I, Section 2, clause 5's natural born citizen clause and the Fifth Amendment's life, liberty, and property clause. The Declaration of Independence was written to King George. That phrase regarded equal in the eyes of God and that no man is born a subject of a King, which was a natural born subject, and became a natural born citizen in Article I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> The only reference to a natural citizen is in Art. II and is about eligibility to be POTUS;
> 
> As for The 5th Amendment:
> 
> *No person* shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; *nor shall any person *be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> There is no mention of a natural person anywhere else in COTUS, and Jefferson wrote the DoI well before the COTUS was even thought of.  What source gave you the claim you've made about Natural Born Citizens?
Click to expand...



A natural born citizen is derived from natural law, which is the basis of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Prior to the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War, anyone born was born a natural born subject. After we won the war and created Constitution, then the same natural law in the Declaration of Independence was the basis for natural born citizen.

I was referencing the three basic unalienable rights in the Fifth Amendment: life, liberty, and property, which is based on the same natural rights.


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> (B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
> are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?
> 
> To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.
> 
> But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
> NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
> and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.
> 
> Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.
> 
> Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.
Click to expand...


What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> (B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
> are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?
> 
> To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.
> 
> But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
> NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
> and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.
> 
> Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.
> 
> Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.
Click to expand...


Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation. 

The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.

Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> (B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
> are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?
> 
> To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.
> 
> But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
> NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
> and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.
> 
> Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.
> 
> Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.
> 
> The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.
> 
> Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.
Click to expand...


You don't really get the whole concept of advocating for change, do you?


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> (B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
> are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?
> 
> To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.
> 
> But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
> NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
> and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.
> 
> Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.
> 
> Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.
> 
> The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.
> 
> Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't really get the whole concept of advocating for change, do you?
Click to expand...


Oh he can advocate for any kind of idiocy he wants to advocate for- but he is not 'advocating for change'- he is saying everyone else is wrong- and he is right.


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> (B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
> are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?
> 
> To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.
> 
> But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
> NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
> and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.
> 
> Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.
> 
> Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.
> 
> The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.
> 
> Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.
Click to expand...


Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts. This isn't about the courts. If you want to cite a court case as an argument with me, you need to defend it in its constitutional basis. A monkey with a keyboard and an Internet connection can find a court case. If your only argument is that a court ruled, you do not have an argument unless the topic is limited to court rulings only.


----------



## Faun

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> (B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
> are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?
> 
> To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.
> 
> But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
> NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
> and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.
> 
> Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.
> 
> Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.
> 
> The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.
> 
> Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts. This isn't about the courts. If you want to cite a court case as an argument with me, you need to defend it in its constitutional basis. A monkey with a keyboard and an Internet connection can find a court case. If your only argument is that a court ruled, you do not have an argument unless the topic is limited to court rulings only.
Click to expand...

So you want to ignore a dozen separate court cases, rendered by those entrusted with our highest court in the land, in lieu of your opinion?


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> (B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
> are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?
> 
> To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.
> 
> But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
> NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
> and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.
> 
> Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.
> 
> Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.
> 
> The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.
> 
> Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts..
Click to expand...


Really? Pretty much 'everyone'?

Any living people? 

Meanwhile- you are in the same league as those who argue that the income tax is unconstitutional, and that the 13th amendment was never legally ratified- you are spitting into the wind.


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> (B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
> are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?
> 
> To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.
> 
> But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
> NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
> and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.
> 
> Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.
> 
> Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.
> 
> The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.
> 
> Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't really get the whole concept of advocating for change, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh he can advocate for any kind of idiocy he wants to advocate for- but he is not 'advocating for change'- he is saying everyone else is wrong- and he is right.
Click to expand...

Sometimes, most people are wrong.  Like back when most people thought gay marriage was wrong. Know what I mean?


----------



## Tennyson

Faun said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> (B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
> are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?
> 
> To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.
> 
> But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
> NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
> and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.
> 
> Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.
> 
> Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.
> 
> The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.
> 
> Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts. This isn't about the courts. If you want to cite a court case as an argument with me, you need to defend it in its constitutional basis. A monkey with a keyboard and an Internet connection can find a court case. If your only argument is that a court ruled, you do not have an argument unless the topic is limited to court rulings only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you want to ignore a dozen separate court cases, rendered by those entrusted with our highest court in the land, in lieu of your opinion?
Click to expand...

 As I stated, if you want to use a late twentieth century court ruling that contradict the debates of the 39th Congress and all first and second generation court rulings after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, then defend the rulings on their constitutional basis. Just saying a court ruled is not an argument.


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> (B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
> are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?
> 
> To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.
> 
> But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
> NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
> and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.
> 
> Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.
> 
> Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.
> 
> The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.
> 
> Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Pretty much 'everyone'?
> 
> Any living people?
> 
> Meanwhile- you are in the same league as those who argue that the income tax is unconstitutional, and that the 13th amendment was never legally ratified- you are spitting into the wind.
Click to expand...


You are more than welcome to write out an argument regarding what I have stated that is incorrect.


----------



## Faun

Tennyson said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.
> 
> Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.
> 
> Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.
> 
> The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.
> 
> Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts. This isn't about the courts. If you want to cite a court case as an argument with me, you need to defend it in its constitutional basis. A monkey with a keyboard and an Internet connection can find a court case. If your only argument is that a court ruled, you do not have an argument unless the topic is limited to court rulings only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you want to ignore a dozen separate court cases, rendered by those entrusted with our highest court in the land, in lieu of your opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I stated, if you want to use a late twentieth century court ruling that contradict the debates of the 39th Congress and all first and second generation court rulings after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, then defend the rulings on their constitutional basis. Just saying a court ruled is not an argument.
Click to expand...

It's not just "a court." It's more than a dozen.


----------



## Tennyson

Faun said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.
> 
> The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.
> 
> Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts. This isn't about the courts. If you want to cite a court case as an argument with me, you need to defend it in its constitutional basis. A monkey with a keyboard and an Internet connection can find a court case. If your only argument is that a court ruled, you do not have an argument unless the topic is limited to court rulings only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you want to ignore a dozen separate court cases, rendered by those entrusted with our highest court in the land, in lieu of your opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I stated, if you want to use a late twentieth century court ruling that contradict the debates of the 39th Congress and all first and second generation court rulings after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, then defend the rulings on their constitutional basis. Just saying a court ruled is not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not just "a court." It's more than a dozen.
Click to expand...


Fantastic. Can you defend the constitutional basis of the first one and any that followed that did not cite the first one? You have to factor in the cancer of a written constitution for all subsequent rulings after the first activist ruling: stare decisis.


----------



## Faun

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.
> 
> Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.
> 
> Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.
> 
> The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.
> 
> Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Pretty much 'everyone'?
> 
> Any living people?
> 
> Meanwhile- you are in the same league as those who argue that the income tax is unconstitutional, and that the 13th amendment was never legally ratified- you are spitting into the wind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are more than welcome to write out an argument regarding what I have stated that is incorrect.
Click to expand...

Easy.

You claimed...

_What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws._​
... yet in starl contrast, the Constitution reads otherwise...

_*The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution*, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects._​


----------



## Faun

Tennyson said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.
> 
> The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.
> 
> Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts. This isn't about the courts. If you want to cite a court case as an argument with me, you need to defend it in its constitutional basis. A monkey with a keyboard and an Internet connection can find a court case. If your only argument is that a court ruled, you do not have an argument unless the topic is limited to court rulings only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you want to ignore a dozen separate court cases, rendered by those entrusted with our highest court in the land, in lieu of your opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I stated, if you want to use a late twentieth century court ruling that contradict the debates of the 39th Congress and all first and second generation court rulings after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, then defend the rulings on their constitutional basis. Just saying a court ruled is not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not just "a court." It's more than a dozen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fantastic. Can you defend the constitutional basis of the first one and any that followed that did not cite the first one? You have to factor in the cancer of a written constitution for all subsequent rulings after the first activist ruling: stare decisis.
Click to expand...

Stare decisis reaffirms previous rulings. That reinforces those earlier decisions. And referencing such rulings as "activist" does more to expose your bias than it does reflect on the rulings themselves.


----------



## dblack

How sadly hypocritical to see those who have suffered so much under the heel of overreaching government suddenly embrace it.


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but the legal benes are why it's contentious. Conservative fans of marriage don't want to let gays on their gravy train.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- frankly the legal benefits are not why its contentious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they are. The legal benefits are why government regulates marriage in the first place. Otherwise it would be just another contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- frankly its not. Marriage originally was just a matter of confirming legitimacy to heirs.
> 
> Government regulates marriages for a multiplicity of reasons- and that includes preventing the abuse of minors, and mentally unfit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And people AGREE to those terms and AUTHORIZE govt for the reasons
> we agree to.
> 
> But if you add conditions, such as the ones you object to that marriage
> be only for one man and one woman, and people of a state DON"T agree
> to govt regulations on those terms, then that law is biased by beliefs
> and people demand to change it.
> 
> This is why LGBT argued to change laws because it does not represent their beliefs I don't have to agree with those beliefs to RESPECT when LGBT argue
> NO we don't consent and believe in that.
> 
> So I'm saying the same for Christians or others even Gay people
> who don't believe in pushing gay marriage through the govt.
> If they don't believe in that, I don't have to agree with their beliefs
> to see this needs to be changed or removed.
> 
> Marriage and benefits can still be organized and managed in private.
> 
> The Catholic Church organizes its own resources for its members.
> 
> The Mormons have their own social security on a temporary 2 year basis.
> 
> Anyone can do this, and going through govt is NOT required to set up
> benefits, health care, etc just like Prolife Networks do.
> 
> If all people will agree to is CIVIL unions through the state
> and use THAT to govern regulations on legal competence etc.
> that doesn't have to introduce define or decide any terms of
> "marriage" attached to the civil union or domestic contract.
> 
> The Catholic Church teaches its own rules through its schools.
> If we AGREE on rules sure they can stay public through govt.
> But where we disagree, those can still be established and followed in private.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily- you tend to use 100 words when 10 words would do. I am trying to parse down to what you are suggesting
> 
> Are you suggesting changing the current term we use for marriage from 'marriage' to 'civil unions' but have all of the legal obligations/responsibilities etc remain the same?
> 
> Or are you suggesting privatizing all of the legal obligations- for example- Social Security?
Click to expand...


Dear Syriusly 
A. only if that is what it takes to settle this issue
B. if all citizens of a state can AGREE how to keep public institutions and policies in charge,
by all means, I support consensus on the highest level attainable.
For smaller homogeneous states, this may be possible.
For bigger diverse states like Texas, two or three options or tracks may
be needed to accommodate the full range of population and representation culturally, religiously and politically.

If they cannot agree based on differences in beliefs they are not willing to compromise,
then just like parents who divorce, that is sometimes better logistically.
Even when parents agree to live in separate households
they STILL should work out joint arrangements to deal with their mutual
responsibility for kids' well being, care, relations, financial support, education.

But they no longer remain married to each other under one unified household contract
to take care of their kids. the parents AGREE what is the fund or account for the kids, and what are
their separate budgets for themselves outside of that.

We may see the same with parties separating
if that's the best way all families/people can be happy -- under the roof(s) of their choice,
while arrangements are made between the branched off groups where necessary.

If that works, and people agree to that, that's an option.
If they can stay "married" under one policy, that's good.
But if they start separating what each side wants to pay for, whatever 
the people of each state agree represents their population, that is their
ethical duty and responsibility to protect and defend all interests equally.

You can't enforce a contract that not all parties agree to freely
when it comes to personal marriage and family policies, benefits, etc.
We know people are going to fight anything against their beliefs and will.

That's human nature.
Human beings need free choice and need to accommodate
individual interests and consent in matters affecting us.

We are going to have to learn to respect each other on an EQUAL basis,
and work out agreements based on mutual respect and consent, not coercion bullying or abuse
as has become political tradition, unfortunately, a very destructive habit to break. 
But well worth the rewards of changing to cooperative and collaborative models of decision
making through the representative structure and process we have already.

Marriages don't work by coercing people into contracts.
And neither do govt laws on equally sensitive subjects affecting people's core beliefs,
values and identity.

Thanks Syriusly
I got behind in thanking all your messages, too
but now that I will do so for Tennyson also,
I can go back and credit you, for all your
intelligent insightful replies that are instrumental
to reaching an understanding of what we face here.

Thank you so much for those!
Please keep up the excellent advocacy
and outreach that is so important to bridge these gaps
that have been strewn out of proportion in the media.

We need thoughtful discourse as you offer, and not mindless bashing that does no good.
The fact we have people like you means we have a good chance to succeed. THANKS!!!


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts. This isn't about the courts. If you want to cite a court case as an argument with me, you need to defend it in its constitutional basis. A monkey with a keyboard and an Internet connection can find a court case. If your only argument is that a court ruled, you do not have an argument unless the topic is limited to court rulings only.
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to ignore a dozen separate court cases, rendered by those entrusted with our highest court in the land, in lieu of your opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I stated, if you want to use a late twentieth century court ruling that contradict the debates of the 39th Congress and all first and second generation court rulings after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, then defend the rulings on their constitutional basis. Just saying a court ruled is not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not just "a court." It's more than a dozen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fantastic. Can you defend the constitutional basis of the first one and any that followed that did not cite the first one? You have to factor in the cancer of a written constitution for all subsequent rulings after the first activist ruling: stare decisis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stare decisis reaffirms previous rulings. That reinforces those earlier decisions. And referencing such rulings as "activist" does more to expose your bias than it does reflect on the rulings themselves.
Click to expand...


Dear Faun until this is settled directly among the people,
it seems both sides are going to fault govt and courts for siding with one at the expense of the other.

If we keep moving forward toward solutions, that is what is going to last on the books.

Not the DOMA or the segregation laws, by which Rosa Parks was guilty of violation although the law was wrong, 
or slavery laws by which those people were considered property owned by others and had to be returned
or this was stolen property punishable as a crime.

Since we know in advance that people are going to object as long as there is an "unresolved"
objection or bias in the laws (such as when half of Congress voted NO to ACA citing issues with it),
why not LISTEN to the objection and resolve it up front?

Why pass a contested law, then kick it to court to approve or disprove.
Why not correct it to begin with until both sides feel all objections grievances or conflicts 
are addressed?

One person on another forum suggested a preliminary vote:
where Congress first votes if a new bill is Constitutional or not,
or if it requires an Amendment first to give federal govt authority to add or reform
to that extent or on that issue.

This would have saved all the mess over the ACA.
Now we have to fix it WHILE the contested legislation is being implemented
while half the nation is contesting it.  

That's like person A who dissents being forced into a contract with person B who consents,
and everyone enforcing the contract while person A is screaming they didn't consent to it.

Why not fix what the objection was with the contract BEFORE enforcing it
so NOBODY objected. Wouldn't that be ideal?

Wouldn't we have better laws if we worked out the differences BEFORE passing it?
See example: http://www.ethics-commission.net
the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed unanimously
by Congress in 1980. And look how well written and clear
those ten articles are that apply to all areas of govt where
conflicts of interest or abuses may occur in different forms.

I consider this set of 10 articles to be as central
as the 10 articles in the Bill of Rights for people to learn and enforce together.

I believe the Bill of Rights is well written also,
even where the 2nd Amendment has been
interpreted two different ways; the way it is 
written both sides of that debate feel their
side is represented in how it is worded.

Why can't we have marriage laws
written that well, where both sides agree to how it's written
and can still get out of it the interpretation that matches their beliefs.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to ignore a dozen separate court cases, rendered by those entrusted with our highest court in the land, in lieu of your opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I stated, if you want to use a late twentieth century court ruling that contradict the debates of the 39th Congress and all first and second generation court rulings after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, then defend the rulings on their constitutional basis. Just saying a court ruled is not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not just "a court." It's more than a dozen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fantastic. Can you defend the constitutional basis of the first one and any that followed that did not cite the first one? You have to factor in the cancer of a written constitution for all subsequent rulings after the first activist ruling: stare decisis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stare decisis reaffirms previous rulings. That reinforces those earlier decisions. And referencing such rulings as "activist" does more to expose your bias than it does reflect on the rulings themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun until this is settled directly among the people,
> it seems both sides are going to fault govt and courts for siding with one at the expense of the other.
> 
> If we keep moving forward toward solutions, that is what is going to last on the books.
> 
> Not the DOMA or the segregation laws, by which Rosa Parks was guilty of violation although the law was wrong,
> or slavery laws by which those people were considered property owned by others and had to be returned
> or this was stolen property punishable as a crime.
> 
> Since we know in advance that people are going to object as long as there is an "unresolved"
> objection or bias in the laws (such as when half of Congress voted NO to ACA citing issues with it),
> why not LISTEN to the objection and resolve it up front?
> 
> Why pass a contested law, then kick it to court to approve or disprove.
> Why not correct it to begin with until both sides feel all objections grievances or conflicts
> are addressed?
> 
> One person on another forum suggested a preliminary vote:
> where Congress first votes if a new bill is Constitutional or not,
> or if it requires an Amendment first to give federal govt authority to add or reform
> to that extent or on that issue.
> 
> This would have saved all the mess over the ACA.
> Now we have to fix it WHILE the contested legislation is being implemented
> while half the nation is contesting it.
> 
> That's like person A who dissents being forced into a contract with person B who consents,
> and everyone enforcing the contract while person A is screaming they didn't consent to it.
> 
> Why not fix what the objection was with the contract BEFORE enforcing it
> so NOBODY objected. Wouldn't that be ideal?
> 
> Wouldn't we have better laws if we worked out the differences BEFORE passing it?
> See example: http://www.ethics-commission.net
> the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed unanimously
> by Congress in 1980. And look how well written and clear
> those ten articles are that apply to all areas of govt where
> conflicts of interest or abuses may occur in different forms.
> 
> I consider this set of 10 articles to be as central
> as the 10 articles in the Bill of Rights for people to learn and enforce together.
> 
> I believe the Bill of Rights is well written also,
> even where the 2nd Amendment has been
> interpreted two different ways; the way it is
> written both sides of that debate feel their
> side is represented in how it is worded.
> 
> Why can't we have marriage laws
> written that well, where both sides agree to how it's written
> and can still get out of it the interpretation that matches their beliefs.
Click to expand...

Sorry to break the news.... it is settled.


----------



## dblack

emilynghiem said:


> Why can't we have marriage laws written that well, where both sides agree to how it's written
> and can still get out of it the interpretation that matches their beliefs.



Because, for most people, the point of government is to force their values on others.


----------



## Faun

dblack said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't we have marriage laws written that well, where both sides agree to how it's written
> and can still get out of it the interpretation that matches their beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, for most people, the point of government is to force their values on others.
Click to expand...

Better known as... enforcing the law.


----------



## Tennyson

Faun said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.
> 
> The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.
> 
> Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Pretty much 'everyone'?
> 
> Any living people?
> 
> Meanwhile- you are in the same league as those who argue that the income tax is unconstitutional, and that the 13th amendment was never legally ratified- you are spitting into the wind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are more than welcome to write out an argument regarding what I have stated that is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy.
> 
> You claimed...
> 
> _What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws._​
> ... yet in starl contrast, the Constitution reads otherwise...
> 
> _*The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution*, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects._​
Click to expand...


There is no Article III jurisdiction over the states, state's laws, or state's constitutions. The first time the Supreme Court tried that we got the Eleventh Amendment. They had limited jurisdiction over conflicts between states and interstate lawsuits, but the Eleventh Amendment restricted that jurisdiction further.


----------



## miketx

Moonglow said:


> Not true, as many people that are married or become married do not have kids, can't have kids or will never have kids...


Qeers.


----------



## dblack

Faun said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't we have marriage laws written that well, where both sides agree to how it's written
> and can still get out of it the interpretation that matches their beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, for most people, the point of government is to force their values on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better known as... enforcing the law.
Click to expand...


Wow... you really own it, I'll give you that. Were you as excited about enforcing the law when gay marriage was illegal?


----------



## Tennyson

Faun said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts. This isn't about the courts. If you want to cite a court case as an argument with me, you need to defend it in its constitutional basis. A monkey with a keyboard and an Internet connection can find a court case. If your only argument is that a court ruled, you do not have an argument unless the topic is limited to court rulings only.
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to ignore a dozen separate court cases, rendered by those entrusted with our highest court in the land, in lieu of your opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I stated, if you want to use a late twentieth century court ruling that contradict the debates of the 39th Congress and all first and second generation court rulings after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, then defend the rulings on their constitutional basis. Just saying a court ruled is not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not just "a court." It's more than a dozen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fantastic. Can you defend the constitutional basis of the first one and any that followed that did not cite the first one? You have to factor in the cancer of a written constitution for all subsequent rulings after the first activist ruling: stare decisis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stare decisis reaffirms previous rulings. That reinforces those earlier decisions. And referencing such rulings as "activist" does more to expose your bias than it does reflect on the rulings themselves.
Click to expand...

 
Stare decisis is anti-constitutional. It is a cancer and supports bad rulings. The best thing that could happen for the Constitution is a new judiciary act banning the use of stare decisis in constitutional cases.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Tennyson said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015)).
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you ought to study some history.  I don't mean that as a personal attack at all, the history of bigotry is deeply ingrained in our history, and BTW, Jefferson's words in the second paragraph of the DoI seem essential to this issue:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that *all* men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That phrase actually relates to Article I, Section 2, clause 5's natural born citizen clause and the Fifth Amendment's life, liberty, and property clause. The Declaration of Independence was written to King George. That phrase regarded equal in the eyes of God and that no man is born a subject of a King, which was a natural born subject, and became a natural born citizen in Article I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> The only reference to a natural citizen is in Art. II and is about eligibility to be POTUS;
> 
> As for The 5th Amendment:
> 
> *No person* shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; *nor shall any person *be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> There is no mention of a natural person anywhere else in COTUS, and Jefferson wrote the DoI well before the COTUS was even thought of.  What source gave you the claim you've made about Natural Born Citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A natural born citizen is derived from natural law, which is the basis of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Prior to the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War, anyone born was born a natural born subject. After we won the war and created Constitution, then the same natural law in the Declaration of Independence was the basis for natural born citizen.
> 
> I was referencing the three basic unalienable rights in the Fifth Amendment: life, liberty, and property, which is based on the same natural rights.
Click to expand...


The Magna Carta is the basis for COTUS, Natural Law is what Rousseau described when he wrote "man is born free and is everywhere in chains.


----------



## Faun

Tennyson said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.
> 
> The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.
> 
> Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Pretty much 'everyone'?
> 
> Any living people?
> 
> Meanwhile- you are in the same league as those who argue that the income tax is unconstitutional, and that the 13th amendment was never legally ratified- you are spitting into the wind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are more than welcome to write out an argument regarding what I have stated that is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy.
> 
> You claimed...
> 
> _What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws._​
> ... yet in starl contrast, the Constitution reads otherwise...
> 
> _*The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution*, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no Article III jurisdiction over the states, state's laws, or state's constitutions. The first time the Supreme Court tried that we got the Eleventh Amendment. They had limited jurisdiction over conflicts between states and interstate lawsuits, but the Eleventh Amendment restricted that jurisdiction further.
Click to expand...

More nonsense. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land...

_This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby*, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding._​
... and as previously demonstrated ...

_The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution_​


----------



## Faun

Tennyson said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to ignore a dozen separate court cases, rendered by those entrusted with our highest court in the land, in lieu of your opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I stated, if you want to use a late twentieth century court ruling that contradict the debates of the 39th Congress and all first and second generation court rulings after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, then defend the rulings on their constitutional basis. Just saying a court ruled is not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not just "a court." It's more than a dozen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fantastic. Can you defend the constitutional basis of the first one and any that followed that did not cite the first one? You have to factor in the cancer of a written constitution for all subsequent rulings after the first activist ruling: stare decisis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stare decisis reaffirms previous rulings. That reinforces those earlier decisions. And referencing such rulings as "activist" does more to expose your bias than it does reflect on the rulings themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stare decisis is anti-constitutional. It is a cancer and supports bad rulings. The best thing that could happen for the Constitution is a new judiciary act banning the use of stare decisis in constitutional cases.
Click to expand...

That is never going to happen nor should it. But based on what I've seen so far, it's about as wrong as anything else you've posted.


----------



## Tennyson

Faun said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Pretty much 'everyone'?
> 
> Any living people?
> 
> Meanwhile- you are in the same league as those who argue that the income tax is unconstitutional, and that the 13th amendment was never legally ratified- you are spitting into the wind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are more than welcome to write out an argument regarding what I have stated that is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy.
> 
> You claimed...
> 
> _What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws._​
> ... yet in starl contrast, the Constitution reads otherwise...
> 
> _*The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution*, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no Article III jurisdiction over the states, state's laws, or state's constitutions. The first time the Supreme Court tried that we got the Eleventh Amendment. They had limited jurisdiction over conflicts between states and interstate lawsuits, but the Eleventh Amendment restricted that jurisdiction further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More nonsense. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land...
> 
> _This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby*, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding._​
> ... and as previously demonstrated ...
> 
> _The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution_​
Click to expand...


The supremacy clause refers only to Article I, Section 8.  The concern at the convention was the states interfering with the delegates powers of Congress.  What is not mentioned in Article VI is the court's jurisdiction. Moreover, the Bill of Rights came after the Constitution, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments had teeth were just as important as the first eight amendments.


----------



## Tennyson

Faun said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I stated, if you want to use a late twentieth century court ruling that contradict the debates of the 39th Congress and all first and second generation court rulings after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, then defend the rulings on their constitutional basis. Just saying a court ruled is not an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just "a court." It's more than a dozen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fantastic. Can you defend the constitutional basis of the first one and any that followed that did not cite the first one? You have to factor in the cancer of a written constitution for all subsequent rulings after the first activist ruling: stare decisis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stare decisis reaffirms previous rulings. That reinforces those earlier decisions. And referencing such rulings as "activist" does more to expose your bias than it does reflect on the rulings themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stare decisis is anti-constitutional. It is a cancer and supports bad rulings. The best thing that could happen for the Constitution is a new judiciary act banning the use of stare decisis in constitutional cases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is never going to happen nor should it. But based on what I've seen so far, it's about as wrong as anything else you've posted.
Click to expand...


Bully for you, but you cannot provide one piece of historical evidence by one founder to support stare decisis and I can provide statements by each founder that opposes stare decisis and organism, which is antithetical to stare decisis.


----------



## Faun

Tennyson said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Pretty much 'everyone'?
> 
> Any living people?
> 
> Meanwhile- you are in the same league as those who argue that the income tax is unconstitutional, and that the 13th amendment was never legally ratified- you are spitting into the wind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are more than welcome to write out an argument regarding what I have stated that is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy.
> 
> You claimed...
> 
> _What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws._​
> ... yet in starl contrast, the Constitution reads otherwise...
> 
> _*The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution*, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no Article III jurisdiction over the states, state's laws, or state's constitutions. The first time the Supreme Court tried that we got the Eleventh Amendment. They had limited jurisdiction over conflicts between states and interstate lawsuits, but the Eleventh Amendment restricted that jurisdiction further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More nonsense. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land...
> 
> _This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby*, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding._​
> ... and as previously demonstrated ...
> 
> _The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The supremacy clause refers only to Article I, Section 8.  The concern at the convention was the states interfering with the delegates powers of Congress.  What is not mentioned in Article VI is the court's jurisdiction. Moreover, the Bill of Rights came after the Constitution, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments had teeth were just as important as the first eight amendments.
Click to expand...

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it state the Supremacy clause is limited to only one section of the Constitution. Nowhere in U.S. law does it limit the Supremacy clause to one section of the Constitution. 

You're making that up and it's not supported anywhere in American jurisprudence. Even worse for your claim, the U.S. Constitution defines its own Supremacy as, _"*this Constitution*, and the Laws of the United States,"_ not _"Article I, Section 8, of this Constitution."_


----------



## Tennyson

Faun said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are more than welcome to write out an argument regarding what I have stated that is incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> Easy.
> 
> You claimed...
> 
> _What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws._​
> ... yet in starl contrast, the Constitution reads otherwise...
> 
> _*The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution*, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no Article III jurisdiction over the states, state's laws, or state's constitutions. The first time the Supreme Court tried that we got the Eleventh Amendment. They had limited jurisdiction over conflicts between states and interstate lawsuits, but the Eleventh Amendment restricted that jurisdiction further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More nonsense. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land...
> 
> _This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby*, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding._​
> ... and as previously demonstrated ...
> 
> _The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The supremacy clause refers only to Article I, Section 8.  The concern at the convention was the states interfering with the delegates powers of Congress.  What is not mentioned in Article VI is the court's jurisdiction. Moreover, the Bill of Rights came after the Constitution, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments had teeth were just as important as the first eight amendments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it state the Supremacy clause is limited to only one section of the Constitution. Nowhere in U.S. law does it limit the Supremacy clause to one section of the Constitution.
> 
> You're making that up and it's not supported anywhere in American jurisprudence. Even worse for your claim, the U.S. Constitution defines its own Supremacy as, _"*this Constitution*, and the Laws of the United States,"_ not _"Article I, Section 8, of this Constitution."_
Click to expand...


I am actually basing that off the debates. What purpose and evidence do you have for the reason for the purpose of the supremacy clause other than for Congress to protect their enumerated grants of power?

It does not say a lot of things. That is why the founders said to go back to the debates and capture the spirit.


----------



## Faun

Tennyson said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy.
> 
> You claimed...
> 
> _What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws._​
> ... yet in starl contrast, the Constitution reads otherwise...
> 
> _*The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution*, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Article III jurisdiction over the states, state's laws, or state's constitutions. The first time the Supreme Court tried that we got the Eleventh Amendment. They had limited jurisdiction over conflicts between states and interstate lawsuits, but the Eleventh Amendment restricted that jurisdiction further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More nonsense. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land...
> 
> _This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby*, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding._​
> ... and as previously demonstrated ...
> 
> _The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The supremacy clause refers only to Article I, Section 8.  The concern at the convention was the states interfering with the delegates powers of Congress.  What is not mentioned in Article VI is the court's jurisdiction. Moreover, the Bill of Rights came after the Constitution, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments had teeth were just as important as the first eight amendments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it state the Supremacy clause is limited to only one section of the Constitution. Nowhere in U.S. law does it limit the Supremacy clause to one section of the Constitution.
> 
> You're making that up and it's not supported anywhere in American jurisprudence. Even worse for your claim, the U.S. Constitution defines its own Supremacy as, _"*this Constitution*, and the Laws of the United States,"_ not _"Article I, Section 8, of this Constitution."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am actually basing that off the debates. What purpose and evidence do you have for the reason for the purpose of the supremacy clause other than for Congress to protect their enumerated grants of power?
> 
> It does not say a lot of things. That is why the founders said to go back to the debates and capture the spirit.
Click to expand...

The wording is quite clear ... _"*this Constitution*, and the Laws of the United States,"_


----------



## Tennyson

Faun said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Article III jurisdiction over the states, state's laws, or state's constitutions. The first time the Supreme Court tried that we got the Eleventh Amendment. They had limited jurisdiction over conflicts between states and interstate lawsuits, but the Eleventh Amendment restricted that jurisdiction further.
> 
> 
> 
> More nonsense. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land...
> 
> _This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby*, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding._​
> ... and as previously demonstrated ...
> 
> _The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The supremacy clause refers only to Article I, Section 8.  The concern at the convention was the states interfering with the delegates powers of Congress.  What is not mentioned in Article VI is the court's jurisdiction. Moreover, the Bill of Rights came after the Constitution, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments had teeth were just as important as the first eight amendments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it state the Supremacy clause is limited to only one section of the Constitution. Nowhere in U.S. law does it limit the Supremacy clause to one section of the Constitution.
> 
> You're making that up and it's not supported anywhere in American jurisprudence. Even worse for your claim, the U.S. Constitution defines its own Supremacy as, _"*this Constitution*, and the Laws of the United States,"_ not _"Article I, Section 8, of this Constitution."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am actually basing that off the debates. What purpose and evidence do you have for the reason for the purpose of the supremacy clause other than for Congress to protect their enumerated grants of power?
> 
> It does not say a lot of things. That is why the founders said to go back to the debates and capture the spirit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wording is quite clear ... _"*this Constitution*, and the Laws of the United States,"_
Click to expand...


Do you discount the purpose and intent of the Constitution? Your "this Constitution and laws of the United Startes" are enumerated powers. The supremacy clause was understood by all the founders as a limitation on the federal government. 

One of the myriad examples:



> This Constitution, as to the powers therein granted, is constantly to be the supreme law of the land. Every power ceded by it must be executed without being counteracted by the laws or constitutions of the individual states. Gentlemen should distinguish that it is not the supreme law in the exercise of power not granted. It can be supreme only in cases consistent with the powers specially granted, and not in usurpations.


----------



## dblack

It's sorta like the Punch and Judy show.


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.
> 
> Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.
> 
> Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.
> 
> The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.
> 
> Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Pretty much 'everyone'?
> 
> Any living people?
> 
> Meanwhile- you are in the same league as those who argue that the income tax is unconstitutional, and that the 13th amendment was never legally ratified- you are spitting into the wind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are more than welcome to write out an argument regarding what I have stated that is incorrect.
Click to expand...


You cited something as a fact- that was not an argument.
_Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts_

You have not supported your claim. 

Virtually no living legal authority agrees with your claim- see how easy it is for me to make an unsubstantiated claim also?

Just happens mine is correct.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No- frankly the legal benefits are not why its contentious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they are. The legal benefits are why government regulates marriage in the first place. Otherwise it would be just another contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- frankly its not. Marriage originally was just a matter of confirming legitimacy to heirs.
> 
> Government regulates marriages for a multiplicity of reasons- and that includes preventing the abuse of minors, and mentally unfit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And people AGREE to those terms and AUTHORIZE govt for the reasons
> we agree to.
> 
> But if you add conditions, such as the ones you object to that marriage
> be only for one man and one woman, and people of a state DON"T agree
> to govt regulations on those terms, then that law is biased by beliefs
> and people demand to change it.
> 
> This is why LGBT argued to change laws because it does not represent their beliefs I don't have to agree with those beliefs to RESPECT when LGBT argue
> NO we don't consent and believe in that.
> 
> So I'm saying the same for Christians or others even Gay people
> who don't believe in pushing gay marriage through the govt.
> If they don't believe in that, I don't have to agree with their beliefs
> to see this needs to be changed or removed.
> 
> Marriage and benefits can still be organized and managed in private.
> 
> The Catholic Church organizes its own resources for its members.
> 
> The Mormons have their own social security on a temporary 2 year basis.
> 
> Anyone can do this, and going through govt is NOT required to set up
> benefits, health care, etc just like Prolife Networks do.
> 
> If all people will agree to is CIVIL unions through the state
> and use THAT to govern regulations on legal competence etc.
> that doesn't have to introduce define or decide any terms of
> "marriage" attached to the civil union or domestic contract.
> 
> The Catholic Church teaches its own rules through its schools.
> If we AGREE on rules sure they can stay public through govt.
> But where we disagree, those can still be established and followed in private.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily- you tend to use 100 words when 10 words would do. I am trying to parse down to what you are suggesting
> 
> Are you suggesting changing the current term we use for marriage from 'marriage' to 'civil unions' but have all of the legal obligations/responsibilities etc remain the same?
> 
> Or are you suggesting privatizing all of the legal obligations- for example- Social Security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Syriusly
> A. only if that is what it takes to settle this issue
> B. if all citizens of a state can AGREE how to keep public institutions and policies in charge,
> by all means, I support consensus on the highest level attainable.!
Click to expand...


Consensus on the highest level attainable?

All the citizens? 

That never happens- all the citizens never agree on anything. 

Conceptually the idea of consensus- finding an agreement that everyone can agree on is impractical over about 100 people. 

it is not possible.


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> More nonsense. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land...
> 
> _This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby*, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding._​
> ... and as previously demonstrated ...
> 
> _The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution_​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The supremacy clause refers only to Article I, Section 8.  The concern at the convention was the states interfering with the delegates powers of Congress.  What is not mentioned in Article VI is the court's jurisdiction. Moreover, the Bill of Rights came after the Constitution, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments had teeth were just as important as the first eight amendments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it state the Supremacy clause is limited to only one section of the Constitution. Nowhere in U.S. law does it limit the Supremacy clause to one section of the Constitution.
> 
> You're making that up and it's not supported anywhere in American jurisprudence. Even worse for your claim, the U.S. Constitution defines its own Supremacy as, _"*this Constitution*, and the Laws of the United States,"_ not _"Article I, Section 8, of this Constitution."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am actually basing that off the debates. What purpose and evidence do you have for the reason for the purpose of the supremacy clause other than for Congress to protect their enumerated grants of power?
> 
> It does not say a lot of things. That is why the founders said to go back to the debates and capture the spirit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wording is quite clear ... _"*this Constitution*, and the Laws of the United States,"_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you discount the purpose and intent of the Constitution? Your "this Constitution and laws of the United Startes" are enumerated powers. The supremacy clause was understood by all the founders as a limitation on the federal government.\
Click to expand...


You want to ignore the clear and concise language of the Constitution- and instead rely upon interpretations of 'the purpose and intent of the Constitution"

The language of the Constitution was ratified by the states- not the intent of the Constitution.


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supremacy clause refers only to Article I, Section 8.  The concern at the convention was the states interfering with the delegates powers of Congress.  What is not mentioned in Article VI is the court's jurisdiction. Moreover, the Bill of Rights came after the Constitution, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments had teeth were just as important as the first eight amendments.
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it state the Supremacy clause is limited to only one section of the Constitution. Nowhere in U.S. law does it limit the Supremacy clause to one section of the Constitution.
> 
> You're making that up and it's not supported anywhere in American jurisprudence. Even worse for your claim, the U.S. Constitution defines its own Supremacy as, _"*this Constitution*, and the Laws of the United States,"_ not _"Article I, Section 8, of this Constitution."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am actually basing that off the debates. What purpose and evidence do you have for the reason for the purpose of the supremacy clause other than for Congress to protect their enumerated grants of power?
> 
> It does not say a lot of things. That is why the founders said to go back to the debates and capture the spirit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wording is quite clear ... _"*this Constitution*, and the Laws of the United States,"_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you discount the purpose and intent of the Constitution? Your "this Constitution and laws of the United Startes" are enumerated powers. The supremacy clause was understood by all the founders as a limitation on the federal government.\
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want to ignore the clear and concise language of the Constitution- and instead rely upon interpretations of 'the purpose and intent of the Constitution"
> 
> The language of the Constitution was ratified by the states- not the intent of the Constitution.
Click to expand...


The Constitution was based 100% on its intent. Every single deputy had to go home to their state and sell the Constitution. These were long drawn events with each word being debated. 

An interpretation is not using the words of the men who wrote the Constitution, debated it, and ratified it.


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.
> 
> The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.
> 
> Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Pretty much 'everyone'?
> 
> Any living people?
> 
> Meanwhile- you are in the same league as those who argue that the income tax is unconstitutional, and that the 13th amendment was never legally ratified- you are spitting into the wind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are more than welcome to write out an argument regarding what I have stated that is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cited something as a fact- that was not an argument.
> _Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts_
> 
> You have not supported your claim.
> 
> Virtually no living legal authority agrees with your claim- see how easy it is for me to make an unsubstantiated claim also?
> 
> Just happens mine is correct.
Click to expand...

'

If you want to lie and drag this into the gutter, I am out.  I gave you the opportunity to write out an argument.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> (B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
> are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?
> 
> To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.
> 
> But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
> NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
> and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.
> 
> Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.
> 
> Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.
Click to expand...

And it’s the 5th Amendment’s Liberty Clause that acknowledges and protects the right of all Americans to make personal choices and decisions about their lives absent unwarranted interference from the state.

And the 5th Amendment right of choice applies to gay and transgender Americans, prohibiting government from seeking to disadvantage citizens for no other reason than who they are, or for no other reason than life choices they’ve made; including denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> (B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
> are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?
> 
> To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.
> 
> But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
> NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
> and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.
> 
> Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.
> 
> Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.
Click to expand...

No one ever said it was – _Obergefell_ concerned state governments violating the 14th Amendment, not any branch of the Federal government.  

It was state government which sought to deny same-sex couples access to state marriage law; same-sex couples who were first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that.

And the states are subject to the Federal Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, where any laws enacted by the states repugnant to the Constitution are appropriately struck down by the courts, in accordance with Articles III and VI of the Constitution.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> (B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
> are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?
> 
> To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.
> 
> But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
> NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
> and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.
> 
> Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.
> 
> Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.
> 
> The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.
> 
> Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't really get the whole concept of advocating for change, do you?
Click to expand...

No, the ‘whole concept’ of change is perfectly understood, including advocating for ‘change’ that is reactionary, detrimental, and predicated on fear, ignorance, and hate – ‘change’ seeking to disadvantage various classes of persons because they are incorrectly perceived to be a ‘threat.’


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> (B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
> are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?
> 
> To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.
> 
> But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
> NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
> and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.
> 
> Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.
> 
> Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.
> 
> The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.
> 
> Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts. This isn't about the courts. If you want to cite a court case as an argument with me, you need to defend it in its constitutional basis. A monkey with a keyboard and an Internet connection can find a court case. If your only argument is that a court ruled, you do not have an argument unless the topic is limited to court rulings only.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Only a frightened, ignorant minority agrees with your nonsense.

Indeed, before the advent of the Republic is was the original understanding and intent of the Founding Generation that citizens’ rights be safeguarded from abuse by government, both state and Federal; and that the states and local jurisdictions would be subject to Federal law, the Federal Constitution, and rulings by the Federal courts – including the Supreme Court – binding on the states and local jurisdictions.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

dblack said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't we have marriage laws written that well, where both sides agree to how it's written
> and can still get out of it the interpretation that matches their beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, for most people, the point of government is to force their values on others.
Click to expand...

Not for most people, no, but for a minority of frightened reactionary conservatives, yes.

Unfortunately, in some states and jurisdictions, that frightened, reactionary minority manifests as a majority which advocates denying citizens of the United States their rights and protected liberties motivated by unwarranted fear and hate.

That’s why we have a Constitution and its case law, to protect the rights and protected liberties of citizens from abuse by state and local governments.

Such is the ridiculous hypocrisy of conservatives and libertarians: they rail against the perceived ‘abuse’ and ‘overreach’ of the Federal government, yet when state governments engage in the same abuse and overreach, conservatives and libertarians are suddenly blind to that abuse and overreach.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't we have marriage laws written that well, where both sides agree to how it's written
> and can still get out of it the interpretation that matches their beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, for most people, the point of government is to force their values on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not for most people, no, but for a minority of frightened reactionary conservatives, yes.
Click to expand...


I hope you're right. But sadly, it's not what I've seen. 

We expect it from 'frightened reactionary conservatives'. It more or less defines them. But now we see the traditional champions of tolerance embracing the kind authoritarian government that, for so long, was their named enemy. And they make this leap with apparently no appreciation for the irony of it all.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.
> 
> The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.
> 
> Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't really get the whole concept of advocating for change, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the ‘whole concept’ of change is perfectly understood, including advocating for ‘change’ that is reactionary, detrimental, and predicated on fear, ignorance, and hate – ‘change’ seeking to disadvantage various classes of persons because they are incorrectly perceived to be a ‘threat.’
Click to expand...


You seem to be missing the point here as well. I'm not commenting on the merits of the change in question. Mostly I agree you. The homophobes are wrong. I'm talking about some of the reactionary responses to their arguments that we're seeing here.

"No one agrees with you."
"It is decided"
"It's been like this for a long time, it's not going to change"
"The Supreme Court has ruled"
...
"Sit down and shut up."

These were exactly the responses used to dismiss civil rights activists for most of the last century. They didn't listen. They knew that right and wrong wasn't a matter of majority rule and fought to make their case regardless of reactionaries trying to silence them. And that was a good thing.


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.
> 
> The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.
> 
> Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Pretty much 'everyone'?
> 
> Any living people?
> 
> Meanwhile- you are in the same league as those who argue that the income tax is unconstitutional, and that the 13th amendment was never legally ratified- you are spitting into the wind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are more than welcome to write out an argument regarding what I have stated that is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cited something as a fact- that was not an argument.
> _Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts_
> 
> You have not supported your claim.
> 
> Virtually no living legal authority agrees with your claim- see how easy it is for me to make an unsubstantiated claim also?
> 
> Just happens mine is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> '
> 
> If you want to lie and drag this into the gutter, I am out.  I gave you the opportunity to write out an argument.
Click to expand...


Don't let the door hit you in the ass as you run out.


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it state the Supremacy clause is limited to only one section of the Constitution. Nowhere in U.S. law does it limit the Supremacy clause to one section of the Constitution.
> 
> You're making that up and it's not supported anywhere in American jurisprudence. Even worse for your claim, the U.S. Constitution defines its own Supremacy as, _"*this Constitution*, and the Laws of the United States,"_ not _"Article I, Section 8, of this Constitution."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am actually basing that off the debates. What purpose and evidence do you have for the reason for the purpose of the supremacy clause other than for Congress to protect their enumerated grants of power?
> 
> It does not say a lot of things. That is why the founders said to go back to the debates and capture the spirit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wording is quite clear ... _"*this Constitution*, and the Laws of the United States,"_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you discount the purpose and intent of the Constitution? Your "this Constitution and laws of the United Startes" are enumerated powers. The supremacy clause was understood by all the founders as a limitation on the federal government.\
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want to ignore the clear and concise language of the Constitution- and instead rely upon interpretations of 'the purpose and intent of the Constitution"
> 
> The language of the Constitution was ratified by the states- not the intent of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution was based 100% on its intent. Every single deputy had to go home to their state and sell the Constitution. These were long drawn events with each word being debated.
> 
> An interpretation is not using the words of the men who wrote the Constitution, debated it, and ratified it.
Click to expand...


Every single deputy had to go home and sell the words of the Constitution. 

That was what was voted on- not your interpretation of what men wrote in the 18th century.


----------



## Tennyson

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> (B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
> are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?
> 
> To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.
> 
> But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
> NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
> and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.
> 
> Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.
> 
> Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it’s the 5th Amendment’s Liberty Clause that acknowledges and protects the right of all Americans to make personal choices and decisions about their lives absent unwarranted interference from the state.
> 
> And the 5th Amendment right of choice applies to gay and transgender Americans, prohibiting government from seeking to disadvantage citizens for no other reason than who they are, or for no other reason than life choices they’ve made; including denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in.
Click to expand...



The Fifth Amendment’s liberty clause was not created to protect the rights of all Americans. The entire Bill of Rights was created to prohibit the federal government from infringing on the enumerated rights of the citizens of the states. What you cannot produce is one piece of historical evidence to substantiate your claim. All the historical evidence from the Philadelphia convention, the First Congress’s debates regarding the Bill of Rights, and all the way through to twentieth century judicial activism demonstrate that you are wrong.


The Fifth Amendment’s liberty clause was not created to protect the rights of all Americans. The entire Bill of Rights was created to prohibit the federal government from infringing on the enumerated rights of the citizens of the states. What you cannot produce is one piece of historical evidence to substantiate your claim. All the historical evidence from the Philadelphia convention, the First Congress’s debates regarding the Bill of Rights, and all the way through to twentieth century judicial activism demonstrate that you are wrong.


----------



## miketx

So, how many queers are there here?


----------



## Tennyson

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> (B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
> are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?
> 
> To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.
> 
> But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
> NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
> and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.
> 
> Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.
> 
> Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except of course no one agrees with your interpretation.
> 
> The courts have been involving themselves with State's marriage laws since before Loving v Virginia- and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot violate a couples Constitutional rights.
> 
> Whose point of view is going to prevail? Well the Supreme Court's has for the last 50 years- not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts. This isn't about the courts. If you want to cite a court case as an argument with me, you need to defend it in its constitutional basis. A monkey with a keyboard and an Internet connection can find a court case. If your only argument is that a court ruled, you do not have an argument unless the topic is limited to court rulings only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Only a frightened, ignorant minority agrees with your nonsense.
> 
> Indeed, before the advent of the Republic is was the original understanding and intent of the Founding Generation that citizens’ rights be safeguarded from abuse by government, both state and Federal; and that the states and local jurisdictions would be subject to Federal law, the Federal Constitution, and rulings by the Federal courts – including the Supreme Court – binding on the states and local jurisdictions.
Click to expand...


What you cannot do is produce a single piece of historical evidence that the original understanding and intent of the founding generation that citizen’s rights be safeguarded from abuse by a state government or that a state and local jurisdiction would be subject to federal law, federal courts and binding them.

All the evidence contradicts your claim.


----------



## Tennyson

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't we have marriage laws written that well, where both sides agree to how it's written
> and can still get out of it the interpretation that matches their beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, for most people, the point of government is to force their values on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not for most people, no, but for a minority of frightened reactionary conservatives, yes.
> 
> Unfortunately, in some states and jurisdictions, that frightened, reactionary minority manifests as a majority which advocates denying citizens of the United States their rights and protected liberties motivated by unwarranted fear and hate.
> 
> That’s why we have a Constitution and its case law, to protect the rights and protected liberties of citizens from abuse by state and local governments.
> 
> Such is the ridiculous hypocrisy of conservatives and libertarians: they rail against the perceived ‘abuse’ and ‘overreach’ of the Federal government, yet when state governments engage in the same abuse and overreach, conservatives and libertarians are suddenly blind to that abuse and overreach.
Click to expand...


That is not why we have a constitution. We have a constitution because of the reasons outlined in the Annapolis convention, and rights were not one of the reasons.


----------



## Tennyson

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> (B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
> are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?
> 
> To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.
> 
> But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
> NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
> and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.
> 
> Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.
> 
> Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one ever said it was – _Obergefell_ concerned state governments violating the 14th Amendment, not any branch of the Federal government.
> 
> It was state government which sought to deny same-sex couples access to state marriage law; same-sex couples who were first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that.
> 
> And the states are subject to the Federal Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, where any laws enacted by the states repugnant to the Constitution are appropriately struck down by the courts, in accordance with Articles III and VI of the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Obergefell concerned Kennedy creating constitutional concepts that do not exist.

State governments did not seek to deny same-sex couple access to state marriages. That concept has been a law or statute in this country since the 1600s. So to seek that is incorrect.

The states are only subjected to the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8, and the state to state interactions in Article IV. There is no Article III jurisdiction over the states other than a conflict between the states of a lawsuit between parties of different states. This was kept in check first time the Supreme Court overstepped its jurisdiction with the creation of the Eleventh Amendment. Article VI’s supremacy clause only applied to Article I, Section 8 powers and a conflict between those powers and a state law that conflicted with those powers. What is absent in Article VI is the Supreme Court.

You are using the word "repugnant," which dates to _Trevett v. Weeden _of 1786, _Ten Pound Act Cases _(1786-1787, 
_Holmes v. Watson _(1780), and culminating in _Vidal v. Girard's Executors, _which found that anti-Christian laws were repugnant to the law. This does not reconcile with same-sex marriage.


----------



## Syriusly

miketx said:


> So, how many queers are there here?


I think you are on the wrong site to look for dates.


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Pretty much 'everyone'?
> 
> Any living people?
> 
> Meanwhile- you are in the same league as those who argue that the income tax is unconstitutional, and that the 13th amendment was never legally ratified- you are spitting into the wind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are more than welcome to write out an argument regarding what I have stated that is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cited something as a fact- that was not an argument.
> _Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts_
> 
> You have not supported your claim.
> 
> Virtually no living legal authority agrees with your claim- see how easy it is for me to make an unsubstantiated claim also?
> 
> Just happens mine is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> '
> 
> If you want to lie and drag this into the gutter, I am out.  I gave you the opportunity to write out an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't let the door hit you in the ass as you run out.
Click to expand...


You seem to misunderstand. I am referring to your subterranean gutter form of "debate." There are many people I am sure that will willingly engage in this form of "debate." I am not one because this type of "debate" is only the manifestation of a lack of knowledge.


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> (B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
> are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?
> 
> To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.
> 
> But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
> NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
> and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.
> 
> Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.
> 
> Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one ever said it was – _Obergefell_ concerned state governments violating the 14th Amendment, not any branch of the Federal government.
> 
> It was state government which sought to deny same-sex couples access to state marriage law; same-sex couples who were first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that.
> 
> And the states are subject to the Federal Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, where any laws enacted by the states repugnant to the Constitution are appropriately struck down by the courts, in accordance with Articles III and VI of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obergefell concerned Kennedy creating constitutional concepts that do not exist.
> 
> State governments did not seek to deny same-sex couple access to state marriages. That concept has been a law or statute in this country since the 1600s. So to seek that is incorrect..
Click to expand...


LOL- really? Are you ignorant- or just lying to us?

States started banning same sex marriages specifically to deny same sex couples access to state marriage

Alabama 1996
_`I signed this order because of pending legislation in Hawaii to legalize homosexual marriages,'' James said. ``There would have been the chance that Alabama would have to recognize those same-sex marriages.''_

Alabama later became the 30th state to specifically ban same sex marriage.


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Pretty much 'everyone'?
> 
> Any living people?
> 
> Meanwhile- you are in the same league as those who argue that the income tax is unconstitutional, and that the 13th amendment was never legally ratified- you are spitting into the wind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are more than welcome to write out an argument regarding what I have stated that is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cited something as a fact- that was not an argument.
> _Pretty much everyone agrees with me except twentieth century activist courts_
> 
> You have not supported your claim.
> 
> Virtually no living legal authority agrees with your claim- see how easy it is for me to make an unsubstantiated claim also?
> 
> Just happens mine is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> '
> 
> If you want to lie and drag this into the gutter, I am out.  I gave you the opportunity to write out an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't let the door hit you in the ass as you run out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to misunderstand. I am referring to your subterranean gutter form of "debate." There are many people I am sure that will willingly engage in this form of "debate." I am not one because this type of "debate" is only the manifestation of a lack of knowledge.
Click to expand...


So when you said 'I am out'- you were lying.


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> (B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
> are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?
> 
> To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.
> 
> But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
> NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
> and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.
> 
> Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.
> 
> Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one ever said it was – _Obergefell_ concerned state governments violating the 14th Amendment, not any branch of the Federal government.
> 
> It was state government which sought to deny same-sex couples access to state marriage law; same-sex couples who were first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that.
> 
> And the states are subject to the Federal Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, where any laws enacted by the states repugnant to the Constitution are appropriately struck down by the courts, in accordance with Articles III and VI of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obergefell concerned Kennedy creating constitutional concepts that do not exist.
> 
> State governments did not seek to deny same-sex couple access to state marriages. That concept has been a law or statute in this country since the 1600s. So to seek that is incorrect..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- really? Are you ignorant- or just lying to us?
> 
> States started banning same sex marriages specifically to deny same sex couples access to state marriage
> 
> Alabama 1996
> _`I signed this order because of pending legislation in Hawaii to legalize homosexual marriages,'' James said. ``There would have been the chance that Alabama would have to recognize those same-sex marriages.''_
> 
> Alabama later became the 30th state to specifically ban same sex marriage.
Click to expand...


Laws against same-sex marriages have been on the books in this country since the 1600s.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

emilynghiem said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - Ninth Amendment
> 
> In other words, the federal government has no power to outlaw any marriage, gay or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy
> and by the First Amendment,
> neither can govt ESTABLISH nor PROHIBIT
> the free exercise of one's personal or spiritual beliefs about marriage.
> 
> marriage beliefs cannot be endorsed or penalized by govt without violating
> Amendment one, and thus Fourteenth and Civil Rights principles
> on equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The federal government may not establish any legal definition of marriage.


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.
> 
> Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.
> 
> Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one ever said it was – _Obergefell_ concerned state governments violating the 14th Amendment, not any branch of the Federal government.
> 
> It was state government which sought to deny same-sex couples access to state marriage law; same-sex couples who were first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that.
> 
> And the states are subject to the Federal Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, where any laws enacted by the states repugnant to the Constitution are appropriately struck down by the courts, in accordance with Articles III and VI of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obergefell concerned Kennedy creating constitutional concepts that do not exist.
> 
> State governments did not seek to deny same-sex couple access to state marriages. That concept has been a law or statute in this country since the 1600s. So to seek that is incorrect..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- really? Are you ignorant- or just lying to us?
> 
> States started banning same sex marriages specifically to deny same sex couples access to state marriage
> 
> Alabama 1996
> _`I signed this order because of pending legislation in Hawaii to legalize homosexual marriages,'' James said. ``There would have been the chance that Alabama would have to recognize those same-sex marriages.''_
> 
> Alabama later became the 30th state to specifically ban same sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws against same-sex marriages have been on the books in this country since the 1600s.
Click to expand...


Feel free to cite Alabama's. Or California's. 

Since both states specifically passed laws outlawing same sex marriages. 

Odd isn't it that they would pass a law that was already in existence?


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> No one ever said it was – _Obergefell_ concerned state governments violating the 14th Amendment, not any branch of the Federal government.
> 
> It was state government which sought to deny same-sex couples access to state marriage law; same-sex couples who were first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that.
> 
> And the states are subject to the Federal Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, where any laws enacted by the states repugnant to the Constitution are appropriately struck down by the courts, in accordance with Articles III and VI of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obergefell concerned Kennedy creating constitutional concepts that do not exist.
> 
> State governments did not seek to deny same-sex couple access to state marriages. That concept has been a law or statute in this country since the 1600s. So to seek that is incorrect..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- really? Are you ignorant- or just lying to us?
> 
> States started banning same sex marriages specifically to deny same sex couples access to state marriage
> 
> Alabama 1996
> _`I signed this order because of pending legislation in Hawaii to legalize homosexual marriages,'' James said. ``There would have been the chance that Alabama would have to recognize those same-sex marriages.''_
> 
> Alabama later became the 30th state to specifically ban same sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws against same-sex marriages have been on the books in this country since the 1600s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to cite Alabama's. Or California's.
> 
> Since both states specifically passed laws outlawing same sex marriages.
> 
> Odd isn't it that they would pass a law that was already in existence?
Click to expand...


How far back in time? 1799 with the Sargent’s Code of the territory and the adopted common laws against buggery? The adoption of common laws against buggery in 1833? 1841 when Alabama with the Penal Code in the Annual Session of the General Assembly of the State of Alabama January 9, 1841 that converted common law to statutory law regarding buggery?


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one ever said it was – _Obergefell_ concerned state governments violating the 14th Amendment, not any branch of the Federal government.
> 
> It was state government which sought to deny same-sex couples access to state marriage law; same-sex couples who were first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that.
> 
> And the states are subject to the Federal Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, where any laws enacted by the states repugnant to the Constitution are appropriately struck down by the courts, in accordance with Articles III and VI of the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell concerned Kennedy creating constitutional concepts that do not exist.
> 
> State governments did not seek to deny same-sex couple access to state marriages. That concept has been a law or statute in this country since the 1600s. So to seek that is incorrect..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- really? Are you ignorant- or just lying to us?
> 
> States started banning same sex marriages specifically to deny same sex couples access to state marriage
> 
> Alabama 1996
> _`I signed this order because of pending legislation in Hawaii to legalize homosexual marriages,'' James said. ``There would have been the chance that Alabama would have to recognize those same-sex marriages.''_
> 
> Alabama later became the 30th state to specifically ban same sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws against same-sex marriages have been on the books in this country since the 1600s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to cite Alabama's. Or California's.
> 
> Since both states specifically passed laws outlawing same sex marriages.
> 
> Odd isn't it that they would pass a law that was already in existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How far back in time? 1799 with the Sargent’s Code of the territory and the adopted common laws against buggery? The adoption of common laws against buggery in 1833? 1841 when Alabama with the Penal Code in the Annual Session of the General Assembly of the State of Alabama January 9, 1841 that converted common law to statutory law regarding buggery?
Click to expand...


Who is talking about buggery? You said that there were laws against same sex marriage dating abck to the 1600's.

Are you now not able to back up your claim?

What a surprise......


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell concerned Kennedy creating constitutional concepts that do not exist.
> 
> State governments did not seek to deny same-sex couple access to state marriages. That concept has been a law or statute in this country since the 1600s. So to seek that is incorrect..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- really? Are you ignorant- or just lying to us?
> 
> States started banning same sex marriages specifically to deny same sex couples access to state marriage
> 
> Alabama 1996
> _`I signed this order because of pending legislation in Hawaii to legalize homosexual marriages,'' James said. ``There would have been the chance that Alabama would have to recognize those same-sex marriages.''_
> 
> Alabama later became the 30th state to specifically ban same sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws against same-sex marriages have been on the books in this country since the 1600s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to cite Alabama's. Or California's.
> 
> Since both states specifically passed laws outlawing same sex marriages.
> 
> Odd isn't it that they would pass a law that was already in existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How far back in time? 1799 with the Sargent’s Code of the territory and the adopted common laws against buggery? The adoption of common laws against buggery in 1833? 1841 when Alabama with the Penal Code in the Annual Session of the General Assembly of the State of Alabama January 9, 1841 that converted common law to statutory law regarding buggery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is talking about buggery? You said that there were laws against same sex marriage dating abck to the 1600's.
> 
> Are you now not able to back up your claim?
> 
> What a surprise......
Click to expand...


Why would there need to be a specific law regarding same-sex marriage when it was a felony to be a homosexual and the marriage licenses were limited to one man and one women? 

You remind me of daws101.


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- really? Are you ignorant- or just lying to us?
> 
> States started banning same sex marriages specifically to deny same sex couples access to state marriage
> 
> Alabama 1996
> _`I signed this order because of pending legislation in Hawaii to legalize homosexual marriages,'' James said. ``There would have been the chance that Alabama would have to recognize those same-sex marriages.''_
> 
> Alabama later became the 30th state to specifically ban same sex marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws against same-sex marriages have been on the books in this country since the 1600s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to cite Alabama's. Or California's.
> 
> Since both states specifically passed laws outlawing same sex marriages.
> 
> Odd isn't it that they would pass a law that was already in existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How far back in time? 1799 with the Sargent’s Code of the territory and the adopted common laws against buggery? The adoption of common laws against buggery in 1833? 1841 when Alabama with the Penal Code in the Annual Session of the General Assembly of the State of Alabama January 9, 1841 that converted common law to statutory law regarding buggery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is talking about buggery? You said that there were laws against same sex marriage dating abck to the 1600's.
> 
> Are you now not able to back up your claim?
> 
> What a surprise......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would there need to be a specific law regarding same-sex marriage when it was a felony to be a homosexual and the marriage licenses were limited to one man and one women?
> 
> You remind me of daws101.
Click to expand...


Quoting you:
_Laws against same-sex marriages have been on the books in this country since the 1600
_
Still waiting for you to back up your claim with a citation of such a law. 

And exactly how are two lesbians committing 'buggery'?


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws against same-sex marriages have been on the books in this country since the 1600s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to cite Alabama's. Or California's.
> 
> Since both states specifically passed laws outlawing same sex marriages.
> 
> Odd isn't it that they would pass a law that was already in existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How far back in time? 1799 with the Sargent’s Code of the territory and the adopted common laws against buggery? The adoption of common laws against buggery in 1833? 1841 when Alabama with the Penal Code in the Annual Session of the General Assembly of the State of Alabama January 9, 1841 that converted common law to statutory law regarding buggery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is talking about buggery? You said that there were laws against same sex marriage dating abck to the 1600's.
> 
> Are you now not able to back up your claim?
> 
> What a surprise......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would there need to be a specific law regarding same-sex marriage when it was a felony to be a homosexual and the marriage licenses were limited to one man and one women?
> 
> You remind me of daws101.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quoting you:
> _Laws against same-sex marriages have been on the books in this country since the 1600
> _
> Still waiting for you to back up your claim with a citation of such a law.
> 
> And exactly how are two lesbians committing 'buggery'?
Click to expand...


I did. Your lack of understanding is not my problem. Good luck with your worldview. The amusement has worn off for me.


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't we have marriage laws written that well, where both sides agree to how it's written
> and can still get out of it the interpretation that matches their beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, for most people, the point of government is to force their values on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not for most people, no, but for a minority of frightened reactionary conservatives, yes.
> 
> Unfortunately, in some states and jurisdictions, that frightened, reactionary minority manifests as a majority which advocates denying citizens of the United States their rights and protected liberties motivated by unwarranted fear and hate.
> 
> That’s why we have a Constitution and its case law, to protect the rights and protected liberties of citizens from abuse by state and local governments.
> 
> Such is the ridiculous hypocrisy of conservatives and libertarians: they rail against the perceived ‘abuse’ and ‘overreach’ of the Federal government, yet when state governments engage in the same abuse and overreach, conservatives and libertarians are suddenly blind to that abuse and overreach.
Click to expand...


Dear C_Clayton_Jones 
your past two posts, this and the one previously,
are stating the same as what Conservative Constitutionalists also say:
that the Constitutional laws are to prevent abuses of Govt to infringe on rights of people

A. one difference I see is that both you and the right opponents
count protection of infringement
ONLY if it protects YOUR beliefs but not the other side
Thus that is still depending on govt to establish beliefs,
where the left is worse about believing and relying on govt to do so
instead of teaching people to respect this naturally as the right try to teach
(where citizens are empowered equally by living by and enforcing Constitutional laws directly
similar to living by Scriptural laws to be equally empowered instead of relying on church authority as a middleman)

So if govt protected right to life beliefs from overstepping by ACA
Do you equally applaud this, as prolife Constitutionalists do, as correct enforcement of Constitutional limits?

And when laws are blocked from imposing faith based arguments against abortion
Do those same Constitutionalists applaud this as protecting the free choice
of the individual from establishing beliefs through govt?

B. the other difference I notice
Again the left RELIES on govt to create or establish rights,
while the right teaches these are inherent 
and writing them down in the Constitution just made them statutory.

It seems to me if both parties agreed to stop abusing govt to push
THEIR beliefs about rights on everyone else,
then we wouldn't rely on govt to define and defend them.

We the people would agree to respect and protect each other's rights.
And we'd all agree to use govt correctly to ESTABLISH policies where we already agree.


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to cite Alabama's. Or California's.
> 
> Since both states specifically passed laws outlawing same sex marriages.
> 
> Odd isn't it that they would pass a law that was already in existence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How far back in time? 1799 with the Sargent’s Code of the territory and the adopted common laws against buggery? The adoption of common laws against buggery in 1833? 1841 when Alabama with the Penal Code in the Annual Session of the General Assembly of the State of Alabama January 9, 1841 that converted common law to statutory law regarding buggery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is talking about buggery? You said that there were laws against same sex marriage dating abck to the 1600's.
> 
> Are you now not able to back up your claim?
> 
> What a surprise......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would there need to be a specific law regarding same-sex marriage when it was a felony to be a homosexual and the marriage licenses were limited to one man and one women?
> 
> You remind me of daws101.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quoting you:
> _Laws against same-sex marriages have been on the books in this country since the 1600
> _
> Still waiting for you to back up your claim with a citation of such a law.
> 
> And exactly how are two lesbians committing 'buggery'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did. Your lack of understanding is not my problem. Good luck with your worldview. The amusement has worn off for me.
Click to expand...


LOL- you were unable to cite a single law against same sex marriage until states started passing specific prohibitions that I mentioned- and I pointed out how hilarious you were for equating lesbians marrying to buggery.

Run away, run away. 

LOL


----------



## Tennyson

New England Body of Liberties 

If any man lyeth with mankinde, as a man lyeth with a woman, both of them have committed abomination, they both shall surely be put to death. Levit. 20. 13. And if any woman change the naturall use into that which is against nature, as Rom. 1. 26. she shall be liable to the same sentence, and punishment, or if any person, or persons, shall commit any other kinde of unnaturall and shamefull filthines, called in Scripture the going after strange flesh, or other flesh then God alloweth, by carnal! knowledge of another vessel then God in nature hath ap- pointed to become oneflesh, whether it be by abusing the contrary part ofa grown woman, or child ofeither sex, or unripe vessel ofa girle, wherein the natural use ofthe woman is left, which God hath ordained for the propagation of posterity, and Sodomiticall filthinesse (tending to the destruction ofthe race ofmankind) is committed by a kind ofrape, nature beingforced, though the will were inticed,' every such person shall be put to death. Or if any man shall act upon hitmself; and in the sight ofothers spill his owne seed, by example, or counsel, or both, corrupting or tempting others to doe the like, which tends to the sin of Sodomy, if it be not one kind of it; or shall defile, or corrupt himself and othes, by anykind of sinfulthinesse, he shall  be punished according to the nature of the offence; or if the case considered with the aggravating circum- stances, shall according to the mind of God revealed in his word require it, he shall be put to death, as the court of magistrates shall determine.


----------



## Faun

miketx said:


> So, how many queers are there here?


Counting you? One.


----------



## emilynghiem

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- really? Are you ignorant- or just lying to us?
> 
> States started banning same sex marriages specifically to deny same sex couples access to state marriage
> 
> Alabama 1996
> _`I signed this order because of pending legislation in Hawaii to legalize homosexual marriages,'' James said. ``There would have been the chance that Alabama would have to recognize those same-sex marriages.''_
> 
> Alabama later became the 30th state to specifically ban same sex marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws against same-sex marriages have been on the books in this country since the 1600s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to cite Alabama's. Or California's.
> 
> Since both states specifically passed laws outlawing same sex marriages.
> 
> Odd isn't it that they would pass a law that was already in existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How far back in time? 1799 with the Sargent’s Code of the territory and the adopted common laws against buggery? The adoption of common laws against buggery in 1833? 1841 when Alabama with the Penal Code in the Annual Session of the General Assembly of the State of Alabama January 9, 1841 that converted common law to statutory law regarding buggery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is talking about buggery? You said that there were laws against same sex marriage dating abck to the 1600's.
> 
> Are you now not able to back up your claim?
> 
> What a surprise......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would there need to be a specific law regarding same-sex marriage when it was a felony to be a homosexual and the marriage licenses were limited to one man and one women?
> 
> You remind me of daws101.
Click to expand...


Dear Syriusly and Tennyson 
I don't see getting much out of entrapping each other in mistakes or misstatements about this.
As some kind of judge or attack on the person.

It's clear to me that marriage was assumed by definition
to refer to husband and wife as male and female.
And this was not challenged PUBLICLY AND POLITICALLY until more recently, after years of LGBT organizing
enough support to lobby.

So if the legal issue did not even come up IN PUBLIC until later, the laws in response did not either.

We have yet to challenge the whole issue of MARRIAGE being in govt in the first place.
This was also assumed to be an agreement to mix church and state authority in both recognizing marriage.

We used to allow references to God in schools, and have the classes prayer together.
But that was challenged and taken out.

At this point, I'm arguing to be consistent.

If you are going to insist on removing or neutralizing Christian expression of prayer and beliefs in God and Jesus
from public institutions,
then treat LGBT expressions practice and beliefs regarding transgender identity and homosexuality and marriage
the same way;
if you are going to defend LGBT as "cultural diversity" and argue for inclusion against discrimination
then defend Christian belief and practice as "cultural diversity" that deserves inclusion and not
discrimination by creed.

NOTE: 
If you look at the religious freedom restoration act, the First Amendment is still in effect, and this law didn't come about until, in response to problems with biases against religious freedom already well established.

There is something about the democratic and legislative process, in representing a CONTRACT between people and govt, where going through the process of enacting or reforming a law has value in affirming the consent and representation of the public. 

Even though the First Amendment already established religious freedom, somehow in pushing and passing the restoration act, this helped to RENEW commitment to enforce the same, that should be enforced anyway!

What we really need is a public national consensus on these laws, so whatever it is that is being left out or not resolved is fully addressed and represented.

We need to agree how to interpret and apply laws, instead of fighting whether to throw the old ones out as people are arguing with the Constitution.  If we interpreted and enforced "religious freedom" fully and consistently, to include and resolve all cases of conflicts BEFORE passing laws, we wouldn't have these arguments over marriage laws or religious freedom restoration as a reaction to ongoing conflicts. 
We would have solved the root problem instead of trying to legislate it away.


----------



## Tennyson

emilynghiem said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws against same-sex marriages have been on the books in this country since the 1600s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to cite Alabama's. Or California's.
> 
> Since both states specifically passed laws outlawing same sex marriages.
> 
> Odd isn't it that they would pass a law that was already in existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How far back in time? 1799 with the Sargent’s Code of the territory and the adopted common laws against buggery? The adoption of common laws against buggery in 1833? 1841 when Alabama with the Penal Code in the Annual Session of the General Assembly of the State of Alabama January 9, 1841 that converted common law to statutory law regarding buggery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is talking about buggery? You said that there were laws against same sex marriage dating abck to the 1600's.
> 
> Are you now not able to back up your claim?
> 
> What a surprise......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would there need to be a specific law regarding same-sex marriage when it was a felony to be a homosexual and the marriage licenses were limited to one man and one women?
> 
> You remind me of daws101.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Syriusly and Tennyson
> I don't see getting much out of entrapping each other in mistakes or misstatements about this.
> As some kind of judge or attack on the person.
> 
> It's clear to me that marriage was assumed by definition
> to refer to husband and wife as male and female.
> And this was not challenged PUBLICLY AND POLITICALLY until more recently, after years of LGBT organizing
> enough support to lobby.
> 
> So if the legal issue did not even come up IN PUBLIC until later, the laws in response did not either.
> 
> We have yet to challenge the whole issue of MARRIAGE being in govt in the first place.
> This was also assumed to be an agreement to mix church and state authority in both recognizing marriage.
> 
> We used to allow references to God in schools, and have the classes prayer together.
> But that was challenged and taken out.
> 
> At this point, I'm arguing to be consistent.
> 
> If you are going to insist on removing or neutralizing Christian expression of prayer and beliefs in God and Jesus
> from public institutions,
> then treat LGBT expressions practice and beliefs regarding transgender identity and homosexuality and marriage
> the same way;
> if you are going to defend LGBT as "cultural diversity" and argue for inclusion against discrimination
> then defend Christian belief and practice as "cultural diversity" that deserves inclusion and not
> discrimination by creed.
> 
> NOTE:
> If you look at the religious freedom restoration act, the First Amendment is still in effect, and this law didn't come about until, in response to problems with biases against religious freedom already well established.
> 
> There is something about the democratic and legislative process, in representing a CONTRACT between people and govt, where going through the process of enacting or reforming a law has value in affirming the consent and representation of the public.
> 
> Even though the First Amendment already established religious freedom, somehow in pushing and passing the restoration act, this helped to RENEW commitment to enforce the same, that should be enforced anyway!
> 
> What we really need is a public national consensus on these laws, so whatever it is that is being left out or not resolved is fully addressed and represented.
> 
> We need to agree how to interpret and apply laws, instead of fighting whether to throw the old ones out as people are arguing with the Constitution.  If we interpreted and enforced "religious freedom" fully and consistently, to include and resolve all cases of conflicts BEFORE passing laws, we wouldn't have these arguments over marriage laws or religious freedom restoration as a reaction to ongoing conflicts.
> We would have solved the root problem instead of trying to legislate it away.
Click to expand...


Emilynghiem,

The First Amendment cannot be in effect if there is a RFRA. The fact that there is any law regarding the First Amendment violates the very first line of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law....This breakdown rests solely with activist Supreme Courts.

We do not need a national consensus. That violates federalism and is why this country is divided. These are state issues.


----------



## dblack

Tennyson said:


> We do not need a national consensus. That violates federalism and is why this country is divided. These are state issues.



We need a consensus on the proper limits of government power. Without that, democracy isn't viable.


----------



## Tennyson

dblack said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not need a national consensus. That violates federalism and is why this country is divided. These are state issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need a consensus on the proper limits of government power. Without that, democracy isn't viable.
Click to expand...


I think we already have that with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They both are worthless without the rule of law.


----------



## dblack

Tennyson said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not need a national consensus. That violates federalism and is why this country is divided. These are state issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need a consensus on the proper limits of government power. Without that, democracy isn't viable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we already have that with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They both are worthless without the rule of law.
Click to expand...


They are worthless without a broad consensus on what they should be.


----------



## Tennyson

dblack said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not need a national consensus. That violates federalism and is why this country is divided. These are state issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need a consensus on the proper limits of government power. Without that, democracy isn't viable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we already have that with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They both are worthless without the rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are worthless without a broad consensus on what they should be.
Click to expand...


That defeats the purpose of a written constitution. That is mob rule and one of the purposes of our written constitution was to protect the country from human nature.


----------



## dblack

Tennyson said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not need a national consensus. That violates federalism and is why this country is divided. These are state issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need a consensus on the proper limits of government power. Without that, democracy isn't viable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we already have that with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They both are worthless without the rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are worthless without a broad consensus on what they should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That defeats the purpose of a written constitution. That is mob rule and one of the purposes of our written constitution was to protect the country from human nature.
Click to expand...


Eventually, yeah. That's the problem. Once people no longer understand or care why it's important, it becomes "just a piece of paper". And when reliable limits on government power aren't honored by a society, consent becomes impossible.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

emilynghiem said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't we have marriage laws written that well, where both sides agree to how it's written
> and can still get out of it the interpretation that matches their beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, for most people, the point of government is to force their values on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not for most people, no, but for a minority of frightened reactionary conservatives, yes.
> 
> Unfortunately, in some states and jurisdictions, that frightened, reactionary minority manifests as a majority which advocates denying citizens of the United States their rights and protected liberties motivated by unwarranted fear and hate.
> 
> That’s why we have a Constitution and its case law, to protect the rights and protected liberties of citizens from abuse by state and local governments.
> 
> Such is the ridiculous hypocrisy of conservatives and libertarians: they rail against the perceived ‘abuse’ and ‘overreach’ of the Federal government, yet when state governments engage in the same abuse and overreach, conservatives and libertarians are suddenly blind to that abuse and overreach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> your past two posts, this and the one previously,
> are stating the same as what Conservative Constitutionalists also say:
> that the Constitutional laws are to prevent abuses of Govt to infringe on rights of people
> 
> A. one difference I see is that both you and the right opponents
> count protection of infringement
> ONLY if it protects YOUR beliefs but not the other side
> Thus that is still depending on govt to establish beliefs,
> where the left is worse about believing and relying on govt to do so
> instead of teaching people to respect this naturally as the right try to teach
> (where citizens are empowered equally by living by and enforcing Constitutional laws directly
> similar to living by Scriptural laws to be equally empowered instead of relying on church authority as a middleman)
> 
> So if govt protected right to life beliefs from overstepping by ACA
> Do you equally applaud this, as prolife Constitutionalists do, as correct enforcement of Constitutional limits?
> 
> And when laws are blocked from imposing faith based arguments against abortion
> Do those same Constitutionalists applaud this as protecting the free choice
> of the individual from establishing beliefs through govt?
> 
> B. the other difference I notice
> Again the left RELIES on govt to create or establish rights,
> while the right teaches these are inherent
> and writing them down in the Constitution just made them statutory.
> 
> It seems to me if both parties agreed to stop abusing govt to push
> THEIR beliefs about rights on everyone else,
> then we wouldn't rely on govt to define and defend them.
> 
> We the people would agree to respect and protect each other's rights.
> And we'd all agree to use govt correctly to ESTABLISH policies where we already agree.
Click to expand...

You clearly have no understanding of the issue, the issue has nothing to do with the ACA or ‘life beliefs,’ and your posts are consequently completely devoid of merit.

It is a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, beyond dispute, that the states may not deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in.

_Obergefell_ is the progeny of over 100 years of 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation.

This settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to state and local governments, not private persons or organizations.

As a result, no personal beliefs, ‘life beliefs,’ or religious beliefs are being violated, infringed upon, or in any manner abridged by the _Obergefell_ ruling.  

Private persons and religious organizations hostile to gay Americans remain at complete liberty to continue to oppose, discriminate against, and prohibit gay Americans from joining or participating in their private organizations.

Last, _Obergefell_ applies only to state civil marriage, not religious marriage, where religious organizations are free to exclude same-sex couples with absolute impunity.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Tennyson said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to cite Alabama's. Or California's.
> 
> Since both states specifically passed laws outlawing same sex marriages.
> 
> Odd isn't it that they would pass a law that was already in existence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How far back in time? 1799 with the Sargent’s Code of the territory and the adopted common laws against buggery? The adoption of common laws against buggery in 1833? 1841 when Alabama with the Penal Code in the Annual Session of the General Assembly of the State of Alabama January 9, 1841 that converted common law to statutory law regarding buggery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is talking about buggery? You said that there were laws against same sex marriage dating abck to the 1600's.
> 
> Are you now not able to back up your claim?
> 
> What a surprise......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would there need to be a specific law regarding same-sex marriage when it was a felony to be a homosexual and the marriage licenses were limited to one man and one women?
> 
> You remind me of daws101.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Syriusly and Tennyson
> I don't see getting much out of entrapping each other in mistakes or misstatements about this.
> As some kind of judge or attack on the person.
> 
> It's clear to me that marriage was assumed by definition
> to refer to husband and wife as male and female.
> And this was not challenged PUBLICLY AND POLITICALLY until more recently, after years of LGBT organizing
> enough support to lobby.
> 
> So if the legal issue did not even come up IN PUBLIC until later, the laws in response did not either.
> 
> We have yet to challenge the whole issue of MARRIAGE being in govt in the first place.
> This was also assumed to be an agreement to mix church and state authority in both recognizing marriage.
> 
> We used to allow references to God in schools, and have the classes prayer together.
> But that was challenged and taken out.
> 
> At this point, I'm arguing to be consistent.
> 
> If you are going to insist on removing or neutralizing Christian expression of prayer and beliefs in God and Jesus
> from public institutions,
> then treat LGBT expressions practice and beliefs regarding transgender identity and homosexuality and marriage
> the same way;
> if you are going to defend LGBT as "cultural diversity" and argue for inclusion against discrimination
> then defend Christian belief and practice as "cultural diversity" that deserves inclusion and not
> discrimination by creed.
> 
> NOTE:
> If you look at the religious freedom restoration act, the First Amendment is still in effect, and this law didn't come about until, in response to problems with biases against religious freedom already well established.
> 
> There is something about the democratic and legislative process, in representing a CONTRACT between people and govt, where going through the process of enacting or reforming a law has value in affirming the consent and representation of the public.
> 
> Even though the First Amendment already established religious freedom, somehow in pushing and passing the restoration act, this helped to RENEW commitment to enforce the same, that should be enforced anyway!
> 
> What we really need is a public national consensus on these laws, so whatever it is that is being left out or not resolved is fully addressed and represented.
> 
> We need to agree how to interpret and apply laws, instead of fighting whether to throw the old ones out as people are arguing with the Constitution.  If we interpreted and enforced "religious freedom" fully and consistently, to include and resolve all cases of conflicts BEFORE passing laws, we wouldn't have these arguments over marriage laws or religious freedom restoration as a reaction to ongoing conflicts.
> We would have solved the root problem instead of trying to legislate it away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emilynghiem,
> 
> The First Amendment cannot be in effect if there is a RFRA. The fact that there is any law regarding the First Amendment violates the very first line of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law....This breakdown rests solely with activist Supreme Courts.
> 
> We do not need a national consensus. That violates federalism and is why this country is divided. These are state issues.
Click to expand...

This country is divided because of the fear, ignorance, and hate common to far too many Americans, and those Americans seeking to codify their fear, ignorance, and hate.

And as is the case with all state laws, marriage contract law is the purview of the states to the extent that those laws comply with the Constitution and its case law.

When the people of the states err, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, such as laws denying same-sex couples access to state marriage law, the courts appropriately and in accordance with the Constitution and the rule of law invalidate those measures.

This reflects the genius of our Constitutional Republic, and why it is far superior to any democracy: because the citizens of this Republic are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, not ‘majority rule,’ because men are incapable of ruling justly – laws which sought to deny gay Americans their right to equal protection and due process of the law are evidence of that.


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't we have marriage laws written that well, where both sides agree to how it's written
> and can still get out of it the interpretation that matches their beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, for most people, the point of government is to force their values on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not for most people, no, but for a minority of frightened reactionary conservatives, yes.
> 
> Unfortunately, in some states and jurisdictions, that frightened, reactionary minority manifests as a majority which advocates denying citizens of the United States their rights and protected liberties motivated by unwarranted fear and hate.
> 
> That’s why we have a Constitution and its case law, to protect the rights and protected liberties of citizens from abuse by state and local governments.
> 
> Such is the ridiculous hypocrisy of conservatives and libertarians: they rail against the perceived ‘abuse’ and ‘overreach’ of the Federal government, yet when state governments engage in the same abuse and overreach, conservatives and libertarians are suddenly blind to that abuse and overreach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> your past two posts, this and the one previously,
> are stating the same as what Conservative Constitutionalists also say:
> that the Constitutional laws are to prevent abuses of Govt to infringe on rights of people
> 
> A. one difference I see is that both you and the right opponents
> count protection of infringement
> ONLY if it protects YOUR beliefs but not the other side
> Thus that is still depending on govt to establish beliefs,
> where the left is worse about believing and relying on govt to do so
> instead of teaching people to respect this naturally as the right try to teach
> (where citizens are empowered equally by living by and enforcing Constitutional laws directly
> similar to living by Scriptural laws to be equally empowered instead of relying on church authority as a middleman)
> 
> So if govt protected right to life beliefs from overstepping by ACA
> Do you equally applaud this, as prolife Constitutionalists do, as correct enforcement of Constitutional limits?
> 
> And when laws are blocked from imposing faith based arguments against abortion
> Do those same Constitutionalists applaud this as protecting the free choice
> of the individual from establishing beliefs through govt?
> 
> B. the other difference I notice
> Again the left RELIES on govt to create or establish rights,
> while the right teaches these are inherent
> and writing them down in the Constitution just made them statutory.
> 
> It seems to me if both parties agreed to stop abusing govt to push
> THEIR beliefs about rights on everyone else,
> then we wouldn't rely on govt to define and defend them.
> 
> We the people would agree to respect and protect each other's rights.
> And we'd all agree to use govt correctly to ESTABLISH policies where we already agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You clearly have no understanding of the issue, the issue has nothing to do with the ACA or ‘life beliefs,’ and your posts are consequently completely devoid of merit.
> 
> It is a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, beyond dispute, that the states may not deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in.
> 
> _Obergefell_ is the progeny of over 100 years of 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation.
> 
> This settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to state and local governments, not private persons or organizations.
> 
> As a result, no personal beliefs, ‘life beliefs,’ or religious beliefs are being violated, infringed upon, or in any manner abridged by the _Obergefell_ ruling.
> 
> Private persons and religious organizations hostile to gay Americans remain at complete liberty to continue to oppose, discriminate against, and prohibit gay Americans from joining or participating in their private organizations.
> 
> Last, _Obergefell_ applies only to state civil marriage, not religious marriage, where religious organizations are free to exclude same-sex couples with absolute impunity.
Click to expand...


Dear C_Clayton_Jones 
I don't have a problem if people agree with govt endorsing right to marriage.
I have a problem with people discriminating, 
and treating right to marriage for same-sex beliefs
the opposite as right to prayer for Christian beliefs.

I find it discriminatory and hypocritical to cry
for separation of church and state, and reducing prayer to "moment of silence"
but when it comes to LGBT beliefs,
demanding these be established and protected by govt as a class and a practice
but denouncing, suing, harassing and attacking Christians for
defending Christian references to God, prayer, Christmas etc.

All I ask is to be consistent.

In fact, the more I ask around and get feedback from others,
more people are agreeing with me that if 
right to prayer and Christian expression were allowed back into public institutions
and people would agree not to harass, sue for removal, etc.
then Christians and others opposed to same sex marriage
might AGREE to allow that freedom of expression if the same
is enforced for Christian beliefs and practices in public and public institutions as well!

More people are saying that may be a better solution
that fighting to remove both. 
Just go ahead and let govt endorse and establish both.
At least that would be fair.

Which way would you recommend if given a choice:
A. either remove marriage from govt and reduce it to civil unions for all people with no mention of biases for or against
either traditional or same sex marriage or any social relations or conditions at all besides legal competence and consent; and treat right to prayer the same, reducing it to moment of silence and not make any references to beliefs
B. or if LGBT expressions and practices are protected recognized or incorporated into govt functions
then equally endorse and protect Christian beliefs and practices including spiritual healing that has
helped people change unwanted sexual patterns of behavior, whether heterosexual or homosexual


----------



## Tennyson

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't we have marriage laws written that well, where both sides agree to how it's written
> and can still get out of it the interpretation that matches their beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, for most people, the point of government is to force their values on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not for most people, no, but for a minority of frightened reactionary conservatives, yes.
> 
> Unfortunately, in some states and jurisdictions, that frightened, reactionary minority manifests as a majority which advocates denying citizens of the United States their rights and protected liberties motivated by unwarranted fear and hate.
> 
> That’s why we have a Constitution and its case law, to protect the rights and protected liberties of citizens from abuse by state and local governments.
> 
> Such is the ridiculous hypocrisy of conservatives and libertarians: they rail against the perceived ‘abuse’ and ‘overreach’ of the Federal government, yet when state governments engage in the same abuse and overreach, conservatives and libertarians are suddenly blind to that abuse and overreach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> your past two posts, this and the one previously,
> are stating the same as what Conservative Constitutionalists also say:
> that the Constitutional laws are to prevent abuses of Govt to infringe on rights of people
> 
> A. one difference I see is that both you and the right opponents
> count protection of infringement
> ONLY if it protects YOUR beliefs but not the other side
> Thus that is still depending on govt to establish beliefs,
> where the left is worse about believing and relying on govt to do so
> instead of teaching people to respect this naturally as the right try to teach
> (where citizens are empowered equally by living by and enforcing Constitutional laws directly
> similar to living by Scriptural laws to be equally empowered instead of relying on church authority as a middleman)
> 
> So if govt protected right to life beliefs from overstepping by ACA
> Do you equally applaud this, as prolife Constitutionalists do, as correct enforcement of Constitutional limits?
> 
> And when laws are blocked from imposing faith based arguments against abortion
> Do those same Constitutionalists applaud this as protecting the free choice
> of the individual from establishing beliefs through govt?
> 
> B. the other difference I notice
> Again the left RELIES on govt to create or establish rights,
> while the right teaches these are inherent
> and writing them down in the Constitution just made them statutory.
> 
> It seems to me if both parties agreed to stop abusing govt to push
> THEIR beliefs about rights on everyone else,
> then we wouldn't rely on govt to define and defend them.
> 
> We the people would agree to respect and protect each other's rights.
> And we'd all agree to use govt correctly to ESTABLISH policies where we already agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You clearly have no understanding of the issue, the issue has nothing to do with the ACA or ‘life beliefs,’ and your posts are consequently completely devoid of merit.
> 
> It is a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, beyond dispute, that the states may not deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in.
> 
> _Obergefell_ is the progeny of over 100 years of 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation.
> 
> This settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to state and local governments, not private persons or organizations.
> 
> As a result, no personal beliefs, ‘life beliefs,’ or religious beliefs are being violated, infringed upon, or in any manner abridged by the _Obergefell_ ruling.
> 
> Private persons and religious organizations hostile to gay Americans remain at complete liberty to continue to oppose, discriminate against, and prohibit gay Americans from joining or participating in their private organizations.
> 
> Last, _Obergefell_ applies only to state civil marriage, not religious marriage, where religious organizations are free to exclude same-sex couples with absolute impunity.
Click to expand...


I find it interesting that you state that I have no understanding, yet you have dodged everything I have written. 

No, it is not 100 years in the making. 

The most un-American and un-constitutional statement that could be made is "_Obergefell_ is the progeny of over 100 years of 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation." 

To compliment your avoidance of my posts, your entire argument is "twentieth century Supreme Courts have ruled, with no constitutional basis, it must be so, but I cannot defend their ruling with a constitutional argument."


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

dblack said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not need a national consensus. That violates federalism and is why this country is divided. These are state issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need a consensus on the proper limits of government power. Without that, democracy isn't viable.
Click to expand...

We have consensus – it can be found in Constitutional case law.

After more than 200 years, Constitutional jurisprudence has evolved to the point where the courts can decide as to whether government has acted in accordance with that case law and as authorized by the Constitution, or where government has acted beyond its Constitutional limits.


----------



## Tennyson

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> How far back in time? 1799 with the Sargent’s Code of the territory and the adopted common laws against buggery? The adoption of common laws against buggery in 1833? 1841 when Alabama with the Penal Code in the Annual Session of the General Assembly of the State of Alabama January 9, 1841 that converted common law to statutory law regarding buggery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is talking about buggery? You said that there were laws against same sex marriage dating abck to the 1600's.
> 
> Are you now not able to back up your claim?
> 
> What a surprise......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would there need to be a specific law regarding same-sex marriage when it was a felony to be a homosexual and the marriage licenses were limited to one man and one women?
> 
> You remind me of daws101.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Syriusly and Tennyson
> I don't see getting much out of entrapping each other in mistakes or misstatements about this.
> As some kind of judge or attack on the person.
> 
> It's clear to me that marriage was assumed by definition
> to refer to husband and wife as male and female.
> And this was not challenged PUBLICLY AND POLITICALLY until more recently, after years of LGBT organizing
> enough support to lobby.
> 
> So if the legal issue did not even come up IN PUBLIC until later, the laws in response did not either.
> 
> We have yet to challenge the whole issue of MARRIAGE being in govt in the first place.
> This was also assumed to be an agreement to mix church and state authority in both recognizing marriage.
> 
> We used to allow references to God in schools, and have the classes prayer together.
> But that was challenged and taken out.
> 
> At this point, I'm arguing to be consistent.
> 
> If you are going to insist on removing or neutralizing Christian expression of prayer and beliefs in God and Jesus
> from public institutions,
> then treat LGBT expressions practice and beliefs regarding transgender identity and homosexuality and marriage
> the same way;
> if you are going to defend LGBT as "cultural diversity" and argue for inclusion against discrimination
> then defend Christian belief and practice as "cultural diversity" that deserves inclusion and not
> discrimination by creed.
> 
> NOTE:
> If you look at the religious freedom restoration act, the First Amendment is still in effect, and this law didn't come about until, in response to problems with biases against religious freedom already well established.
> 
> There is something about the democratic and legislative process, in representing a CONTRACT between people and govt, where going through the process of enacting or reforming a law has value in affirming the consent and representation of the public.
> 
> Even though the First Amendment already established religious freedom, somehow in pushing and passing the restoration act, this helped to RENEW commitment to enforce the same, that should be enforced anyway!
> 
> What we really need is a public national consensus on these laws, so whatever it is that is being left out or not resolved is fully addressed and represented.
> 
> We need to agree how to interpret and apply laws, instead of fighting whether to throw the old ones out as people are arguing with the Constitution.  If we interpreted and enforced "religious freedom" fully and consistently, to include and resolve all cases of conflicts BEFORE passing laws, we wouldn't have these arguments over marriage laws or religious freedom restoration as a reaction to ongoing conflicts.
> We would have solved the root problem instead of trying to legislate it away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emilynghiem,
> 
> The First Amendment cannot be in effect if there is a RFRA. The fact that there is any law regarding the First Amendment violates the very first line of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law....This breakdown rests solely with activist Supreme Courts.
> 
> We do not need a national consensus. That violates federalism and is why this country is divided. These are state issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This country is divided because of the fear, ignorance, and hate common to far too many Americans, and those Americans seeking to codify their fear, ignorance, and hate.
> 
> And as is the case with all state laws, marriage contract law is the purview of the states to the extent that those laws comply with the Constitution and its case law.
> 
> When the people of the states err, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, such as laws denying same-sex couples access to state marriage law, the courts appropriately and in accordance with the Constitution and the rule of law invalidate those measures.
> 
> This reflects the genius of our Constitutional Republic, and why it is far superior to any democracy: because the citizens of this Republic are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, not ‘majority rule,’ because men are incapable of ruling justly – laws which sought to deny gay Americans their right to equal protection and due process of the law are evidence of that.
Click to expand...


This country is divided because of people like you who have destroyed the federalism that was created to prevent a division. That is what reflects the genius of our Constitution, which was based off the reasons for all failed empires and counties, the very failed reasons you promote. As with your other posts, you cannot back it up with a single piece of historical evidence.


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> How far back in time? 1799 with the Sargent’s Code of the territory and the adopted common laws against buggery? The adoption of common laws against buggery in 1833? 1841 when Alabama with the Penal Code in the Annual Session of the General Assembly of the State of Alabama January 9, 1841 that converted common law to statutory law regarding buggery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is talking about buggery? You said that there were laws against same sex marriage dating abck to the 1600's.
> 
> Are you now not able to back up your claim?
> 
> What a surprise......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would there need to be a specific law regarding same-sex marriage when it was a felony to be a homosexual and the marriage licenses were limited to one man and one women?
> 
> You remind me of daws101.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Syriusly and Tennyson
> I don't see getting much out of entrapping each other in mistakes or misstatements about this.
> As some kind of judge or attack on the person.
> 
> It's clear to me that marriage was assumed by definition
> to refer to husband and wife as male and female.
> And this was not challenged PUBLICLY AND POLITICALLY until more recently, after years of LGBT organizing
> enough support to lobby.
> 
> So if the legal issue did not even come up IN PUBLIC until later, the laws in response did not either.
> 
> We have yet to challenge the whole issue of MARRIAGE being in govt in the first place.
> This was also assumed to be an agreement to mix church and state authority in both recognizing marriage.
> 
> We used to allow references to God in schools, and have the classes prayer together.
> But that was challenged and taken out.
> 
> At this point, I'm arguing to be consistent.
> 
> If you are going to insist on removing or neutralizing Christian expression of prayer and beliefs in God and Jesus
> from public institutions,
> then treat LGBT expressions practice and beliefs regarding transgender identity and homosexuality and marriage
> the same way;
> if you are going to defend LGBT as "cultural diversity" and argue for inclusion against discrimination
> then defend Christian belief and practice as "cultural diversity" that deserves inclusion and not
> discrimination by creed.
> 
> NOTE:
> If you look at the religious freedom restoration act, the First Amendment is still in effect, and this law didn't come about until, in response to problems with biases against religious freedom already well established.
> 
> There is something about the democratic and legislative process, in representing a CONTRACT between people and govt, where going through the process of enacting or reforming a law has value in affirming the consent and representation of the public.
> 
> Even though the First Amendment already established religious freedom, somehow in pushing and passing the restoration act, this helped to RENEW commitment to enforce the same, that should be enforced anyway!
> 
> What we really need is a public national consensus on these laws, so whatever it is that is being left out or not resolved is fully addressed and represented.
> 
> We need to agree how to interpret and apply laws, instead of fighting whether to throw the old ones out as people are arguing with the Constitution.  If we interpreted and enforced "religious freedom" fully and consistently, to include and resolve all cases of conflicts BEFORE passing laws, we wouldn't have these arguments over marriage laws or religious freedom restoration as a reaction to ongoing conflicts.
> We would have solved the root problem instead of trying to legislate it away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emilynghiem,
> 
> The First Amendment cannot be in effect if there is a RFRA. The fact that there is any law regarding the First Amendment violates the very first line of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law....This breakdown rests solely with activist Supreme Courts.
> 
> We do not need a national consensus. That violates federalism and is why this country is divided. These are state issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This country is divided because of the fear, ignorance, and hate common to far too many Americans, and those Americans seeking to codify their fear, ignorance, and hate.
> 
> And as is the case with all state laws, marriage contract law is the purview of the states to the extent that those laws comply with the Constitution and its case law.
> 
> When the people of the states err, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, such as laws denying same-sex couples access to state marriage law, the courts appropriately and in accordance with the Constitution and the rule of law invalidate those measures.
> 
> This reflects the genius of our Constitutional Republic, and why it is far superior to any democracy: because the citizens of this Republic are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, not ‘majority rule,’ because men are incapable of ruling justly – laws which sought to deny gay Americans their right to equal protection and due process of the law are evidence of that.
Click to expand...


Dear C_Clayton_Jones
and this fear and hatred, rejection discrimination and abuse,
is equally fostered against Christianity that has been demonized and excluded from public expression.

Proof of this is the embracing of the LGBT advocacy rights and culture
while actively attacking rejecting censoring and falsely accusing
any person defending or representing the experiences and process
of former gay and lesbian individuals who were healed of past abusive relations
and able to change their orientation back to their normal heterosexual nature.

Because so many of these healed people used Christian spiritual healing therapy,
of course, the Christians must be attacked and excluded.

So there is as much discrimination rejection and harassment of
the ex gays as the very discrimination the LGBT seek to overcome.

Calling all of them false and lying
is like assuming all LGBT are sick and in denial.

It's very similar, the strategy of discrediting the source to attack the arguments.

The LGBT have done this to "ex gays" 
the same way they argue against Christians discrediting them as in denial and not telling the truth.

The fear based bullying is mutual.

There is equal fear that if any word gets out that some homosexuals have been changed,
then people will go too far and assume ALL can be changed instead of
understanding the truth -- that some people can change, and some cannot.

Both sides don't want to admit both groups of people exist.
Because they'd have to admit that the other side is right ABOUT SOME CASES.

The LGBT on the left are afraid to acknowledge that some people can and have changed
because they are JUST AS AFRAID the other side will abuse that 
to push for ALL people to change just because some were able to!


----------



## Tennyson

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not need a national consensus. That violates federalism and is why this country is divided. These are state issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need a consensus on the proper limits of government power. Without that, democracy isn't viable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have consensus – it can be found in Constitutional case law.
> 
> After more than 200 years, Constitutional jurisprudence has evolved to the point where the courts can decide as to whether government has acted in accordance with that case law and as authorized by the Constitution, or where government has acted beyond its Constitutional limits.
Click to expand...


That sounds just like something Putin would say: the rule of man trumps the rule of law.


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not need a national consensus. That violates federalism and is why this country is divided. These are state issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need a consensus on the proper limits of government power. Without that, democracy isn't viable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have consensus – it can be found in Constitutional case law.
> 
> After more than 200 years, Constitutional jurisprudence has evolved to the point where the courts can decide as to whether government has acted in accordance with that case law and as authorized by the Constitution, or where government has acted beyond its Constitutional limits.
Click to expand...


We need to evolve to the point where people can complain to the justice system
where even courts have made errors in establishing a faith based bias.
And allow people to mediate grievances until a consensus is reached instead of govt dictating one side over 
another in cases of conflicting beliefs or in 'POLITICAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST'


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't we have marriage laws written that well, where both sides agree to how it's written
> and can still get out of it the interpretation that matches their beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, for most people, the point of government is to force their values on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not for most people, no, but for a minority of frightened reactionary conservatives, yes.
> 
> Unfortunately, in some states and jurisdictions, that frightened, reactionary minority manifests as a majority which advocates denying citizens of the United States their rights and protected liberties motivated by unwarranted fear and hate.
> 
> That’s why we have a Constitution and its case law, to protect the rights and protected liberties of citizens from abuse by state and local governments.
> 
> Such is the ridiculous hypocrisy of conservatives and libertarians: they rail against the perceived ‘abuse’ and ‘overreach’ of the Federal government, yet when state governments engage in the same abuse and overreach, conservatives and libertarians are suddenly blind to that abuse and overreach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> your past two posts, this and the one previously,
> are stating the same as what Conservative Constitutionalists also say:
> that the Constitutional laws are to prevent abuses of Govt to infringe on rights of people
> 
> A. one difference I see is that both you and the right opponents
> count protection of infringement
> ONLY if it protects YOUR beliefs but not the other side
> Thus that is still depending on govt to establish beliefs,
> where the left is worse about believing and relying on govt to do so
> instead of teaching people to respect this naturally as the right try to teach
> (where citizens are empowered equally by living by and enforcing Constitutional laws directly
> similar to living by Scriptural laws to be equally empowered instead of relying on church authority as a middleman)
> 
> So if govt protected right to life beliefs from overstepping by ACA
> Do you equally applaud this, as prolife Constitutionalists do, as correct enforcement of Constitutional limits?
> 
> And when laws are blocked from imposing faith based arguments against abortion
> Do those same Constitutionalists applaud this as protecting the free choice
> of the individual from establishing beliefs through govt?
> 
> B. the other difference I notice
> Again the left RELIES on govt to create or establish rights,
> while the right teaches these are inherent
> and writing them down in the Constitution just made them statutory.
> 
> It seems to me if both parties agreed to stop abusing govt to push
> THEIR beliefs about rights on everyone else,
> then we wouldn't rely on govt to define and defend them.
> 
> We the people would agree to respect and protect each other's rights.
> And we'd all agree to use govt correctly to ESTABLISH policies where we already agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You clearly have no understanding of the issue, the issue has nothing to do with the ACA or ‘life beliefs,’ and your posts are consequently completely devoid of merit.
> 
> It is a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, beyond dispute, that the states may not deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in.
> 
> _Obergefell_ is the progeny of over 100 years of 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation.
> 
> This settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to state and local governments, not private persons or organizations.
> 
> As a result, no personal beliefs, ‘life beliefs,’ or religious beliefs are being violated, infringed upon, or in any manner abridged by the _Obergefell_ ruling.
> 
> Private persons and religious organizations hostile to gay Americans remain at complete liberty to continue to oppose, discriminate against, and prohibit gay Americans from joining or participating in their private organizations.
> 
> Last, _Obergefell_ applies only to state civil marriage, not religious marriage, where religious organizations are free to exclude same-sex couples with absolute impunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> I don't have a problem if people agree with govt endorsing right to marriage.
> I have a problem with people discriminating,
> and treating right to marriage for same-sex beliefs
> the opposite as right to prayer for Christian beliefs.
> 
> I find it discriminatory and hypocritical to cry
> for separation of church and state, and reducing prayer to "moment of silence"
> but when it comes to LGBT beliefs,
> demanding these be established and protected by govt as a class and a practice
> but denouncing, suing, harassing and attacking Christians for
> defending Christian references to God, prayer, Christmas etc.
> 
> All I ask is to be consistent.
> 
> In fact, the more I ask around and get feedback from others,
> more people are agreeing with me that if
> right to prayer and Christian expression were allowed back into public institutions
> and people would agree not to harass, sue for removal, etc.
> then Christians and others opposed to same sex marriage
> might AGREE to allow that freedom of expression if the same
> is enforced for Christian beliefs and practices in public and public institutions as well!
> 
> More people are saying that may be a better solution
> that fighting to remove both.
> Just go ahead and let govt endorse and establish both.
> At least that would be fair.
> 
> Which way would you recommend if given a choice:
> A. either remove marriage from govt and reduce it to civil unions for all people with no mention of biases for or against
> either traditional or same sex marriage or any social relations or conditions at all besides legal competence and consent; and treat right to prayer the same, reducing it to moment of silence and not make any references to beliefs
> B. or if LGBT expressions and practices are protected recognized or incorporated into govt functions
> then equally endorse and protect Christian beliefs and practices including spiritual healing that has
> helped people change unwanted sexual patterns of behavior, whether heterosexual or homosexual
Click to expand...

Say what? Since when are Christians' rights to practice their faith infringed?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

dblack said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not need a national consensus. That violates federalism and is why this country is divided. These are state issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need a consensus on the proper limits of government power. Without that, democracy isn't viable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we already have that with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They both are worthless without the rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are worthless without a broad consensus on what they should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That defeats the purpose of a written constitution. That is mob rule and one of the purposes of our written constitution was to protect the country from human nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eventually, yeah. That's the problem. Once people no longer understand or care why it's important, it becomes "just a piece of paper". And when reliable limits on government power aren't honored by a society, consent becomes impossible.
Click to expand...

No, the problem is ignorance of – or contempt for – the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

The problem is ignorance of – or contempt for – how our Republican form of government operates, that citizens are subject to the rule of law, not men, and that no right is ‘absolute,’ where government is both authorized by the Constitution to place reasonable restrictions on citizens’ rights, and limited by the Constitution with regard to its authority.

For example, citizens have the right to peaceably assemble in public places pursuant to the rights enshrined in the First Amendment.

But those rights are not ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute,’ they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

Although citizens have the right to peaceably assemble in public places, they may not seek to establish permanent protest or demonstration venues, such as ‘sleep-ins’ or ‘sit-ins’ (_Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence_).

Creating ‘sleep-ins’ or ‘sit-ins’ on public property is not entitled to First Amendment protections, they are subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions – where such restrictions do not violate citizens’ First Amendment rights, and where the Constitution authorizes government to do so.

The case law that recognizes reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the rights enshrined in the First Amendment is consensus as to the proper limits of government.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

emilynghiem said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not need a national consensus. That violates federalism and is why this country is divided. These are state issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need a consensus on the proper limits of government power. Without that, democracy isn't viable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have consensus – it can be found in Constitutional case law.
> 
> After more than 200 years, Constitutional jurisprudence has evolved to the point where the courts can decide as to whether government has acted in accordance with that case law and as authorized by the Constitution, or where government has acted beyond its Constitutional limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We need to evolve to the point where people can complain to the justice system
> where even courts have made errors in establishing a faith based bias.
> And allow people to mediate grievances until a consensus is reached instead of govt dictating one side over
> another in cases of conflicting beliefs or in 'POLITICAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST'
Click to expand...

Jeez.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The case law that recognizes reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the rights enshrined in the First Amendment is consensus as to the proper limits of government.



Delusion is a powerful draw. But if others aren't on board, it doesn't matter.


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> New England Body of Liberties
> 
> If any man lyeth with mankinde, as a man lyeth with a woman, both of them have committed abomination, they both shall surely be put to death. Levit. 20. 13. And if any woman change the naturall use into that which is against nature, as Rom. 1. 26. she shall be liable to the same sentence, and punishment, or if any person, or persons, shall commit any other kinde of unnaturall and shamefull filthines, called in Scripture the going after strange flesh, or other flesh then God alloweth, by carnal! knowledge of another vessel then God in nature hath ap- pointed to become oneflesh, whether it be by abusing the contrary part ofa grown woman, or child ofeither sex, or unripe vessel ofa girle, wherein the natural use ofthe woman is left, which God hath ordained for the propagation of posterity, and Sodomiticall filthinesse (tending to the destruction ofthe race ofmankind) is committed by a kind ofrape, nature beingforced, though the will were inticed,' every such person shall be put to death. Or if any man shall act upon hitmself; and in the sight ofothers spill his owne seed, by example, or counsel, or both, corrupting or tempting others to doe the like, which tends to the sin of Sodomy, if it be not one kind of it; or shall defile, or corrupt himself and othes, by anykind of sinfulthinesse, he shall  be punished according to the nature of the offence; or if the case considered with the aggravating circum- stances, shall according to the mind of God revealed in his word require it, he shall be put to death, as the court of magistrates shall determine.



A google search for "New England Body of Liberties" comes up with nothing- and you of course provide no link
Perhaps you could cite an an actual law that was in effect in the United States- that actually prohibited the marriage of same sex couples?

You know- like you claimed existed?

Here was your quote again

Quoting you:
_Laws against same-sex marriages have been on the books in this country since the 1600_

Still waiting for you to step up and prove your claim.


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> New England Body of Liberties
> 
> If any man lyeth with mankinde, as a man lyeth with a woman, both of them have committed abomination, they both shall surely be put to death. Levit. 20. 13. And if any woman change the naturall use into that which is against nature, as Rom. 1. 26. she shall be liable to the same sentence, and punishment, or if any person, or persons, shall commit any other kinde of unnaturall and shamefull filthines, called in Scripture the going after strange flesh, or other flesh then God alloweth, by carnal! knowledge of another vessel then God in nature hath ap- pointed to become oneflesh, whether it be by abusing the contrary part ofa grown woman, or child ofeither sex, or unripe vessel ofa girle, wherein the natural use ofthe woman is left, which God hath ordained for the propagation of posterity, and Sodomiticall filthinesse (tending to the destruction ofthe race ofmankind) is committed by a kind ofrape, nature beingforced, though the will were inticed,' every such person shall be put to death. Or if any man shall act upon hitmself; and in the sight ofothers spill his owne seed, by example, or counsel, or both, corrupting or tempting others to doe the like, which tends to the sin of Sodomy, if it be not one kind of it; or shall defile, or corrupt himself and othes, by anykind of sinfulthinesse, he shall  be punished according to the nature of the offence; or if the case considered with the aggravating circum- stances, shall according to the mind of God revealed in his word require it, he shall be put to death, as the court of magistrates shall determine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A google search for "New England Body of Liberties" comes up with nothing- and you of course provide no link
> Perhaps you could cite an an actual law that was in effect in the United States- that actually prohibited the marriage of same sex couples?
> 
> You know- like you claimed existed?
> 
> Here was your quote again
> 
> Quoting you:
> _Laws against same-sex marriages have been on the books in this country since the 1600_
> 
> Still waiting for you to step up and prove your claim.
Click to expand...


By the document, stay off Google, and if you have to Google it, you should not be engaging me.


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> New England Body of Liberties
> 
> If any man lyeth with mankinde, as a man lyeth with a woman, both of them have committed abomination, they both shall surely be put to death. Levit. 20. 13. And if any woman change the naturall use into that which is against nature, as Rom. 1. 26. she shall be liable to the same sentence, and punishment, or if any person, or persons, shall commit any other kinde of unnaturall and shamefull filthines, called in Scripture the going after strange flesh, or other flesh then God alloweth, by carnal! knowledge of another vessel then God in nature hath ap- pointed to become oneflesh, whether it be by abusing the contrary part ofa grown woman, or child ofeither sex, or unripe vessel ofa girle, wherein the natural use ofthe woman is left, which God hath ordained for the propagation of posterity, and Sodomiticall filthinesse (tending to the destruction ofthe race ofmankind) is committed by a kind ofrape, nature beingforced, though the will were inticed,' every such person shall be put to death. Or if any man shall act upon hitmself; and in the sight ofothers spill his owne seed, by example, or counsel, or both, corrupting or tempting others to doe the like, which tends to the sin of Sodomy, if it be not one kind of it; or shall defile, or corrupt himself and othes, by anykind of sinfulthinesse, he shall  be punished according to the nature of the offence; or if the case considered with the aggravating circum- stances, shall according to the mind of God revealed in his word require it, he shall be put to death, as the court of magistrates shall determine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A google search for "New England Body of Liberties" comes up with nothing- and you of course provide no link
> Perhaps you could cite an an actual law that was in effect in the United States- that actually prohibited the marriage of same sex couples?
> 
> You know- like you claimed existed?
> 
> Here was your quote again
> 
> Quoting you:
> _Laws against same-sex marriages have been on the books in this country since the 1600_
> 
> Still waiting for you to step up and prove your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the document, stay off Google, and if you have to Google it, you should not be engaging me.
Click to expand...


yeah- not surprised that you don't want to provide an actual citation or link.

I should just take your word for it......LOL


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"Laws against same-sex marriages have been on the books in this country since the 1600"

Even if those laws existed, which is clearly not the case, they would have no bearing on the fact that today such laws are un-Constitutional.


----------



## Tennyson

Same-sex marriage has been against the law in since the 1600s. For those laws to be unconstitutional via a federal court means that this country is ruled by the rule of man and our written Constitution has been converted to a worthless piece of parchment. 

This is a liberal's dream as we move to a dictator style country with no barrier between whoever is in power and our constitutionally protected rights.


----------



## Faun

Tennyson said:


> Same-sex marriage has been against the law in since the 1600s. For those laws to be unconstitutional via a federal court means that this country is ruled by the rule of man and our written Constitution has been converted to a worthless piece of parchment.
> 
> This is a liberal's dream as we move to a dictator style country with no barrier between whoever is in power and our constitutionally protected rights.


So what if such laws existed? Their Constitutionality had not been tested and referencing laws going back to the 1600's is beyond stupid since relevant Constitutional clauses, such as those in the 14th Amendment protecting equality, didn't even exist yet.


----------



## Tennyson

Faun said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage has been against the law in since the 1600s. For those laws to be unconstitutional via a federal court means that this country is ruled by the rule of man and our written Constitution has been converted to a worthless piece of parchment.
> 
> This is a liberal's dream as we move to a dictator style country with no barrier between whoever is in power and our constitutionally protected rights.
> 
> 
> 
> So what if such laws existed? Their Constitutionality had not been tested and referencing laws going back to the 1600's is beyond stupid since relevant Constitutional clauses, such as those in the 14th Amendment protecting equality, didn't even exist yet.
Click to expand...


Those were based on English common laws that were used until the states converted them to statutory laws after 1776 and after the ratification of the Constitution. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied to judicial proceedings, not the laws.


----------



## Faun

Tennyson said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage has been against the law in since the 1600s. For those laws to be unconstitutional via a federal court means that this country is ruled by the rule of man and our written Constitution has been converted to a worthless piece of parchment.
> 
> This is a liberal's dream as we move to a dictator style country with no barrier between whoever is in power and our constitutionally protected rights.
> 
> 
> 
> So what if such laws existed? Their Constitutionality had not been tested and referencing laws going back to the 1600's is beyond stupid since relevant Constitutional clauses, such as those in the 14th Amendment protecting equality, didn't even exist yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those were based on English common laws that were used until the states converted them to statutory laws after 1776 and after the ratification of the Constitution. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied to judicial proceedings, not the laws.
Click to expand...

Meaning those do not apply to our current Constitution, which laid the groundwork for all laws applicable in these united states. Thanks for playing.


----------



## Tennyson

Faun said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage has been against the law in since the 1600s. For those laws to be unconstitutional via a federal court means that this country is ruled by the rule of man and our written Constitution has been converted to a worthless piece of parchment.
> 
> This is a liberal's dream as we move to a dictator style country with no barrier between whoever is in power and our constitutionally protected rights.
> 
> 
> 
> So what if such laws existed? Their Constitutionality had not been tested and referencing laws going back to the 1600's is beyond stupid since relevant Constitutional clauses, such as those in the 14th Amendment protecting equality, didn't even exist yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those were based on English common laws that were used until the states converted them to statutory laws after 1776 and after the ratification of the Constitution. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied to judicial proceedings, not the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaning those do not apply to our current Constitution, which laid the groundwork for all laws applicable in these united states. Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...


I feel really foolish now. I need your help. I was not aware that we had a new Constitution. I have been foolishly using the old one. Can you provide me with the current Constitution so I can be informed?


----------



## Faun

Tennyson said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage has been against the law in since the 1600s. For those laws to be unconstitutional via a federal court means that this country is ruled by the rule of man and our written Constitution has been converted to a worthless piece of parchment.
> 
> This is a liberal's dream as we move to a dictator style country with no barrier between whoever is in power and our constitutionally protected rights.
> 
> 
> 
> So what if such laws existed? Their Constitutionality had not been tested and referencing laws going back to the 1600's is beyond stupid since relevant Constitutional clauses, such as those in the 14th Amendment protecting equality, didn't even exist yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those were based on English common laws that were used until the states converted them to statutory laws after 1776 and after the ratification of the Constitution. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied to judicial proceedings, not the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaning those do not apply to our current Constitution, which laid the groundwork for all laws applicable in these united states. Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel really foolish now. I need your help. I was not aware that we had a new Constitution. I have been foolishly using the old one. Can you provide me with the current Constitution so I can be informed?
Click to expand...

It would be my pleasure...

The Constitution of the United States

Ratified in *1788*.

You're welcome.


----------



## DOTR

After 86 pages can we sum it up thusly...no matter what you feel, no matter how you vote, no matter what laws you write in the end you will be ruled by the Supreme Court.
  The British are going through the same thing now. Voted for Brexit but leftists are still fighting them. There is little they can do. And like in the US if they do get close to success the ruling elite will simply import more voters to undo it.
   I think it is time for a different tactic. Maybe Trump is the beginning of it. And I dont think liberals will like it...which makes it all the better.


----------



## DOTR

And make no mistake. Trump is riding the wave but Trump is not the wave.


----------



## Tennyson

Faun said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage has been against the law in since the 1600s. For those laws to be unconstitutional via a federal court means that this country is ruled by the rule of man and our written Constitution has been converted to a worthless piece of parchment.
> 
> This is a liberal's dream as we move to a dictator style country with no barrier between whoever is in power and our constitutionally protected rights.
> 
> 
> 
> So what if such laws existed? Their Constitutionality had not been tested and referencing laws going back to the 1600's is beyond stupid since relevant Constitutional clauses, such as those in the 14th Amendment protecting equality, didn't even exist yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those were based on English common laws that were used until the states converted them to statutory laws after 1776 and after the ratification of the Constitution. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied to judicial proceedings, not the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaning those do not apply to our current Constitution, which laid the groundwork for all laws applicable in these united states. Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel really foolish now. I need your help. I was not aware that we had a new Constitution. I have been foolishly using the old one. Can you provide me with the current Constitution so I can be informed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would be my pleasure...
> 
> The Constitution of the United States
> 
> Ratified in *1788*.
> 
> You're welcome.
Click to expand...


Oh that Constitution. The one where the states kept all their sovereignty they had under the Articles of Confederation except for the limited powers they ceded in Article I, Section 8, which is why the states had laws against same-sex marriage until 2015. Got it.


----------



## bodecea

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, for most people, the point of government is to force their values on others.
> 
> 
> 
> Not for most people, no, but for a minority of frightened reactionary conservatives, yes.
> 
> Unfortunately, in some states and jurisdictions, that frightened, reactionary minority manifests as a majority which advocates denying citizens of the United States their rights and protected liberties motivated by unwarranted fear and hate.
> 
> That’s why we have a Constitution and its case law, to protect the rights and protected liberties of citizens from abuse by state and local governments.
> 
> Such is the ridiculous hypocrisy of conservatives and libertarians: they rail against the perceived ‘abuse’ and ‘overreach’ of the Federal government, yet when state governments engage in the same abuse and overreach, conservatives and libertarians are suddenly blind to that abuse and overreach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> your past two posts, this and the one previously,
> are stating the same as what Conservative Constitutionalists also say:
> that the Constitutional laws are to prevent abuses of Govt to infringe on rights of people
> 
> A. one difference I see is that both you and the right opponents
> count protection of infringement
> ONLY if it protects YOUR beliefs but not the other side
> Thus that is still depending on govt to establish beliefs,
> where the left is worse about believing and relying on govt to do so
> instead of teaching people to respect this naturally as the right try to teach
> (where citizens are empowered equally by living by and enforcing Constitutional laws directly
> similar to living by Scriptural laws to be equally empowered instead of relying on church authority as a middleman)
> 
> So if govt protected right to life beliefs from overstepping by ACA
> Do you equally applaud this, as prolife Constitutionalists do, as correct enforcement of Constitutional limits?
> 
> And when laws are blocked from imposing faith based arguments against abortion
> Do those same Constitutionalists applaud this as protecting the free choice
> of the individual from establishing beliefs through govt?
> 
> B. the other difference I notice
> Again the left RELIES on govt to create or establish rights,
> while the right teaches these are inherent
> and writing them down in the Constitution just made them statutory.
> 
> It seems to me if both parties agreed to stop abusing govt to push
> THEIR beliefs about rights on everyone else,
> then we wouldn't rely on govt to define and defend them.
> 
> We the people would agree to respect and protect each other's rights.
> And we'd all agree to use govt correctly to ESTABLISH policies where we already agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You clearly have no understanding of the issue, the issue has nothing to do with the ACA or ‘life beliefs,’ and your posts are consequently completely devoid of merit.
> 
> It is a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, beyond dispute, that the states may not deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in.
> 
> _Obergefell_ is the progeny of over 100 years of 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation.
> 
> This settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to state and local governments, not private persons or organizations.
> 
> As a result, no personal beliefs, ‘life beliefs,’ or religious beliefs are being violated, infringed upon, or in any manner abridged by the _Obergefell_ ruling.
> 
> Private persons and religious organizations hostile to gay Americans remain at complete liberty to continue to oppose, discriminate against, and prohibit gay Americans from joining or participating in their private organizations.
> 
> Last, _Obergefell_ applies only to state civil marriage, not religious marriage, where religious organizations are free to exclude same-sex couples with absolute impunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> I don't have a problem if people agree with govt endorsing right to marriage.
> I have a problem with people discriminating,
> and treating right to marriage for same-sex beliefs
> the opposite as right to prayer for Christian beliefs.
> 
> I find it discriminatory and hypocritical to cry
> for separation of church and state, and reducing prayer to "moment of silence"
> but when it comes to LGBT beliefs,
> demanding these be established and protected by govt as a class and a practice
> but denouncing, suing, harassing and attacking Christians for
> defending Christian references to God, prayer, Christmas etc.
> 
> All I ask is to be consistent.
> 
> In fact, the more I ask around and get feedback from others,
> more people are agreeing with me that if
> right to prayer and Christian expression were allowed back into public institutions
> and people would agree not to harass, sue for removal, etc.
> then Christians and others opposed to same sex marriage
> might AGREE to allow that freedom of expression if the same
> is enforced for Christian beliefs and practices in public and public institutions as well!
> 
> More people are saying that may be a better solution
> that fighting to remove both.
> Just go ahead and let govt endorse and establish both.
> At least that would be fair.
> 
> Which way would you recommend if given a choice:
> A. either remove marriage from govt and reduce it to civil unions for all people with no mention of biases for or against
> either traditional or same sex marriage or any social relations or conditions at all besides legal competence and consent; and treat right to prayer the same, reducing it to moment of silence and not make any references to beliefs
> B. or if LGBT expressions and practices are protected recognized or incorporated into govt functions
> then equally endorse and protect Christian beliefs and practices including spiritual healing that has
> helped people change unwanted sexual patterns of behavior, whether heterosexual or homosexual
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Say what? Since when are Christians' rights to practice their faith infringed?
Click to expand...

C'mon!   IF a Christer isn't free to discriminate against other American citizens because of made-up religious reasons...are any of us truly free?


----------



## dblack

bodecea said:


> C'mon!   IF a Christer isn't free to discriminate against other American citizens because of made-up religious reasons...are any of us truly free?



Nope. And it's sad that liberals no longer get that.


----------



## DOTR

Tennyson said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what if such laws existed? Their Constitutionality had not been tested and referencing laws going back to the 1600's is beyond stupid since relevant Constitutional clauses, such as those in the 14th Amendment protecting equality, didn't even exist yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those were based on English common laws that were used until the states converted them to statutory laws after 1776 and after the ratification of the Constitution. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied to judicial proceedings, not the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaning those do not apply to our current Constitution, which laid the groundwork for all laws applicable in these united states. Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel really foolish now. I need your help. I was not aware that we had a new Constitution. I have been foolishly using the old one. Can you provide me with the current Constitution so I can be informed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would be my pleasure...
> 
> The Constitution of the United States
> 
> Ratified in *1788*.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh that Constitution. The one where the states kept all their sovereignty they had under the Articles of Confederation except for the limited powers they ceded in Article I, Section 8, which is why the states had laws against same-sex marriage until 2015. Got it.
Click to expand...


   48 states also had laws against abortion, approved by their citizens, until the Supreme Court overturned them.


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Same-sex marriage has been against the law in since the 1600s.



I have asked for proof of that claim for days now- and you haven't provided a single citation to back up your claim. Odd isn't it that you can pull out stuff from the Federalists papers but can't provide a single legal citation to back up your claim?

Or answer why 30 states suddenly in the last 20 years passed laws against same sex marriage?


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> After 86 pages can we sum it up thusly...no matter what you feel, no matter how you vote, no matter what laws you write in the end you will be ruled by the Supreme Court..



Correction- no matter how much you stomp your feet that Supreme Court can still overturn unconstitutional laws- both federal and state.


----------



## emilynghiem

bodecea said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not for most people, no, but for a minority of frightened reactionary conservatives, yes.
> 
> Unfortunately, in some states and jurisdictions, that frightened, reactionary minority manifests as a majority which advocates denying citizens of the United States their rights and protected liberties motivated by unwarranted fear and hate.
> 
> That’s why we have a Constitution and its case law, to protect the rights and protected liberties of citizens from abuse by state and local governments.
> 
> Such is the ridiculous hypocrisy of conservatives and libertarians: they rail against the perceived ‘abuse’ and ‘overreach’ of the Federal government, yet when state governments engage in the same abuse and overreach, conservatives and libertarians are suddenly blind to that abuse and overreach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> your past two posts, this and the one previously,
> are stating the same as what Conservative Constitutionalists also say:
> that the Constitutional laws are to prevent abuses of Govt to infringe on rights of people
> 
> A. one difference I see is that both you and the right opponents
> count protection of infringement
> ONLY if it protects YOUR beliefs but not the other side
> Thus that is still depending on govt to establish beliefs,
> where the left is worse about believing and relying on govt to do so
> instead of teaching people to respect this naturally as the right try to teach
> (where citizens are empowered equally by living by and enforcing Constitutional laws directly
> similar to living by Scriptural laws to be equally empowered instead of relying on church authority as a middleman)
> 
> So if govt protected right to life beliefs from overstepping by ACA
> Do you equally applaud this, as prolife Constitutionalists do, as correct enforcement of Constitutional limits?
> 
> And when laws are blocked from imposing faith based arguments against abortion
> Do those same Constitutionalists applaud this as protecting the free choice
> of the individual from establishing beliefs through govt?
> 
> B. the other difference I notice
> Again the left RELIES on govt to create or establish rights,
> while the right teaches these are inherent
> and writing them down in the Constitution just made them statutory.
> 
> It seems to me if both parties agreed to stop abusing govt to push
> THEIR beliefs about rights on everyone else,
> then we wouldn't rely on govt to define and defend them.
> 
> We the people would agree to respect and protect each other's rights.
> And we'd all agree to use govt correctly to ESTABLISH policies where we already agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You clearly have no understanding of the issue, the issue has nothing to do with the ACA or ‘life beliefs,’ and your posts are consequently completely devoid of merit.
> 
> It is a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, beyond dispute, that the states may not deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in.
> 
> _Obergefell_ is the progeny of over 100 years of 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation.
> 
> This settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to state and local governments, not private persons or organizations.
> 
> As a result, no personal beliefs, ‘life beliefs,’ or religious beliefs are being violated, infringed upon, or in any manner abridged by the _Obergefell_ ruling.
> 
> Private persons and religious organizations hostile to gay Americans remain at complete liberty to continue to oppose, discriminate against, and prohibit gay Americans from joining or participating in their private organizations.
> 
> Last, _Obergefell_ applies only to state civil marriage, not religious marriage, where religious organizations are free to exclude same-sex couples with absolute impunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> I don't have a problem if people agree with govt endorsing right to marriage.
> I have a problem with people discriminating,
> and treating right to marriage for same-sex beliefs
> the opposite as right to prayer for Christian beliefs.
> 
> I find it discriminatory and hypocritical to cry
> for separation of church and state, and reducing prayer to "moment of silence"
> but when it comes to LGBT beliefs,
> demanding these be established and protected by govt as a class and a practice
> but denouncing, suing, harassing and attacking Christians for
> defending Christian references to God, prayer, Christmas etc.
> 
> All I ask is to be consistent.
> 
> In fact, the more I ask around and get feedback from others,
> more people are agreeing with me that if
> right to prayer and Christian expression were allowed back into public institutions
> and people would agree not to harass, sue for removal, etc.
> then Christians and others opposed to same sex marriage
> might AGREE to allow that freedom of expression if the same
> is enforced for Christian beliefs and practices in public and public institutions as well!
> 
> More people are saying that may be a better solution
> that fighting to remove both.
> Just go ahead and let govt endorse and establish both.
> At least that would be fair.
> 
> Which way would you recommend if given a choice:
> A. either remove marriage from govt and reduce it to civil unions for all people with no mention of biases for or against
> either traditional or same sex marriage or any social relations or conditions at all besides legal competence and consent; and treat right to prayer the same, reducing it to moment of silence and not make any references to beliefs
> B. or if LGBT expressions and practices are protected recognized or incorporated into govt functions
> then equally endorse and protect Christian beliefs and practices including spiritual healing that has
> helped people change unwanted sexual patterns of behavior, whether heterosexual or homosexual
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Say what? Since when are Christians' rights to practice their faith infringed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> C'mon!   IF a Christer isn't free to discriminate against other American citizens because of made-up religious reasons...are any of us truly free?
Click to expand...


Hi bodecea And do you recognize that's how Christians feel
when they are told to reduce prayer in schools to "moment of silence"
because of other people's "personal reasons" --
the rejection of crosses, of mention of God and creation,
that people have enforced the right to REMOVE from public institutions
because of faith based biased.

The right to life that many people DO believe includes unborn in the womb,
which is faith based, so it is legally REMOVED and the limits on life 
are kept at BIRTH.

So gender determined at BIRTH is the belief of some people.
while gender identity determined otherwise is the belief of others.

If both groups want equal right to "discriminate" against the other belief,
shouldn't these be REMOVED from govt and keep
the legal standard where they agree?

If "marriage laws" were reduced to "civil unions and social contracts"
then both sides would be equally free to choose or discriminate in private
as with Hindus and Muslims who choose or reject pork or beef.

Buddhists and Vegans set up their own places where they promote
not eating animal products, in accordance with their beliefs. They
remain free to discriminate and not patronize businesses that profit off the meat industry.

PETA is hated and harassed also for pushing those beliefs, often in controversial
or even criminal ways of vandalism and assault. But they aren't trying to
force govt to establish their beliefs in veganism or vegetarianism as a protected class,
that can't be discriminated against.

People have the right to choose and not be punished by govt if
they reject vegetarian beliefs.  

Just like Atheists have the right to reject Christian beliefs
"for whatever reason" because these are faith based and a personal choice.

Do you get the idea bodecea

Sure, PETA activists get harassed, Occupy, Tea Party, etc.
Christians and prolife, anyone pro prayer and pro God or Creation
also have felt DISCRIMINATED against, harassed and EXCLUDED
FROM PUBLIC POLICY.

so if you want equality, that's how everyone else has had
to defend their views, without help of Govt to identify
THEIR beliefs as a special class.

Now bodecea if you want to argue as I do that
"religious freedom" is discriminatory if it ONLY applies
to "members of recognized religions" such as Christianity,
Buddhism, etc. I already AGREE with you.

if Atheists or nontheists don't belong to any group,
or JW or UU are smaller and have not the means of defending
their beliefs, or Buddhists JW or Christians don't believe in suing,
these individuals would not have "equal protections of the law."

I would AGREE that IS discrimination by CREED
to favor Christians more than others who don't have a collective identity
or legal/political resources to fight.

And on that note, I argue the political parties have been
discriminating by creed for a long time, and even colluded
and conspired to violate equal civil rights of other citizens
who WEREN'T represented by Congressional decisions
and spending, such as the Iraqi War contracts and military
spending and the ACA and trillions paid to corporate insurance.

So if you really cared to end discrimination by creed
there is a bigger battle to recognize political beliefs
equally as religious beliefs, and possibly sue both major
parties for racking up trillions in debts and damages
at taxpayers expenses. We could call for restitution to
pay back all the debts we didn't authorize which we can
show violated the political beliefs of someone in a class
action. we don't all have to agree, just collectively show
where DOMA violated beliefs, or now the court ruling on
right to marriage or right to health care discriminated
against people not treated equally with their beliefs 
about right to life or right to prayer. And sue to demand
trillions in credit to pay to reform govt and correct these problems.

Even if you only want to sue to defend LGBT beliefs, we
could still build a class action with people suing to defend
beliefs in traditional marriage. We don't have to agree which
beliefs were violated by govt and party collusion to unite
and demand damages and restitution be credited back
to taxpayers for the cost of violating religious freedom
and equal protection of laws from discrimination by creed.


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> After 86 pages can we sum it up thusly...no matter what you feel, no matter how you vote, no matter what laws you write in the end you will be ruled by the Supreme Court..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correction- no matter how much you stomp your feet that Supreme Court can still overturn unconstitutional laws- both federal and state.
Click to expand...


Yes Syriusly and overturning an unconstitutional ban against gay marriage
is not the same as legislative responsibility for writing a law on marriage for that state.

I asked another friend, who knows a conservative lesbian couple, where they agree
that marriage laws are states rights and not for federal govt to "legislate from the bench"

There is a difference between striking down a law that has a bias,
and ORDERING that state to rewrite the law without that bias.

It can be rewritten or reorganized through THAT STATE to remove the bias
and still not "establish the right to marriage through federal govt"

I asked them if they would join here to represent that themselves, but it's their choice
to come explain or not. It's the same as I just said it: as conservatives, they believe it is
the choice of states and not federal govt to "legislate" the laws governing marriage for that state.

So like Nevada has legalized prostitution but other states do not, or with legalized marijuana
which varies per state,
some states could agree to have
* "civil unions" but not marriage for all people or couples
(and Utah could agree to have registered domestic partnerships that extend to 3 or more adults
all running a household like an LLC with a common social or financial contract to protect the children)
* laws that allow equal marriage and gender expressions in public and govt institutions, provided that equal prayer and all other religious symbols/literature/expressions also be protected without being removed or harassed or rejected for it
So what is called "marriage" in one state could be called "civil marriage" "civil unions" "domestic partnership" "social contracts" etc in other states WITHOUT FEDERAL GOVT dictating that it has to be marriage.

That is like federal govt dictating the concept or term "prayer"
when the State of Texas agreed on "moment of silence" so the voters agreed to let that pass.

If the Federal Judges strike down a law banning prayer in schools,
that is not the same as the State legislature passing a law on how
prayer or moment of silence is implemented in THOSE schools.

Do you see the difference Syriusly
BTW I do agree that if States have an unconstitutional law that doesn't protect citizens equally
yes that is the role of Supreme Courts to strike that down, but that isn't supposed to go too far
either and override states rights and legislative separate powers to write the corrective legislation.

I compared this to a teacher striking down a wrong math answer and rejecting it.
But it still the responsibility of the student to come up with the right one.

It does not mean that "any answer you come up with to REPLACE that wrong answer"
is automatically right either. You can still come up with a wrong alternative
that is also argued as incomplete and that gets struck down AGAIN.

Ultimately it is up to the students in the class to come up with the right answers
and not for the teacher to dictate to them or they won't understand the process of
1. how to arrive at the right answer 2. how to determine right from wrong answers, where checking with the teachers helps and is their duty to make sure it's right 3. how to correct the process so they don't depend on the teacher to tell them right from wrong answers, but learn to work independently


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage has been against the law in since the 1600s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked for proof of that claim for days now- and you haven't provided a single citation to back up your claim. Odd isn't it that you can pull out stuff from the Federalists papers but can't provide a single legal citation to back up your claim?
> 
> Or answer why 30 states suddenly in the last 20 years passed laws against same sex marriage?
Click to expand...


I did. I provided one of the laws and the pertinent language in the law.


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage has been against the law in since the 1600s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked for proof of that claim for days now- and you haven't provided a single citation to back up your claim. Odd isn't it that you can pull out stuff from the Federalists papers but can't provide a single legal citation to back up your claim?
> 
> Or answer why 30 states suddenly in the last 20 years passed laws against same sex marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did. I provided one of the laws and the pertinent language in the law.
Click to expand...


No legal citation- the 'law' you cited doesn't even appear when searched for online. Not on Lexis.
Lexis® Web - Results for ""New England Body of Liberties""
Not on Cornell Universities legal research engine
Site

Did you make it up? Maybe. 

Now why did states suddenly start passing laws against same sex marriage- if it was already illegal?


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> After 86 pages can we sum it up thusly...no matter what you feel, no matter how you vote, no matter what laws you write in the end you will be ruled by the Supreme Court..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correction- no matter how much you stomp your feet that Supreme Court can still overturn unconstitutional laws- both federal and state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly and overturning an unconstitutional ban against gay marriage
> is not the same as legislative responsibility for writing a law on marriage for that state.
Click to expand...


Of course not- because the courts don't write law- they can only overturn illegal laws. 

Just as they did in Loving v. Virginia- and just as they did in Obergefell.

That is one of the responsibilities courts have.


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage has been against the law in since the 1600s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked for proof of that claim for days now- and you haven't provided a single citation to back up your claim. Odd isn't it that you can pull out stuff from the Federalists papers but can't provide a single legal citation to back up your claim?
> 
> Or answer why 30 states suddenly in the last 20 years passed laws against same sex marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did. I provided one of the laws and the pertinent language in the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No legal citation- the 'law' you cited doesn't even appear when searched for online. Not on Lexis.
> Lexis® Web - Results for ""New England Body of Liberties""
> Not on Cornell Universities legal research engine
> Site
> 
> Did you make it up? Maybe.
> 
> Now why did states suddenly start passing laws against same sex marriage- if it was already illegal?
Click to expand...


Dear Syriusly 
the same way RFRA was passed when we already have the First Amendment.
People want to renew the contractual agreement, so they assemble petition and pass an updated
law that represents them in it in this new day and age and context.

I can also argue, Syriusly, that right to marriage like right to prayer is already in the First Amendment,
and right to equal protections already in the 14th and protection from discrimination by creed
already taught or written in some policies pursuant to Civil Rights and later developments.

But that isn't the same as establishing the right to marriage as a contractual agreement
now, and that does take the legislatures to make it statutory in written laws.

Until people reach a consensus between written laws and the social contracts
we commit to, this process will continue. people continue petitioning, by free speech
and free press, by courts and legislatures, until the spirit of the contract and the
letter of the law are in agreement and the people fulfill the level of representation and protection deemed equal.


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> After 86 pages can we sum it up thusly...no matter what you feel, no matter how you vote, no matter what laws you write in the end you will be ruled by the Supreme Court..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correction- no matter how much you stomp your feet that Supreme Court can still overturn unconstitutional laws- both federal and state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly and overturning an unconstitutional ban against gay marriage
> is not the same as legislative responsibility for writing a law on marriage for that state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not- because the courts don't write law- they can only overturn illegal laws.
> 
> Just as they did in Loving v. Virginia- and just as they did in Obergefell.
> 
> That is one of the responsibilities courts have.
Click to expand...


Yes Syriusly we agree on this
Where there is disagreement is whether it takes
WRITTEN laws or amendments to establish or "create" right to marriage 
through govt, and it isn't just done by judges striking down other laws as unconstitutional.


----------



## DOTR

"That the several states composing the United States of America are* not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general governmen*t... that this government, created by this compact, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress" Thomas Jefferson

  " ..*.that a spirit has, in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them*; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which, having been copied from the very limited grant of power in the former Articles of Confederation, were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and *so as to consolidate the states, by degrees, into one sovereignty,* the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or, at best, a mixed monarchy." James Madison

  I think we are there.


----------



## DOTR

*Section 1.* Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
*Section 2.* The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
*Section 3.* This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

   Does this look familiar? To the younger ones probably not. It was the Equal Rights Amendment. It was the topic of debate for years and had a very fair hearing. An exercise in self government. But, as in most cases, the leftists were soundly defeated when the American People rejected it.
   Couldn't tell it today could you?
   Your vote matters less now than under King George.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> After 86 pages can we sum it up thusly...no matter what you feel, no matter how you vote, no matter what laws you write in the end you will be ruled by the Supreme Court..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correction- no matter how much you stomp your feet that Supreme Court can still overturn unconstitutional laws- both federal and state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly and overturning an unconstitutional ban against gay marriage
> is not the same as legislative responsibility for writing a law on marriage for that state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not- because the courts don't write law- they can only overturn illegal laws.
> 
> Just as they did in Loving v. Virginia- and just as they did in Obergefell.
> 
> That is one of the responsibilities courts have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly we agree on this
> Where there is disagreement is whether it takes
> WRITTEN laws or amendments to establish or "create" right to marriage
> through govt, and it isn't just done by judges striking down other laws as unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


Do we have a right to privacy? Do we have a right to marriage? 

The Supreme Court says yes- we do- and what do they base that on?

The 9th Amendment
_The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
_
The Constitution doesn't mention 'privacy'- but we do have the right to privacy- and aren't we all glad we do?_
Privacy

_


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> After 86 pages can we sum it up thusly...no matter what you feel, no matter how you vote, no matter what laws you write in the end you will be ruled by the Supreme Court..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correction- no matter how much you stomp your feet that Supreme Court can still overturn unconstitutional laws- both federal and state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly and overturning an unconstitutional ban against gay marriage
> is not the same as legislative responsibility for writing a law on marriage for that state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not- because the courts don't write law- they can only overturn illegal laws.
> 
> Just as they did in Loving v. Virginia- and just as they did in Obergefell.
> 
> That is one of the responsibilities courts have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly we agree on this
> Where there is disagreement is whether it takes
> WRITTEN laws or amendments to establish or "create" right to marriage
> through govt, and it isn't just done by judges striking down other laws as unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we have a right to privacy? Do we have a right to marriage?
> 
> The Supreme Court says yes- we do- and what do they base that on?
> 
> The 9th Amendment
> _The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
> _
> The Constitution doesn't mention 'privacy'- but we do have the right to privacy- and aren't we all glad we do?
> _Privacy
> _
Click to expand...


Dear Syriusly
Where you really have these rights is where they do not depend on govt to tell you do.
If you are relying on govt, then you don't really have them because they can be taken away.

That is another aspect of political beliefs, that involve govt.

A. We have a right to marriage like we have a right to prayer.
Under religious freedom which IS BOTH a statutory written right,
and is recognized as a natural right that exists OUTSIDE of govt.
Right to life is another inalienable right that exists even if govt fails to recognize or protect it.
It happens that our Constitution does put "religious freedom" in writing so it is
both a natural right and it is written and recognized as part of Constitutional law on that level.

right to prayer and right to marriage
right to privacy and right to choose abortion
are under religious freedom as another way of saying freedom of choice
but these are not recognized by all people

These are protected as practices and beliefs under religious freedom
and equal protection against discrimination by creed
as either political beliefs or religious beliefs and practices
but these are NOT written into Constitutional laws
on the same level as religious freedom is

B. by court ruling, it is recognized not to violate these principles

that is interpreting the given laws as referenced above

But courts do not create laws or rights that require changing written laws.
court rulings are not the same as Constitutional amendments.

the right to health care the President proclaimed
is not in the Constitution, and even though the Courts
approved ACA as constitutional, this is not established
by legislative authority yet -- the legislature passed ACA
as a public health bill and it would have failed as a tax revenue bill,
but the courts approved it as a tax bill and it failed as a "general welfare"
bill that the court ruled the govt did not have authority to expand to the
degree that ACA did, it only was constitutional as a tax bill but that's
not how it was passed. So even that is up for debate because
there is still not a consensus on it, and the public has generally
NOT approved to pay mandates toward corporate insurance instead of paying for health care

Syriusly I think you and I believe the same things
should be protected, but we don't agree on the process.

I do believe these rights shouldn't be violated,
but the way it's being lobbied through courts is backwards.
and it's causing the very religious imposition from the opposite side
that was rejected in the first place. Two wrongs don't make it right, they make it worse.

We need to correct this at the state and legislative levels.
Not take shortcuts hoping some court ruling is going to save us the trouble.
There are no short cuts.

You cannot rely or authorize judges on benches to act as popes to legislate beliefs
and endorse some over others.

We have to accept equal responsibility for our own beliefs.
It is just as wrong for Christians to expect govt to defend them from
rejection and harassment by people who don't believe in Christianity
as it is for LGBT to expect govt to defend them from
rejection and harassment by people who don't believe in homosexuality.

Either agree to let both expressions be a free choice in public
and public institutions, or bar govt from banning endorsing
establishing prohibiting or otherwise legislating on either one.

There is no shortcut to reaching an agreement among ourselves
so any contract we endorse and enforce is by FREE and INFORMED consent
of the people, and is not coerced by outside party under penalty of law.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> [
> You cannot rely or authorize judges on benches to act as popes to legislate beliefs
> and endorse some over others..



We rely upon judges for among other things, to rule on the Constitution. 

Judges are not legislating anything. 

They are overturning unconstitutional laws. 

Judges have done this in a myriad of issues- including
Birth Control
Voting rights
Gun rights
Marriage law


----------



## DOTR

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> After 86 pages can we sum it up thusly...no matter what you feel, no matter how you vote, no matter what laws you write in the end you will be ruled by the Supreme Court..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correction- no matter how much you stomp your feet that Supreme Court can still overturn unconstitutional laws- both federal and state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly and overturning an unconstitutional ban against gay marriage
> is not the same as legislative responsibility for writing a law on marriage for that state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not- because the courts don't write law- they can only overturn illegal laws.
> 
> Just as they did in Loving v. Virginia- and just as they did in Obergefell.
> 
> That is one of the responsibilities courts have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly we agree on this
> Where there is disagreement is whether it takes
> WRITTEN laws or amendments to establish or "create" right to marriage
> through govt, and it isn't just done by judges striking down other laws as unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we have a right to privacy? Do we have a right to marriage?
> 
> The Supreme Court says yes- we do- and what do they base that on?
> 
> The 9th Amendment
> _The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
> _
> The Constitution doesn't mention 'privacy'- but we do have the right to privacy- and aren't we all glad we do?
> _Privacy
> _
Click to expand...



  Only if your state says so. The 9th amendment was intended to protect the states and people from Federal over reach. Not to be a vehicle for Federal expansion.

" *That Amendment [9th]* was passed not to broaden the powers of this Court or any other department of "the General Government," but, as every student of history knows, to assure the people that the Constitution in all its provisions *was intended to limit the Federal Government...*there is no provision of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court's belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. The adoption of such a loose flexible. uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, *will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts* which I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts, and worse for the country. *Subjecting federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the separation of governmental powers that the Framers set up, and, at the same time, threaten to take away much of the power of States to govern themselves which the Constitution plainly intended them to have." Justice Hugo Black

* Ahhh to have men like that in government again.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> After 86 pages can we sum it up thusly...no matter what you feel, no matter how you vote, no matter what laws you write in the end you will be ruled by the Supreme Court..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correction- no matter how much you stomp your feet that Supreme Court can still overturn unconstitutional laws- both federal and state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly and overturning an unconstitutional ban against gay marriage
> is not the same as legislative responsibility for writing a law on marriage for that state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not- because the courts don't write law- they can only overturn illegal laws.
> 
> Just as they did in Loving v. Virginia- and just as they did in Obergefell.
> 
> That is one of the responsibilities courts have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly we agree on this
> Where there is disagreement is whether it takes
> WRITTEN laws or amendments to establish or "create" right to marriage
> through govt, and it isn't just done by judges striking down other laws as unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

The right to marry is codified by the Fifth Amendment’s Liberty Clause and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment, a right immune from attack by government, as acknowledged by the Supreme Court.

The role of the courts and the doctrine of judicial review render the notion of ‘amending’ the Constitution to address all conflicts and controversies is ridiculous, ignorant nonsense – a Federal Constitution with 10,000 ‘amendments’ would be useless and unworkable.


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> After 86 pages can we sum it up thusly...no matter what you feel, no matter how you vote, no matter what laws you write in the end you will be ruled by the Supreme Court..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correction- no matter how much you stomp your feet that Supreme Court can still overturn unconstitutional laws- both federal and state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly and overturning an unconstitutional ban against gay marriage
> is not the same as legislative responsibility for writing a law on marriage for that state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not- because the courts don't write law- they can only overturn illegal laws.
> 
> Just as they did in Loving v. Virginia- and just as they did in Obergefell.
> 
> That is one of the responsibilities courts have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly we agree on this
> Where there is disagreement is whether it takes
> WRITTEN laws or amendments to establish or "create" right to marriage
> through govt, and it isn't just done by judges striking down other laws as unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to marry is codified by the Fifth Amendment’s Liberty Clause and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment, a right immune from attack by government, as acknowledged by the Supreme Court.
> 
> The role of the courts and the doctrine of judicial review render the notion of ‘amending’ the Constitution to address all conflicts and controversies is ridiculous, ignorant nonsense – a Federal Constitution with 10,000 ‘amendments’ would be useless and unworkable.
Click to expand...


Thank you C_Clayton_Jones
If one practices right to marriage the same way Christians
are asked to practice right to prayer, this is already protected.

Now, what do you think of this comparison
* if Christians in Texas who want right to prayer in schools
are only allowed to implement "moments of silence"
because of people who don't agree with Christian prayer
* why not ask people who want right to marriage in govt
to settle for "civil unions and contracts"
because of people who don't agree with gay marriage

would that be fair.
or are you going to do as Syriusly is trying to do
and cite specific case laws and judicial rulings
that defend right to marriage and try to use that
to overrule the States rights to implement
"moment of silence" as a secular alternative to prayer
and "civil unions" as a secular alternative to marriage


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

DOTR said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correction- no matter how much you stomp your feet that Supreme Court can still overturn unconstitutional laws- both federal and state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly and overturning an unconstitutional ban against gay marriage
> is not the same as legislative responsibility for writing a law on marriage for that state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not- because the courts don't write law- they can only overturn illegal laws.
> 
> Just as they did in Loving v. Virginia- and just as they did in Obergefell.
> 
> That is one of the responsibilities courts have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly we agree on this
> Where there is disagreement is whether it takes
> WRITTEN laws or amendments to establish or "create" right to marriage
> through govt, and it isn't just done by judges striking down other laws as unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we have a right to privacy? Do we have a right to marriage?
> 
> The Supreme Court says yes- we do- and what do they base that on?
> 
> The 9th Amendment
> _The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
> _
> The Constitution doesn't mention 'privacy'- but we do have the right to privacy- and aren't we all glad we do?
> _Privacy
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Only if your state says so. The 9th amendment was intended to protect the states and people from Federal over reach. Not to be a vehicle for Federal expansion.
> 
> " *That Amendment [9th]* was passed not to broaden the powers of this Court or any other department of "the General Government," but, as every student of history knows, to assure the people that the Constitution in all its provisions *was intended to limit the Federal Government...*there is no provision of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court's belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. The adoption of such a loose flexible. uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, *will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts* which I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts, and worse for the country. *Subjecting federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the separation of governmental powers that the Framers set up, and, at the same time, threaten to take away much of the power of States to govern themselves which the Constitution plainly intended them to have." Justice Hugo Black
> 
> * Ahhh to have men like that in government again.
Click to expand...

The issue of states denying same-sex couples access to marriage law gay Americans are eligible to participate in has nothing to do with the 9th Amendment; this is 14th Amendment case law.


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly and overturning an unconstitutional ban against gay marriage
> is not the same as legislative responsibility for writing a law on marriage for that state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not- because the courts don't write law- they can only overturn illegal laws.
> 
> Just as they did in Loving v. Virginia- and just as they did in Obergefell.
> 
> That is one of the responsibilities courts have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly we agree on this
> Where there is disagreement is whether it takes
> WRITTEN laws or amendments to establish or "create" right to marriage
> through govt, and it isn't just done by judges striking down other laws as unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we have a right to privacy? Do we have a right to marriage?
> 
> The Supreme Court says yes- we do- and what do they base that on?
> 
> The 9th Amendment
> _The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
> _
> The Constitution doesn't mention 'privacy'- but we do have the right to privacy- and aren't we all glad we do?
> _Privacy
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Only if your state says so. The 9th amendment was intended to protect the states and people from Federal over reach. Not to be a vehicle for Federal expansion.
> 
> " *That Amendment [9th]* was passed not to broaden the powers of this Court or any other department of "the General Government," but, as every student of history knows, to assure the people that the Constitution in all its provisions *was intended to limit the Federal Government...*there is no provision of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court's belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. The adoption of such a loose flexible. uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, *will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts* which I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts, and worse for the country. *Subjecting federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the separation of governmental powers that the Framers set up, and, at the same time, threaten to take away much of the power of States to govern themselves which the Constitution plainly intended them to have." Justice Hugo Black
> 
> * Ahhh to have men like that in government again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The issue of states denying same-sex couples access to marriage law gay Americans are eligible to participate in has nothing to do with the 9th Amendment; this is 14th Amendment case law.
Click to expand...


Dear C_Clayton_Jones
Don't laws have to respect ALL the other Constitutional laws and principles and standards?
If your interpretation is solid, shouldn't it be consistent with the 1st and 10th as well as the 9th?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

“You cannot rely or authorize judges on benches to act as popes to legislate beliefs and endorse some over others”

Nonsense.

As already correctly noted: we appropriately rely on judges and justices to follow Constitutional case law, the doctrine of judicial review, and the rule of law to safeguard citizens’ rights and protected liberties from government overreach and excess.

It is government which acts first in bad faith, by enacting measures repugnant to the Constitution, disadvantaging citizens for no other reason than who they are.

And those wrongfully disadvantaged by government have the right to seek relief in Federal court, where the appellate courts review the constitutionality of such laws, and invalidate measures determined to be un-Constitutional in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

No ‘beliefs’ are being ‘legislated,’ courts do not ‘legislate.’


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “You cannot rely or authorize judges on benches to act as popes to legislate beliefs and endorse some over others”
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> As already correctly noted: we appropriately rely on judges and justices to follow Constitutional case law, the doctrine of judicial review, and the rule of law to safeguard citizens’ rights and protected liberties from government overreach and excess.
> 
> It is government which acts first in bad faith, by enacting measures repugnant to the Constitution, disadvantaging citizens for no other reason than who they are.
> 
> And those wrongfully disadvantaged by government have the right to seek relief in Federal court, where the appellate courts review the constitutionality of such laws, and invalidate measures determined to be un-Constitutional in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.
> 
> No ‘beliefs’ are being ‘legislated,’ courts do not ‘legislate.’



Dear C_Clayton_Jones 
we agree but are talking past each other.

Where we disagree is you still want to defend certain beliefs
above others, by citing case law that defends your beliefs in ways that you would attack other beliefs.

Let me ask you this way,
if courts used similar cases to establish
"right to prayer" the same way it is argued that "right to marriage" is established,
would you argue that
right to prayer still depends on how states legislate it.

or would you argue the court overstepped
and right to prayer is not a constitutional right
and is already protected under religious freedom.


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> After 86 pages can we sum it up thusly...no matter what you feel, no matter how you vote, no matter what laws you write in the end you will be ruled by the Supreme Court..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correction- no matter how much you stomp your feet that Supreme Court can still overturn unconstitutional laws- both federal and state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly and overturning an unconstitutional ban against gay marriage
> is not the same as legislative responsibility for writing a law on marriage for that state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not- because the courts don't write law- they can only overturn illegal laws.
> 
> Just as they did in Loving v. Virginia- and just as they did in Obergefell.
> 
> That is one of the responsibilities courts have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly we agree on this
> Where there is disagreement is whether it takes
> WRITTEN laws or amendments to establish or "create" right to marriage
> through govt, and it isn't just done by judges striking down other laws as unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we have a right to privacy? Do we have a right to marriage?
> 
> The Supreme Court says yes- we do- and what do they base that on?
> 
> The 9th Amendment
> _The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
> _
> The Constitution doesn't mention 'privacy'- but we do have the right to privacy- and aren't we all glad we do?
> _Privacy_
Click to expand...


The Fifth Amendment does mention privacy. It is described and and defined based of of writs of assistance, John Wilkes and Number 45, and Charles Paxton. 

The Ninth Amendment regarded state's rights by limiting the interpretation powers of Article I, Section 8.


----------



## emilynghiem

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correction- no matter how much you stomp your feet that Supreme Court can still overturn unconstitutional laws- both federal and state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly and overturning an unconstitutional ban against gay marriage
> is not the same as legislative responsibility for writing a law on marriage for that state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not- because the courts don't write law- they can only overturn illegal laws.
> 
> Just as they did in Loving v. Virginia- and just as they did in Obergefell.
> 
> That is one of the responsibilities courts have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly we agree on this
> Where there is disagreement is whether it takes
> WRITTEN laws or amendments to establish or "create" right to marriage
> through govt, and it isn't just done by judges striking down other laws as unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we have a right to privacy? Do we have a right to marriage?
> 
> The Supreme Court says yes- we do- and what do they base that on?
> 
> The 9th Amendment
> _The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
> _
> The Constitution doesn't mention 'privacy'- but we do have the right to privacy- and aren't we all glad we do?
> _Privacy_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Fifth Amendment does mention privacy. It is described and and defined based of of writs of assistance, John Wilkes and Number 45, and Charles Paxton.
> 
> The Ninth Amendment regarded state's rights by limiting the interpretation powers of Article I, Section 8.
Click to expand...


Dear Tennyson and Syriusly
Instead of right to privacy, I would
compare it with "substantive due process" as in why Roe V Wade
struck down laws on abortion. in that case the due process to defend the woman by
showing mitigating circumstances would involve govt infringing in her personal life.

The marriage laws beliefs and issues also delve into people's personal
preferences and beliefs they shouldn't have to justify for govt.
If homosexual or transgender people have to justify their relations or beliefs,
it is like depriving them of liberty to exercise these freely without them having committed a crime first.

The problem is not imposing laws that overreach and have this same
effect, penalizing people for beliefs against homosexuality as if that is a crime.

Instead of calling it a right to privacy, it is a matter of keeping private beliefs out of govt
so this infringement doesn't impose on either side.

Neither side should have to defend or justify beliefs to govt.
the right to marriage like right to prayer should be practiced in private
and not implement it in public institutions and policy unless there is consent
and agreement not to penalize impose or exclude one person's beliefs over another.


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage has been against the law in since the 1600s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked for proof of that claim for days now- and you haven't provided a single citation to back up your claim. Odd isn't it that you can pull out stuff from the Federalists papers but can't provide a single legal citation to back up your claim?
> 
> Or answer why 30 states suddenly in the last 20 years passed laws against same sex marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did. I provided one of the laws and the pertinent language in the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No legal citation- the 'law' you cited doesn't even appear when searched for online. Not on Lexis.
> Lexis® Web - Results for ""New England Body of Liberties""
> Not on Cornell Universities legal research engine
> Site
> 
> Did you make it up? Maybe.
> 
> Now why did states suddenly start passing laws against same sex marriage- if it was already illegal?
Click to expand...


Perhaps I can give you a few more examples of pre-Constitution laws and post-Constitution laws since you are consumed regarding the New England Body of Liberties.

The states started passing these laws because of the anti-constitutional ruling of _Lawrence v. Texas. _The state’s laws prohibiting same-sex marriages rested on their sodomy laws.

Again with the New England Body of Liberties and a few more laws. Every single state had a sodomy law on the books in 1960 as well.

New England Body of Liberties:  

If any man lyeth with mankinde, as a man lyeth with a woman, both of them have committed abomination, they both shall surely be put to death. Levit. 20. 13. And if any woman change the naturall use into that which is against nature, as Rom. 1. 26. she shall be liable to the same sentence, and punishment, or if any person, or persons, shall commit any other kinde of unnaturall and shamefull filthines, called in Scripture the going after strange flesh, or other flesh then God alloweth, by carnal! knowledge of another vessel then God in nature hath appointed to become one flesh, whether it be by abusing the contrary part of a grown woman, or child of either sex, or unripe vessel of a girle, wherein the natural use of the woman is left, which God hath ordained for the propagation of posterity, and Sodomiticall filthinesse (tending to the destruction of the race of mankind) is committed by a kind of rape, nature being forced, though the will were inticed,' every such person shall be put to death. Or if any man shall act upon himself; and in the sight of others spill his owne seed, by example, or counsel, or both, corrupting or tempting others to doe the like, which tends to the sin of Sodomy, if it be not one kind of it; or shall defile, or corrupt himself and others, by any kind of sinfulthinesse, he shall be punished according to the nature of the offence; or if the case considered with the aggravating circumstances, shall according to the mind of God revealed in his word require it, he shall be put to death, as the court of magistrates shall determine.

Rhode Island statute of 1647:

Touching Whoremongers. First of sodomy, which is forbidden by this present Assembly throughout the whole colony, and by sundry statutes of England 25 Hen. 8, 6: 5 Eliz 17. It is a vile affection, whereby men given up thereto leave the natural use of women and burn in their lusts toward another, and so men with men work that which is unseemly, as that Doctor of the Gentiles [St. Paul] in his letter to the Romans once spake, i. 27. The penalty concluded by that state under whose authority we are is felony of death without remedy. See 5 Eliz 17.(2)
​*Post Constitution
*

Laws of the State of New York 1787:


BE it enacted by the people of the state of New-York, represented in senate and assembly, and it is hereby enabled by the authority of the same, That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery, committed with mankind or beast, shall be from henceforth adjudged felony; and such order and form process therein, shall be used against the offenders, as in cases of felony at the common law; and that every person being thereof convicted, by verdict, confession or outlawry, shall be hanged by the neck, until he or she shall be dead.​
Rhode Island's Public Laws of 1798:

That every person who shall be convicted of sodomy, or of being accessary thereto before the fact, shall, for the first offence, be carried to the gallows in a cart, and set upon the said gallows, for a space of time not exceeding four hours, and thence to the common goal, there to be confined for a term not exceeding three years, and shall be grievously fined at the discretion of the Court; and for the second offense shall suffer death.​
*
*​


----------



## Tennyson

emilynghiem said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly and overturning an unconstitutional ban against gay marriage
> is not the same as legislative responsibility for writing a law on marriage for that state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not- because the courts don't write law- they can only overturn illegal laws.
> 
> Just as they did in Loving v. Virginia- and just as they did in Obergefell.
> 
> That is one of the responsibilities courts have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly we agree on this
> Where there is disagreement is whether it takes
> WRITTEN laws or amendments to establish or "create" right to marriage
> through govt, and it isn't just done by judges striking down other laws as unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we have a right to privacy? Do we have a right to marriage?
> 
> The Supreme Court says yes- we do- and what do they base that on?
> 
> The 9th Amendment
> _The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
> _
> The Constitution doesn't mention 'privacy'- but we do have the right to privacy- and aren't we all glad we do?
> _Privacy_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Fifth Amendment does mention privacy. It is described and and defined based of of writs of assistance, John Wilkes and Number 45, and Charles Paxton.
> 
> The Ninth Amendment regarded state's rights by limiting the interpretation powers of Article I, Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Tennyson and Syriusly
> Instead of right to privacy, I would
> compare it with "substantive due process" as in why Roe V Wade
> struck down laws on abortion.
> 
> If homosexual or transgender people have to justify their relations or beliefs,
> it is like depriving them of liberty to exercise these freely without them having committed a crime first.
> 
> The problem is not imposing laws that overreach and have this same
> effect, penalizing people for beliefs against homosexuality as if that is a crime.
> 
> Instead of calling it a right to privacy, it is a matter of keeping private beliefs out of govt
> so this infringement doesn't impose on either side.
> 
> Neither side should have to defend or justify beliefs to govt.
> the right to marriage like right to prayer should be practiced in private
> and not implement it in public institutions and policy unless there is consent
> and agreement not to penalize impose or exclude one person's beliefs over another.
Click to expand...


Emilynghiem,

Substantive due process did not exist until the Twentieth Century with Lochner v New York, and then it was only used for economic rulings. It was also used to shoot down FDR's New Deal in the early and mid 1930s. It is unfair to retroactively substantive due process to the procedural due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment.


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> You cannot rely or authorize judges on benches to act as popes to legislate beliefs
> and endorse some over others..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We rely upon judges for among other things, to rule on the Constitution.
> 
> Judges are not legislating anything.
> 
> They are overturning unconstitutional laws.
> 
> Judges have done this in a myriad of issues- including
> Birth Control
> Voting rights
> Gun rights
> Marriage law
Click to expand...


The issue of birth control, gun laws, and marriage laws are all constitutional laws and are not under the purview of any branch of the federal government.

Nowhere in the Constitution has voting rights been conferred.


----------



## Tennyson

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> After 86 pages can we sum it up thusly...no matter what you feel, no matter how you vote, no matter what laws you write in the end you will be ruled by the Supreme Court..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correction- no matter how much you stomp your feet that Supreme Court can still overturn unconstitutional laws- both federal and state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly and overturning an unconstitutional ban against gay marriage
> is not the same as legislative responsibility for writing a law on marriage for that state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not- because the courts don't write law- they can only overturn illegal laws.
> 
> Just as they did in Loving v. Virginia- and just as they did in Obergefell.
> 
> That is one of the responsibilities courts have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly we agree on this
> Where there is disagreement is whether it takes
> WRITTEN laws or amendments to establish or "create" right to marriage
> through govt, and it isn't just done by judges striking down other laws as unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to marry is codified by the Fifth Amendment’s Liberty Clause and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment, a right immune from attack by government, as acknowledged by the Supreme Court.
> 
> The role of the courts and the doctrine of judicial review render the notion of ‘amending’ the Constitution to address all conflicts and controversies is ridiculous, ignorant nonsense – a Federal Constitution with 10,000 ‘amendments’ would be useless and unworkable.
Click to expand...


The right to marry is not codified in the Fifth Amendment’s liberty clause nor is it codified in the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection and due process clauses. The preamble of the Bill of Rights precludes the Fifth Amendment codifying marriage laws; the very first sentence of the Bill of Rights precludes the Fifth Amendment from codifying marriage laws; when Madison first submitted the Bill of Rights, he wrote the Bill of Rights to apply certain amendments with a rights of conscience concept to the states, and it was summarily and soundly rejected:

Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:

No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.​
Marshall also expressed clearly that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, and more specifically the Fifth Amendment:

_Barron v Baltimore_, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)

We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States. We are therefore of opinion that there is no repugnancy between the several acts of the general assembly of Maryland, given in evidence by the defendants at the trial of this cause, in the court of that State, and the Constitution of the United States. This court, therefore, has no jurisdiction of the cause, and it is dismissed.

Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.

In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.​


----------



## Tennyson

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “You cannot rely or authorize judges on benches to act as popes to legislate beliefs and endorse some over others”
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> As already correctly noted: we appropriately rely on judges and justices to follow Constitutional case law, the doctrine of judicial review, and the rule of law to safeguard citizens’ rights and protected liberties from government overreach and excess.
> 
> It is government which acts first in bad faith, by enacting measures repugnant to the Constitution, disadvantaging citizens for no other reason than who they are.
> 
> And those wrongfully disadvantaged by government have the right to seek relief in Federal court, where the appellate courts review the constitutionality of such laws, and invalidate measures determined to be un-Constitutional in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.
> 
> No ‘beliefs’ are being ‘legislated,’ courts do not ‘legislate.’



There is no constitutional doctrine or concept of following case law regarding constitutional law. Every founder to the man who opined on how to interpret and apply constitutional law expressly stated to go back to the debates on the Constitution. The living Constitution that you advocate is antithetical to the rule of law as is _stare decisis_.


----------



## DOTR

Its very strange that Minot vs Happersett in 1874 found nothing in the 14th Amendment empowering the court to overrule states on these issues. Not even the right to vote for women...even though they are citizens as fully as men.

(1) The states ratified the constitution with existing laws and, after the 14th amendment was imposed, admitted or readmitted new states status quo (suffrage or marriage) 

   "_No new state has ever been admitted to the Union which has conferred the right of suffrage upon women, and this has never been considered a valid objection to her admission"_
_  "These governments the Constitution did not change. They were accepted precisely as they were, and it is therefore to be presumed that they were such as it was the duty of the states to provide"_

  As any fool (excludes liberals I suppose) can see every state accepted into the Union did so with a Constitution and legal system recognizing only traditional marriage and all passed Constitutional muster.

(2) Long culture and practice will tell you how the founders, framers, courts, legislature and citizens meant interpretation to fall (suffrage or marriage)

_"For nearly ninety years, the people have acted upon the idea that the Constitution, when it conferred citizenship, did not necessarily confer the right of suffrage. *If **uniform practice long continued can settle the construction of so important an instrument as the Constitution of the United States confessedly is*, most certainly it has been done here."_

  How about 200+ years?

(3) it is not the Supreme Courts role to right wrongs or injustice but to stay within Constitutional bounds no matter how odious (or illiberal) the state law

_ "If the law is wrong, it ought to be changed; but *the power for that is not with us*... No argument as to woman's need of suffrage can be considered. We can only act upon her rights as they exist. It is not for us to look at the hardship of withholding. Our duty is at an end if we find it is within the power of a state to withhold."
_
 "*Our province is to decide what the law is, not to declare what it should be*."

(4)  The 14th Amendment would plainly have stated any radical changes such as women's suffrage. Homosexual marriage licenses are certainly a "radical change"

_ " ...it cannot for a moment be doubted that *if it had been intended* to make all citizens of the United States voters, the *framers of the Constitution would not have left it to implication*. *So important a change* in the condition of citizenship as it actually existed, if intended, *would have been expressly declared."*

 "...certainly its abrogation *would not have been left to implication*.* Nothing less than express language would have been employed to effect so radical a change*."_

   So much for the new discoveries in the 14th Amendment. The men who wrote the above decision were well aware of their role and new they were limited and the government they served was limited.
  Limited government. A first world idea being twisted by third world Marxist interpreters.
  Dont let these kindergarten socialists and statists tell you they "discovered" something the men who wrote never put there.


----------



## DOTR

emilynghiem said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correction- no matter how much you stomp your feet that Supreme Court can still overturn unconstitutional laws- both federal and state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly and overturning an unconstitutional ban against gay marriage
> is not the same as legislative responsibility for writing a law on marriage for that state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not- because the courts don't write law- they can only overturn illegal laws.
> 
> Just as they did in Loving v. Virginia- and just as they did in Obergefell.
> 
> That is one of the responsibilities courts have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly we agree on this
> Where there is disagreement is whether it takes
> WRITTEN laws or amendments to establish or "create" right to marriage
> through govt, and it isn't just done by judges striking down other laws as unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to marry is codified by the Fifth Amendment’s Liberty Clause and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment, a right immune from attack by government, as acknowledged by the Supreme Court.
> 
> The role of the courts and the doctrine of judicial review render the notion of ‘amending’ the Constitution to address all conflicts and controversies is ridiculous, ignorant nonsense – a Federal Constitution with 10,000 ‘amendments’ would be useless and unworkable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you C_Clayton_Jones
> If one practices right to marriage the same way Christians
> are asked to practice right to prayer, this is already protected.
> 
> Now, what do you think of this comparison
> * if Christians in Texas who want right to prayer in schools
> are only allowed to implement "moments of silence"
> because of people who don't agree with Christian prayer
> * why not ask people who want right to marriage in govt
> to settle for "civil unions and contracts"
> because of people who don't agree with gay marriage
> 
> would that be fair.
> or are you going to do as Syriusly is trying to do
> and cite specific case laws and judicial rulings
> that defend right to marriage and try to use that
> to overrule the States rights to implement
> "moment of silence" as a secular alternative to prayer
> and "civil unions" as a secular alternative to marriage
Click to expand...


  That is how it started...remember? They pretended to only want "civil unions". By the way the Texas was admitted to the Union with a Constitution which required all office holders to be Christian. No fault in it was found.


----------



## DOTR

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> You cannot rely or authorize judges on benches to act as popes to legislate beliefs
> and endorse some over others..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We rely upon judges for among other things, to rule on the Constitution.
> 
> Judges are not legislating anything.
> 
> They are overturning unconstitutional laws.
> 
> Judges have done this in a myriad of issues- including
> Birth Control
> Voting rights
> Gun rights
> Marriage law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue of birth control, gun laws, and marriage laws are all constitutional laws and are not under the purview of any branch of the federal government.
> 
> Nowhere in the Constitution has voting rights been conferred.
Click to expand...


  You have very simply stated the truth of the matter. The Federal Government is under the Constitution. Not vice versa.


----------



## emilynghiem

Tennyson said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> “You cannot rely or authorize judges on benches to act as popes to legislate beliefs and endorse some over others”
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> As already correctly noted: we appropriately rely on judges and justices to follow Constitutional case law, the doctrine of judicial review, and the rule of law to safeguard citizens’ rights and protected liberties from government overreach and excess.
> 
> It is government which acts first in bad faith, by enacting measures repugnant to the Constitution, disadvantaging citizens for no other reason than who they are.
> 
> And those wrongfully disadvantaged by government have the right to seek relief in Federal court, where the appellate courts review the constitutionality of such laws, and invalidate measures determined to be un-Constitutional in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.
> 
> No ‘beliefs’ are being ‘legislated,’ courts do not ‘legislate.’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional doctrine or concept of following case law regarding constitutional law. Every founder to the man who opined on how to interpret and apply constitutional law expressly stated to go back to the debates on the Constitution. The living Constitution that you advocate is antithetical to the rule of law as is _stare decisis_.
Click to expand...


Dear Tennyson and C_Clayton_Jones
It all boils down to consent of the governed.
If CCJ has certain beliefs, those are still protected by free exercise of religion
for CCJ and other believers of same to follow and exercise freely.

The problem is when said beliefs concerning govt are IMPLEMENTED THROUGH GOVT.
It is only fair to do so where there is CONSENT of other citizens with equal beliefs and 
equal right to exercise and defend those.

So when beliefs come against beliefs, that's where I call for consent of the governed,
and neither side has the right to abuse govt to bully over the beliefs of the other citizens or groups.

I am more than glad to have both of you here to discuss these issues in full detail 
including citations to history and law. Thank you so much for that.

I will try to go back and thank all your messages. This is very enriching enlightening and educational.
Please keep up the excellent posts!


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correction- no matter how much you stomp your feet that Supreme Court can still overturn unconstitutional laws- both federal and state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly and overturning an unconstitutional ban against gay marriage
> is not the same as legislative responsibility for writing a law on marriage for that state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not- because the courts don't write law- they can only overturn illegal laws.
> 
> Just as they did in Loving v. Virginia- and just as they did in Obergefell.
> 
> That is one of the responsibilities courts have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly we agree on this
> Where there is disagreement is whether it takes
> WRITTEN laws or amendments to establish or "create" right to marriage
> through govt, and it isn't just done by judges striking down other laws as unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we have a right to privacy? Do we have a right to marriage?
> 
> The Supreme Court says yes- we do- and what do they base that on?
> 
> The 9th Amendment
> _The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
> _
> The Constitution doesn't mention 'privacy'- but we do have the right to privacy- and aren't we all glad we do?
> _Privacy_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Fifth Amendment does mention privacy. It is described and and defined based of of writs of assistance, John Wilkes and Number 45, and Charles Paxton.
> 
> The Ninth Amendment regarded state's rights by limiting the interpretation powers of Article I, Section 8.
Click to expand...

Not one mention of privacy

5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage has been against the law in since the 1600s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked for proof of that claim for days now- and you haven't provided a single citation to back up your claim. Odd isn't it that you can pull out stuff from the Federalists papers but can't provide a single legal citation to back up your claim?
> 
> Or answer why 30 states suddenly in the last 20 years passed laws against same sex marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did. I provided one of the laws and the pertinent language in the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No legal citation- the 'law' you cited doesn't even appear when searched for online. Not on Lexis.
> Lexis® Web - Results for ""New England Body of Liberties""
> Not on Cornell Universities legal research engine
> Site
> 
> Did you make it up? Maybe.
> 
> Now why did states suddenly start passing laws against same sex marriage- if it was already illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps I can give you a few more examples of pre-Constitution laws and post-Constitution laws since you are consumed regarding the New England Body of Liberties.
Click to expand...


Not consumed- I am enjoying pointing out that you cited a law that doesn't appear in any legal search engine- so support your claim that laws against same sex marriage have existed in the United States since the 1600's.


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> [
> Again with the New England Body of Liberties and a few more laws. Every single state had a sodomy law on the books in 1960 as well.
> 
> New England Body of Liberties:
> 
> If any man lyeth with mankinde, as a man lyeth with a woman, both of them have committed abomination, they both shall surely be put to death. Levit. 20. 13. And if any woman change the naturall use into that which is against nature, as Rom. 1. 26. she shall be liable to the same sentence, and punishment, or if any person, or persons, shall commit any other kinde of unnaturall and shamefull filthines, called in Scripture the going after strange flesh, or other flesh then God alloweth, by carnal! knowledge of another vessel then God in nature hath appointed to become one flesh, whether it be by abusing the contrary part of a grown woman, or child of either sex, or unripe vessel of a girle, wherein the natural use of the woman is left, which God hath ordained for the propagation of posterity, and Sodomiticall filthinesse (tending to the destruction of the race of mankind) is committed by a kind of rape, nature being forced, though the will were inticed,' every such person shall be put to death. Or if any man shall act upon himself; and in the sight of others spill his owne seed, by example, or counsel, or both, corrupting or tempting others to doe the like, which tends to the sin of Sodomy, if it be not one kind of it; or shall defile, or corrupt himself and others, by any kind of sinfulthinesse, he shall be punished according to the nature of the offence; or if the case considered with the aggravating circumstances, shall according to the mind of God revealed in his word require it, he shall be put to death, as the court of magistrates shall determine.​



Again with a 'law' that doesn't exist in any legal search engine.

I am not saying that you are making it up- I am just pointing out that you posting the claim here is no evidence that this 'law' against everything from buggery to masturbation existed. 

Why don't you provide an actual citation?


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Laws of the State of New York 1787:
> 
> 
> BE it enacted by the people of the state of New-York, represented in senate and assembly, and it is hereby enabled by the authority of the same, That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery, committed with mankind or beast, shall be from henceforth adjudged felony; and such order and form process therein, shall be used against the offenders, as in cases of felony at the common law; and that every person being thereof convicted, by verdict, confession or outlawry, shall be hanged by the neck, until he or she shall be dead.​Rhode Island's Public Laws of 1798:
> 
> That every person who shall be convicted of sodomy, or of being accessary thereto before the fact, shall, for the first offence, be carried to the gallows in a cart, and set upon the said gallows, for a space of time not exceeding four hours, and thence to the common goal, there to be confined for a term not exceeding three years, and shall be grievously fined at the discretion of the Court; and for the second offense shall suffer death.​



Once again- you cite a law against 'buggery'- how does that apply to lesbians? Or even gay men who do not engage in 'buggery'- it applies to any person- man or woman who engages in buggery.

You know for someone who loves to argue 'law' it is amazing how you make a legal claim- that laws against same sex marriage have existed since the 1600's and you still can't find any examples to support your claim.

You know- its okay to just admit you were wrong- that you were mistaken.


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> You cannot rely or authorize judges on benches to act as popes to legislate beliefs
> and endorse some over others..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We rely upon judges for among other things, to rule on the Constitution.
> 
> Judges are not legislating anything.
> 
> They are overturning unconstitutional laws.
> 
> Judges have done this in a myriad of issues- including
> Birth Control
> Voting rights
> Gun rights
> Marriage law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue of birth control, gun laws, and marriage laws are all constitutional laws and are not under the purview of any branch of the federal government.
> 
> Nowhere in the Constitution has voting rights been conferred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have very simply stated the truth of the matter. The Federal Government is under the Constitution. Not vice versa.
Click to expand...


The Federal government, state governments and all of us are subject to the Constitution.


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly and overturning an unconstitutional ban against gay marriage
> is not the same as legislative responsibility for writing a law on marriage for that state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not- because the courts don't write law- they can only overturn illegal laws.
> 
> Just as they did in Loving v. Virginia- and just as they did in Obergefell.
> 
> That is one of the responsibilities courts have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly we agree on this
> Where there is disagreement is whether it takes
> WRITTEN laws or amendments to establish or "create" right to marriage
> through govt, and it isn't just done by judges striking down other laws as unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to marry is codified by the Fifth Amendment’s Liberty Clause and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment, a right immune from attack by government, as acknowledged by the Supreme Court.
> 
> The role of the courts and the doctrine of judicial review render the notion of ‘amending’ the Constitution to address all conflicts and controversies is ridiculous, ignorant nonsense – a Federal Constitution with 10,000 ‘amendments’ would be useless and unworkable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you C_Clayton_Jones
> If one practices right to marriage the same way Christians
> are asked to practice right to prayer, this is already protected.
> 
> Now, what do you think of this comparison
> * if Christians in Texas who want right to prayer in schools
> are only allowed to implement "moments of silence"
> because of people who don't agree with Christian prayer
> * why not ask people who want right to marriage in govt
> to settle for "civil unions and contracts"
> because of people who don't agree with gay marriage
> 
> would that be fair.
> or are you going to do as Syriusly is trying to do
> and cite specific case laws and judicial rulings
> that defend right to marriage and try to use that
> to overrule the States rights to implement
> "moment of silence" as a secular alternative to prayer
> and "civil unions" as a secular alternative to marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is how it started...remember? They pretended to only want "civil unions". By the way the Texas was admitted to the Union with a Constitution which required all office holders to be Christian. No fault in it was found.
Click to expand...


No- it started with gay couples asking for equal rights when it came to marriage. When those were denied 'civil unions' were proposed and passed in some places. 

Of course the very same people who were against 'gay marriage' also passed laws against recognizing 'civil unions'


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> You cannot rely or authorize judges on benches to act as popes to legislate beliefs
> and endorse some over others..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We rely upon judges for among other things, to rule on the Constitution.
> 
> Judges are not legislating anything.
> 
> They are overturning unconstitutional laws.
> 
> Judges have done this in a myriad of issues- including
> Birth Control
> Voting rights
> Gun rights
> Marriage law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue of birth control, gun laws, and marriage laws are all constitutional laws and are not under the purview of any branch of the federal government.
> 
> Nowhere in the Constitution has voting rights been conferred.
Click to expand...


Well thank you for your opinion.

I will instead listen to the Supreme Court- a body of legal scholars who both have far more knowledge of the Constitution than you, and also the authority to enforce the Constitution.


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly and overturning an unconstitutional ban against gay marriage
> is not the same as legislative responsibility for writing a law on marriage for that state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not- because the courts don't write law- they can only overturn illegal laws.
> 
> Just as they did in Loving v. Virginia- and just as they did in Obergefell.
> 
> That is one of the responsibilities courts have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly we agree on this
> Where there is disagreement is whether it takes
> WRITTEN laws or amendments to establish or "create" right to marriage
> through govt, and it isn't just done by judges striking down other laws as unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we have a right to privacy? Do we have a right to marriage?
> 
> The Supreme Court says yes- we do- and what do they base that on?
> 
> The 9th Amendment
> _The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
> _
> The Constitution doesn't mention 'privacy'- but we do have the right to privacy- and aren't we all glad we do?
> _Privacy_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Fifth Amendment does mention privacy. It is described and and defined based of of writs of assistance, John Wilkes and Number 45, and Charles Paxton.
> 
> The Ninth Amendment regarded state's rights by limiting the interpretation powers of Article I, Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not one mention of privacy
> 
> 5th Amendment
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Click to expand...


Obviously I accidentally used the Fifth Amendment instead of the Fourth as the Fifth was the subject of my last post.

The Fourth Amendment does mention privacy. It is described and defined based of writs of assistance, John Wilkes and Number 45, and Charles Paxton.

The Ninth Amendment regarded state's rights by limiting the interpretation powers of Article I, Section 8.


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage has been against the law in since the 1600s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked for proof of that claim for days now- and you haven't provided a single citation to back up your claim. Odd isn't it that you can pull out stuff from the Federalists papers but can't provide a single legal citation to back up your claim?
> 
> Or answer why 30 states suddenly in the last 20 years passed laws against same sex marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did. I provided one of the laws and the pertinent language in the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No legal citation- the 'law' you cited doesn't even appear when searched for online. Not on Lexis.
> Lexis® Web - Results for ""New England Body of Liberties""
> Not on Cornell Universities legal research engine
> Site
> 
> Did you make it up? Maybe.
> 
> Now why did states suddenly start passing laws against same sex marriage- if it was already illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps I can give you a few more examples of pre-Constitution laws and post-Constitution laws since you are consumed regarding the New England Body of Liberties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not consumed- I am enjoying pointing out that you cited a law that doesn't appear in any legal search engine- so support your claim that laws against same sex marriage have existed in the United States since the 1600's.
Click to expand...


It is apparent that you are a-paint-by-the-numbers internet troll, so I will expend very little effort to present any actual facts to one of your ilk.

What you have pointed out is that you are dependent on the internet for this particular knowledge. Your choosing to get an education in American history and constitutional law on an internet search engine is probably the reason you have failed to investigate my elementary production of pre-constitutional state laws and post-constitutional state laws. I really cannot help you with that handicap.


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Again with the New England Body of Liberties and a few more laws. Every single state had a sodomy law on the books in 1960 as well.
> 
> New England Body of Liberties:
> 
> If any man lyeth with mankinde, as a man lyeth with a woman, both of them have committed abomination, they both shall surely be put to death. Levit. 20. 13. And if any woman change the naturall use into that which is against nature, as Rom. 1. 26. she shall be liable to the same sentence, and punishment, or if any person, or persons, shall commit any other kinde of unnaturall and shamefull filthines, called in Scripture the going after strange flesh, or other flesh then God alloweth, by carnal! knowledge of another vessel then God in nature hath appointed to become one flesh, whether it be by abusing the contrary part of a grown woman, or child of either sex, or unripe vessel of a girle, wherein the natural use of the woman is left, which God hath ordained for the propagation of posterity, and Sodomiticall filthinesse (tending to the destruction of the race of mankind) is committed by a kind of rape, nature being forced, though the will were inticed,' every such person shall be put to death. Or if any man shall act upon himself; and in the sight of others spill his owne seed, by example, or counsel, or both, corrupting or tempting others to doe the like, which tends to the sin of Sodomy, if it be not one kind of it; or shall defile, or corrupt himself and others, by any kind of sinfulthinesse, he shall be punished according to the nature of the offence; or if the case considered with the aggravating circumstances, shall according to the mind of God revealed in his word require it, he shall be put to death, as the court of magistrates shall determine.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again with a 'law' that doesn't exist in any legal search engine.
> 
> I am not saying that you are making it up- I am just pointing out that you posting the claim here is no evidence that this 'law' against everything from buggery to masturbation existed.
> 
> Why don't you provide an actual citation?
Click to expand...


Your choosing to get an education in American history and constitutional law on an internet search engine is probably the reason you have failed to investigate my elementary production of pre-constitutional state laws and post-constitutional state laws. I really cannot help you with that handicap.


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> You cannot rely or authorize judges on benches to act as popes to legislate beliefs
> and endorse some over others..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We rely upon judges for among other things, to rule on the Constitution.
> 
> Judges are not legislating anything.
> 
> They are overturning unconstitutional laws.
> 
> Judges have done this in a myriad of issues- including
> Birth Control
> Voting rights
> Gun rights
> Marriage law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue of birth control, gun laws, and marriage laws are all constitutional laws and are not under the purview of any branch of the federal government.
> 
> Nowhere in the Constitution has voting rights been conferred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have very simply stated the truth of the matter. The Federal Government is under the Constitution. Not vice versa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Federal government, state governments and all of us are subject to the Constitution.
Click to expand...


The state governments are only subjected to the powers they ceded in Article I, and the Constitution has no power over any individual other than treason. That is what is referred to as the rule of law.


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> You cannot rely or authorize judges on benches to act as popes to legislate beliefs
> and endorse some over others..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We rely upon judges for among other things, to rule on the Constitution.
> 
> Judges are not legislating anything.
> 
> They are overturning unconstitutional laws.
> 
> Judges have done this in a myriad of issues- including
> Birth Control
> Voting rights
> Gun rights
> Marriage law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue of birth control, gun laws, and marriage laws are all constitutional laws and are not under the purview of any branch of the federal government.
> 
> Nowhere in the Constitution has voting rights been conferred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well thank you for your opinion.
> 
> I will instead listen to the Supreme Court- a body of legal scholars who both have far more knowledge of the Constitution than you, and also the authority to enforce the Constitution.
Click to expand...



That makes a lot of sense to me. So I assume you will stop raping my ocular devices with your baseless constitutional and history conjecture.


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws of the State of New York 1787:
> 
> 
> BE it enacted by the people of the state of New-York, represented in senate and assembly, and it is hereby enabled by the authority of the same, That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery, committed with mankind or beast, shall be from henceforth adjudged felony; and such order and form process therein, shall be used against the offenders, as in cases of felony at the common law; and that every person being thereof convicted, by verdict, confession or outlawry, shall be hanged by the neck, until he or she shall be dead.​Rhode Island's Public Laws of 1798:
> 
> That every person who shall be convicted of sodomy, or of being accessary thereto before the fact, shall, for the first offence, be carried to the gallows in a cart, and set upon the said gallows, for a space of time not exceeding four hours, and thence to the common goal, there to be confined for a term not exceeding three years, and shall be grievously fined at the discretion of the Court; and for the second offense shall suffer death.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again- you cite a law against 'buggery'- how does that apply to lesbians? Or even gay men who do not engage in 'buggery'- it applies to any person- man or woman who engages in buggery.
> 
> You know for someone who loves to argue 'law' it is amazing how you make a legal claim- that laws against same sex marriage have existed since the 1600's and you still can't find any examples to support your claim.
> 
> You know- its okay to just admit you were wrong- that you were mistaken.
Click to expand...


Your choosing to get an education in American history and constitutional law on an internet search engine is probably the reason you have failed to investigate my elementary production of pre-constitutional state laws and post-constitutional state laws. I really cannot help you with that handicap.

 Perhaps someone can draw you a picture of how a man being with a man and a women being with a women being a capital offense would preclude same-sex marriage. My amusement with internet trolls quickly wanes.


----------



## IsaacNewton

Child Abuse Statistics

I hear conservatives constantly say "this is a Christian nation" and now the whole 'gay's can't marry or raise children it's dangerous'. 

Apparently all these Christians and straight parents are harming millions of children without any help from anyone else.


----------



## emilynghiem

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked for proof of that claim for days now- and you haven't provided a single citation to back up your claim. Odd isn't it that you can pull out stuff from the Federalists papers but can't provide a single legal citation to back up your claim?
> 
> Or answer why 30 states suddenly in the last 20 years passed laws against same sex marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did. I provided one of the laws and the pertinent language in the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No legal citation- the 'law' you cited doesn't even appear when searched for online. Not on Lexis.
> Lexis® Web - Results for ""New England Body of Liberties""
> Not on Cornell Universities legal research engine
> Site
> 
> Did you make it up? Maybe.
> 
> Now why did states suddenly start passing laws against same sex marriage- if it was already illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps I can give you a few more examples of pre-Constitution laws and post-Constitution laws since you are consumed regarding the New England Body of Liberties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not consumed- I am enjoying pointing out that you cited a law that doesn't appear in any legal search engine- so support your claim that laws against same sex marriage have existed in the United States since the 1600's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is apparent that you are a-paint-by-the-numbers internet troll, so I will expend very little effort to present any actual facts to one of your ilk.
> 
> What you have pointed out is that you are dependent on the internet for this particular knowledge. Your choosing to get an education in American history and constitutional law on an internet search engine is probably the reason you have failed to investigate my elementary production of pre-constitutional state laws and post-constitutional state laws. I really cannot help you with that handicap.
Click to expand...


Dear Tennyson thanks again for posting here. I recommended you and this thread to a hs student in govt.
This is very educational to give the historical background and references, thank you.

One major correction Syriusly is not a troll, by any means.
Of all the liberals who post their arguments, Syriusly and C_Clayton_Jones
are among the few who will cite history and work with the details to this degree!

Please do not slap down the few who actually attempt to take responsibility for what they are presenting.
I don't agree, but applaud their efforts to maintain this level of discourse at all 
that I don't find with others who just parrot what other people say and don't go into the historical and legal meanings.

Thanks Syriusly and C_Clayton_Jones I recommended
your posts for the hs student to follow, since it's important to see both sides.
I likened this to the same debates that federalists and antifederalists went through.
It's very important and appreciated that we respect each other
and keep the lines of communication and dialogue open.
Especially where we disagree. Thank you all! 
Yours truly, Emily


----------



## Tennyson

emilynghiem said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did. I provided one of the laws and the pertinent language in the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No legal citation- the 'law' you cited doesn't even appear when searched for online. Not on Lexis.
> Lexis® Web - Results for ""New England Body of Liberties""
> Not on Cornell Universities legal research engine
> Site
> 
> Did you make it up? Maybe.
> 
> Now why did states suddenly start passing laws against same sex marriage- if it was already illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps I can give you a few more examples of pre-Constitution laws and post-Constitution laws since you are consumed regarding the New England Body of Liberties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not consumed- I am enjoying pointing out that you cited a law that doesn't appear in any legal search engine- so support your claim that laws against same sex marriage have existed in the United States since the 1600's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is apparent that you are a-paint-by-the-numbers internet troll, so I will expend very little effort to present any actual facts to one of your ilk.
> 
> What you have pointed out is that you are dependent on the internet for this particular knowledge. Your choosing to get an education in American history and constitutional law on an internet search engine is probably the reason you have failed to investigate my elementary production of pre-constitutional state laws and post-constitutional state laws. I really cannot help you with that handicap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Tennyson thanks again for posting here. I recommended you and this thread to a hs student in govt.
> This is very educational to give the historical background and references, thank you.
> 
> One major correction Syriusly is not a troll, by any means.
> Of all the liberals who post their arguments, Syriusly and C_Clayton_Jones
> are among the few who will cite history and work with the details to this degree!
> 
> Please do not slap down the few who actually attempt to take responsibility for what they are presenting.
> I don't agree, but applaud their efforts to maintain this level of discourse at all
> that I don't find with others who just parrot what other people say and don't go into the historical and legal meanings.
> 
> Thanks Syriusly and C_Clayton_Jones I recommended
> your posts for the hs student to follow, since it's important to see both sides.
> I likened this to the same debates that federalists and antifederalists went through.
> It's very important and appreciated that we respect each other
> and keep the lines of communication and dialogue open.
> Especially where we disagree. Thank you all!
> Yours truly, Emily
Click to expand...


Emilynghiem,

I guess we all have our definitions of what constitutes a troll. Mine is someone who avoids evidence or facts such as the laws I presented, does not provide historical evidence to substantiate their claims, relies on proxy arguments, and cannot make a rebuttal devoid of a churlish remark. If I have overlooked any evidence that Syriusly has presented or misinterpreted his statements as churlish, then I am in error.,


----------



## emilynghiem

IsaacNewton said:


> Child Abuse Statistics
> 
> I hear conservatives constantly say "this is a Christian nation" and now the whole 'gay's can't marry or raise children it's dangerous'.
> 
> Apparently all these Christians and straight parents are harming millions of children without any help from anyone else.



Dear IsaacNewton The solution is still being censored from both sides.
The same spiritual healing that has been used to address, heal and even cure the causes
of sexual abuse and addiction
are rejected by the SECULAR media and politics that have demonized Christianity
but also censored by the Christians who reject medical research into these methods.

Christian doctors have been researching the process by which
spiritual healing is used to cure diseases, including mental criminal and sexual addiction that leads to abuse.
But the same doctors ran into as much opposition from Christians opposing the research
as I do with secular people opposing the practice of spiritual healing on its face.

So both sides and the "false division between faith and science"
have been cited for the reason these abuses continue
when the cure for them has already been found
and just can't get researched because of this divide.


----------



## emilynghiem

Tennyson said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No legal citation- the 'law' you cited doesn't even appear when searched for online. Not on Lexis.
> Lexis® Web - Results for ""New England Body of Liberties""
> Not on Cornell Universities legal research engine
> Site
> 
> Did you make it up? Maybe.
> 
> Now why did states suddenly start passing laws against same sex marriage- if it was already illegal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I can give you a few more examples of pre-Constitution laws and post-Constitution laws since you are consumed regarding the New England Body of Liberties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not consumed- I am enjoying pointing out that you cited a law that doesn't appear in any legal search engine- so support your claim that laws against same sex marriage have existed in the United States since the 1600's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is apparent that you are a-paint-by-the-numbers internet troll, so I will expend very little effort to present any actual facts to one of your ilk.
> 
> What you have pointed out is that you are dependent on the internet for this particular knowledge. Your choosing to get an education in American history and constitutional law on an internet search engine is probably the reason you have failed to investigate my elementary production of pre-constitutional state laws and post-constitutional state laws. I really cannot help you with that handicap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Tennyson thanks again for posting here. I recommended you and this thread to a hs student in govt.
> This is very educational to give the historical background and references, thank you.
> 
> One major correction Syriusly is not a troll, by any means.
> Of all the liberals who post their arguments, Syriusly and C_Clayton_Jones
> are among the few who will cite history and work with the details to this degree!
> 
> Please do not slap down the few who actually attempt to take responsibility for what they are presenting.
> I don't agree, but applaud their efforts to maintain this level of discourse at all
> that I don't find with others who just parrot what other people say and don't go into the historical and legal meanings.
> 
> Thanks Syriusly and C_Clayton_Jones I recommended
> your posts for the hs student to follow, since it's important to see both sides.
> I likened this to the same debates that federalists and antifederalists went through.
> It's very important and appreciated that we respect each other
> and keep the lines of communication and dialogue open.
> Especially where we disagree. Thank you all!
> Yours truly, Emily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emilynghiem,
> 
> I guess we all have our definitions of what constitutes a troll. Mine is someone who avoids evidence or facts such as the laws I presented, does not provide historical evidence to substantiate their claims, relies on proxy arguments, and cannot make a rebuttal devoid of a churlish remark. If I have overlooked any evidence that Syriusly has presented or misinterpreted his statements as churlish, then I am in error.,
Click to expand...


Thanks Tennyson the people called trolls on here, Syriusly is far from that.
You have extremely high standards, and not many people would meet them.
I applaud that and don't want you to lower your standards, but
I think it hurts the cause to slap down the people trying to make the effort just because it fails.

The real trolls to me are the ones who post just to inflame and incite.
No thought at all goes into the posts to try to resolve or involve anyone in meaningful discourse.
Syriusly is really trying to pick through arguments back and forth.
Perhaps it's that we're not as adept or knowledgeable as you, you cannot tell who is trying or not.

If you are a musician with perfect pitch, and a student is off key, that's off regardless, I understand.
But as to whether that person is TRYING to tune better, and still not quite on the same pitch, I think it's better not
to call someone names who is TRYING, and save that for the people honking just to make noise and get a reaction.


----------



## emilynghiem

Tennyson said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No legal citation- the 'law' you cited doesn't even appear when searched for online. Not on Lexis.
> Lexis® Web - Results for ""New England Body of Liberties""
> Not on Cornell Universities legal research engine
> Site
> 
> Did you make it up? Maybe.
> 
> Now why did states suddenly start passing laws against same sex marriage- if it was already illegal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I can give you a few more examples of pre-Constitution laws and post-Constitution laws since you are consumed regarding the New England Body of Liberties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not consumed- I am enjoying pointing out that you cited a law that doesn't appear in any legal search engine- so support your claim that laws against same sex marriage have existed in the United States since the 1600's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is apparent that you are a-paint-by-the-numbers internet troll, so I will expend very little effort to present any actual facts to one of your ilk.
> 
> What you have pointed out is that you are dependent on the internet for this particular knowledge. Your choosing to get an education in American history and constitutional law on an internet search engine is probably the reason you have failed to investigate my elementary production of pre-constitutional state laws and post-constitutional state laws. I really cannot help you with that handicap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Tennyson thanks again for posting here. I recommended you and this thread to a hs student in govt.
> This is very educational to give the historical background and references, thank you.
> 
> One major correction Syriusly is not a troll, by any means.
> Of all the liberals who post their arguments, Syriusly and C_Clayton_Jones
> are among the few who will cite history and work with the details to this degree!
> 
> Please do not slap down the few who actually attempt to take responsibility for what they are presenting.
> I don't agree, but applaud their efforts to maintain this level of discourse at all
> that I don't find with others who just parrot what other people say and don't go into the historical and legal meanings.
> 
> Thanks Syriusly and C_Clayton_Jones I recommended
> your posts for the hs student to follow, since it's important to see both sides.
> I likened this to the same debates that federalists and antifederalists went through.
> It's very important and appreciated that we respect each other
> and keep the lines of communication and dialogue open.
> Especially where we disagree. Thank you all!
> Yours truly, Emily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emilynghiem,
> 
> I guess we all have our definitions of what constitutes a troll. Mine is someone who avoids evidence or facts such as the laws I presented, does not provide historical evidence to substantiate their claims, relies on proxy arguments, and cannot make a rebuttal devoid of a churlish remark. If I have overlooked any evidence that Syriusly has presented or misinterpreted his statements as churlish, then I am in error.,
Click to expand...


^ by your definition most people I know avoid facts or arguments that don't help their cause ^ that doesn't do enough to distinguish people who are trying but just don't relate so they skip or ignore something vs people with no intent to try Tennyson

I use troll to mean someone who isn't trying to communicate or engage, just hit and run to start stuff with others.
And not stick around to discuss anything further. I save the term troll for that. So S and CCJ are not that,
but are here to try to defend and discuss what is wrong with arguments or statements as they come across.


----------



## Tennyson

emilynghiem said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I can give you a few more examples of pre-Constitution laws and post-Constitution laws since you are consumed regarding the New England Body of Liberties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not consumed- I am enjoying pointing out that you cited a law that doesn't appear in any legal search engine- so support your claim that laws against same sex marriage have existed in the United States since the 1600's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is apparent that you are a-paint-by-the-numbers internet troll, so I will expend very little effort to present any actual facts to one of your ilk.
> 
> What you have pointed out is that you are dependent on the internet for this particular knowledge. Your choosing to get an education in American history and constitutional law on an internet search engine is probably the reason you have failed to investigate my elementary production of pre-constitutional state laws and post-constitutional state laws. I really cannot help you with that handicap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Tennyson thanks again for posting here. I recommended you and this thread to a hs student in govt.
> This is very educational to give the historical background and references, thank you.
> 
> One major correction Syriusly is not a troll, by any means.
> Of all the liberals who post their arguments, Syriusly and C_Clayton_Jones
> are among the few who will cite history and work with the details to this degree!
> 
> Please do not slap down the few who actually attempt to take responsibility for what they are presenting.
> I don't agree, but applaud their efforts to maintain this level of discourse at all
> that I don't find with others who just parrot what other people say and don't go into the historical and legal meanings.
> 
> Thanks Syriusly and C_Clayton_Jones I recommended
> your posts for the hs student to follow, since it's important to see both sides.
> I likened this to the same debates that federalists and antifederalists went through.
> It's very important and appreciated that we respect each other
> and keep the lines of communication and dialogue open.
> Especially where we disagree. Thank you all!
> Yours truly, Emily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emilynghiem,
> 
> I guess we all have our definitions of what constitutes a troll. Mine is someone who avoids evidence or facts such as the laws I presented, does not provide historical evidence to substantiate their claims, relies on proxy arguments, and cannot make a rebuttal devoid of a churlish remark. If I have overlooked any evidence that Syriusly has presented or misinterpreted his statements as churlish, then I am in error.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks Tennyson the people called trolls on here, Syriusly is far from that.
> You have extremely high standards, and not many people would meet them.
> I applaud that and don't want you to lower your standards, but
> I think it hurts the cause to slap down the people trying to make the effort just because it fails.
> 
> The real trolls to me are the ones who post just to inflame and incite.
> No thought at all goes into the posts to try to resolve or involve anyone in meaningful discourse.
> Syriusly is really trying to pick through arguments back and forth.
> Perhaps it's that we're not as adept or knowledgeable as you, you cannot tell who is trying or not.
> 
> If you are a musician with perfect pitch, and a student is off key, that's off regardless, I understand.
> But as to whether that person is TRYING to tune better, and still not quite on the same pitch, I think it's better not
> to call someone names who is TRYING, and save that for the people honking just to make noise and get a reaction.
Click to expand...


Emilynghiem, 

I like the cut of your jib.


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> You cannot rely or authorize judges on benches to act as popes to legislate beliefs
> and endorse some over others..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We rely upon judges for among other things, to rule on the Constitution.
> 
> Judges are not legislating anything.
> 
> They are overturning unconstitutional laws.
> 
> Judges have done this in a myriad of issues- including
> Birth Control
> Voting rights
> Gun rights
> Marriage law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue of birth control, gun laws, and marriage laws are all constitutional laws and are not under the purview of any branch of the federal government.
> 
> Nowhere in the Constitution has voting rights been conferred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well thank you for your opinion.
> 
> I will instead listen to the Supreme Court- a body of legal scholars who both have far more knowledge of the Constitution than you, and also the authority to enforce the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Dear Syriusly when it comes to BELIEFS
only you have the right to determine your BELIEFS
CCJ likewise, me to my BELIEFS and Tennyson likewise

No Justice on any court, regardless of credentials or background history
has the right to dictate to any of us what are beliefs are as long as
we aren't breaking any OTHER laws which CAN be enforced equally.

I still argue that if you or Tennyson or CCJ or me
abuse party or courts to IMPOSE our BELIEFS through GOVT
so as to exclude disparage or discriminate against the CREED or BELIEFS of others,
that act of abusing collective resources through GOVT to abridge equal rights of others is unlawful.
It's against equal protections of the laws, the Code of Ethics for Govt Service to put PARTY before
public duty and oath to uphold the Constitution, and it's discrimination by CREED.

I respect that we have different beliefs as individuals.
But where it comes to BELIEFS like these in Public Policy,
no, I do not believe or consent to judges abused to impose beliefs without consent of others affected.

I believe to uphold Constitutional principles of equal protections,
it is legally necessary to kick conflicts regarding beliefs back to the
people in conflict to resolve among ourselves first. 

That is my belief in consensus when it comes to policies where because
of our beliefs, we do not concede to majority rule being used or abused
to override our beliefs because someone else had the majority behind their belief.

I do not agree to do this with areas of political beliefs I find people do not agree to change by force of law:
gun rights
voting rights
right to life
right to health care
marriage and orientation/identity issues
prayer and spiritual healing and practice
death penalty abortion euthanasia termination issues
(and some areas of immigration and citizenship, legalization of drugs and prostitution etc)

Because of beliefs involved in these areas cannot be changed by force of law
without causing people to feel discriminated against by people of other beliefs,
I recommend conflict resolution, mediation and consensus on these issues
and assistance and means for separating funding and policy where disagreements cannot be resolved otherwise.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> You cannot rely or authorize judges on benches to act as popes to legislate beliefs
> and endorse some over others..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We rely upon judges for among other things, to rule on the Constitution.
> 
> Judges are not legislating anything.
> 
> They are overturning unconstitutional laws.
> 
> Judges have done this in a myriad of issues- including
> Birth Control
> Voting rights
> Gun rights
> Marriage law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue of birth control, gun laws, and marriage laws are all constitutional laws and are not under the purview of any branch of the federal government.
> 
> Nowhere in the Constitution has voting rights been conferred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well thank you for your opinion.
> 
> I will instead listen to the Supreme Court- a body of legal scholars who both have far more knowledge of the Constitution than you, and also the authority to enforce the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Syriusly when it comes to BELIEFS
> only you have the right to determine your BELIEFS
> CCJ likewise, me to my BELIEFS and Tennyson likewise
> 
> No Justice on any court, regardless of credentials or background history
> has the right to dictate to any of us what are beliefs are as long as
> we aren't breaking any OTHER laws which CAN be enforced equally.
> 
> I still argue that if you or Tennyson or CCJ or me
> abuse party or courts to IMPOSE our BELIEFS through GOVT
> so as to exclude disparage or discriminate against the CREED or BELIEFS of others,
> that act of abusing collective resources through GOVT to abridge equal rights of others is unlawful.
> It's against equal protections of the laws, the Code of Ethics for Govt Service to put PARTY before
> public duty and oath to uphold the Constitution, and it's discrimination by CREED.
> 
> I respect that we have different beliefs as individuals.
> But where it comes to BELIEFS like these in Public Policy,
> no, I do not believe or consent to judges abused to impose beliefs without consent of others affected.
> 
> I believe to uphold Constitutional principles of equal protections,
> it is legally necessary to kick conflicts regarding beliefs back to the
> people in conflict to resolve among ourselves first.
> 
> That is my belief in consensus when it comes to policies where because
> of our beliefs, we do not concede to majority rule being used or abused
> to override our beliefs because someone else had the majority behind their belief.
> 
> I do not agree to do this with areas of political beliefs I find people do not agree to change by force of law:
> gun rights
> voting rights
> right to life
> right to health care
> marriage and orientation/identity issues
> prayer and spiritual healing and practice
> death penalty abortion euthanasia termination issues
> (and some areas of immigration and citizenship, legalization of drugs and prostitution etc)
> 
> Because of beliefs involved in these areas cannot be changed by force of law
> without causing people to feel discriminated against by people of other beliefs,
> I recommend conflict resolution, mediation and consensus on these issues
> and assistance and means for separating funding and policy where disagreements cannot be resolved otherwise.
Click to expand...

No one is trying to ‘change’ belief.

Constitutional case law is binding only on government, restricting government only, not private persons or organizations, who remain at liberty to believe whatever they so desire.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> You cannot rely or authorize judges on benches to act as popes to legislate beliefs
> and endorse some over others..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We rely upon judges for among other things, to rule on the Constitution.
> 
> Judges are not legislating anything.
> 
> They are overturning unconstitutional laws.
> 
> Judges have done this in a myriad of issues- including
> Birth Control
> Voting rights
> Gun rights
> Marriage law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue of birth control, gun laws, and marriage laws are all constitutional laws and are not under the purview of any branch of the federal government.
> 
> Nowhere in the Constitution has voting rights been conferred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well thank you for your opinion.
> 
> I will instead listen to the Supreme Court- a body of legal scholars who both have far more knowledge of the Constitution than you, and also the authority to enforce the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Syriusly when it comes to BELIEFS
> only you have the right to determine your BELIEFS.
Click to expand...


Yep.

No one is arguing otherwise.


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked for proof of that claim for days now- and you haven't provided a single citation to back up your claim. Odd isn't it that you can pull out stuff from the Federalists papers but can't provide a single legal citation to back up your claim?
> 
> Or answer why 30 states suddenly in the last 20 years passed laws against same sex marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did. I provided one of the laws and the pertinent language in the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No legal citation- the 'law' you cited doesn't even appear when searched for online. Not on Lexis.
> Lexis® Web - Results for ""New England Body of Liberties""
> Not on Cornell Universities legal research engine
> Site
> 
> Did you make it up? Maybe.
> 
> Now why did states suddenly start passing laws against same sex marriage- if it was already illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps I can give you a few more examples of pre-Constitution laws and post-Constitution laws since you are consumed regarding the New England Body of Liberties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not consumed- I am enjoying pointing out that you cited a law that doesn't appear in any legal search engine- so support your claim that laws against same sex marriage have existed in the United States since the 1600's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is apparent that you are a-paint-by-the-numbers internet troll, so I will expend very little effort to present any actual facts to one of your ilk.
> 
> What you have pointed out is that you are dependent on the internet for this particular knowledge. Your choosing to get an education in American history and constitutional law on an internet search engine is probably the reason you have failed to investigate my elementary production of pre-constitutional state laws and post-constitutional state laws. I really cannot help you with that handicap.
Click to expand...


I am the kind of troll that challenges a poster to back up their claims. 

You are the kind of troll that makes unsubstantiated claims and gets pissy when challenged to back them up.

You have yet to provide a single law that prohibited same sex marriage- did you lie when you made the original claim? Or were you just trolling? 

I researched using legal search engines- you used.....well some unknown, unspecified source. 

Apparently just to troll.


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not- because the courts don't write law- they can only overturn illegal laws.
> 
> Just as they did in Loving v. Virginia- and just as they did in Obergefell.
> 
> That is one of the responsibilities courts have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly we agree on this
> Where there is disagreement is whether it takes
> WRITTEN laws or amendments to establish or "create" right to marriage
> through govt, and it isn't just done by judges striking down other laws as unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we have a right to privacy? Do we have a right to marriage?
> 
> The Supreme Court says yes- we do- and what do they base that on?
> 
> The 9th Amendment
> _The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
> _
> The Constitution doesn't mention 'privacy'- but we do have the right to privacy- and aren't we all glad we do?
> _Privacy_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Fifth Amendment does mention privacy. It is described and and defined based of of writs of assistance, John Wilkes and Number 45, and Charles Paxton.
> 
> The Ninth Amendment regarded state's rights by limiting the interpretation powers of Article I, Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not one mention of privacy
> 
> 5th Amendment
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously I accidentally used the Fifth Amendment instead of the Fourth as the Fifth was the subject of my last post.
> 
> The Fourth Amendment does mention privacy. It is described and defined based of writs of assistance, John Wilkes and Number 45, and Charles Paxton.
> 
> The Ninth Amendment regarded state's rights by limiting the interpretation powers of Article I, Section 8.
Click to expand...


Don't blame me for your mistake. A simple mea culpa would suffice.


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws of the State of New York 1787:
> 
> 
> BE it enacted by the people of the state of New-York, represented in senate and assembly, and it is hereby enabled by the authority of the same, That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery, committed with mankind or beast, shall be from henceforth adjudged felony; and such order and form process therein, shall be used against the offenders, as in cases of felony at the common law; and that every person being thereof convicted, by verdict, confession or outlawry, shall be hanged by the neck, until he or she shall be dead.​Rhode Island's Public Laws of 1798:
> 
> That every person who shall be convicted of sodomy, or of being accessary thereto before the fact, shall, for the first offence, be carried to the gallows in a cart, and set upon the said gallows, for a space of time not exceeding four hours, and thence to the common goal, there to be confined for a term not exceeding three years, and shall be grievously fined at the discretion of the Court; and for the second offense shall suffer death.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again- you cite a law against 'buggery'- how does that apply to lesbians? Or even gay men who do not engage in 'buggery'- it applies to any person- man or woman who engages in buggery.
> 
> You know for someone who loves to argue 'law' it is amazing how you make a legal claim- that laws against same sex marriage have existed since the 1600's and you still can't find any examples to support your claim.
> 
> You know- its okay to just admit you were wrong- that you were mistaken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your choosing to get an education in American history and constitutional law on an internet search engine is probably the reason you have failed to investigate my elementary production of pre-constitutional state laws and post-constitutional state laws. I really cannot help you with that handicap.
> 
> Perhaps someone can draw you a picture of how a man being with a man and a women being with a women being a capital offense would preclude same-sex marriage. My amusement with internet trolls quickly wanes.
Click to expand...


Then why do you troll here? 

The laws you listed applied to married couples and unmarried couples alike- but not two women having sex together. 

My amusement with pointing out your fallacies and your inability to back up your claims just continues on.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

emilynghiem said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Child Abuse Statistics
> 
> I hear conservatives constantly say "this is a Christian nation" and now the whole 'gay's can't marry or raise children it's dangerous'.
> 
> Apparently all these Christians and straight parents are harming millions of children without any help from anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear IsaacNewton The solution is still being censored from both sides.
> The same spiritual healing that has been used to address, heal and even cure the causes
> of sexual abuse and addiction
> are rejected by the SECULAR media and politics that have demonized Christianity
> but also censored by the Christians who reject medical research into these methods.
> 
> Christian doctors have been researching the process by which
> spiritual healing is used to cure diseases, including mental criminal and sexual addiction that leads to abuse.
> But the same doctors ran into as much opposition from Christians opposing the research
> as I do with secular people opposing the practice of spiritual healing on its face.
> 
> So both sides and the "false division between faith and science"
> have been cited for the reason these abuses continue
> when the cure for them has already been found
> and just can't get researched because of this divide.
Click to expand...

And how does this in any manner address the fact that denying same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Child Abuse Statistics
> 
> I hear conservatives constantly say "this is a Christian nation" and now the whole 'gay's can't marry or raise children it's dangerous'.
> 
> Apparently all these Christians and straight parents are harming millions of children without any help from anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear IsaacNewton The solution is still being censored from both sides.
> The same spiritual healing that has been used to address, heal and even cure the causes
> of sexual abuse and addiction
> are rejected by the SECULAR media and politics that have demonized Christianity
> but also censored by the Christians who reject medical research into these methods.
> 
> Christian doctors have been researching the process by which
> spiritual healing is used to cure diseases, including mental criminal and sexual addiction that leads to abuse.
> But the same doctors ran into as much opposition from Christians opposing the research
> as I do with secular people opposing the practice of spiritual healing on its face.
> 
> So both sides and the "false division between faith and science"
> have been cited for the reason these abuses continue
> when the cure for them has already been found
> and just can't get researched because of this divide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how does this in any manner address the fact that denying same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...


Dear C_Clayton_Jones
If the laws are written where they introduce a faith based bias in belief
that not all people of that state believe in, then that is a violation of
Freedom of Religion and equal protection of the laws from Discrimination by Creed.

The laws must either be written neutrally where there is no objection due to faith based
bias from ANY person affected by that law,
or the people of that state can agree to enforce rights equally
such as right to marriage and right to prayer where neither side
feels the other group's beliefs are being established by the state to their exclusion.

When all the people and groups in a state are satisfied
that NOBODY's beliefs are being favored or established by govt,
then I'd say they have written or negotiated the laws in proper
balance where there is AGREEMENT there is EQUAL PROTECTION 
of the laws and NOT any discrimination by creed going on.

As long as one side or the other is complaining,
something isn't right with the writing, interpretation or enforcement
and someone is saying it's not equally protecting the people of all beliefs
as the Fourteenth Amendment is supposes to protect religious freedom for all
(and the Civil Rights extensions added the language for "creed" where I include LGBT policies)


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Child Abuse Statistics
> 
> I hear conservatives constantly say "this is a Christian nation" and now the whole 'gay's can't marry or raise children it's dangerous'.
> 
> Apparently all these Christians and straight parents are harming millions of children without any help from anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear IsaacNewton The solution is still being censored from both sides.
> The same spiritual healing that has been used to address, heal and even cure the causes
> of sexual abuse and addiction
> are rejected by the SECULAR media and politics that have demonized Christianity
> but also censored by the Christians who reject medical research into these methods.
> 
> Christian doctors have been researching the process by which
> spiritual healing is used to cure diseases, including mental criminal and sexual addiction that leads to abuse.
> But the same doctors ran into as much opposition from Christians opposing the research
> as I do with secular people opposing the practice of spiritual healing on its face.
> 
> So both sides and the "false division between faith and science"
> have been cited for the reason these abuses continue
> when the cure for them has already been found
> and just can't get researched because of this divide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how does this in any manner address the fact that denying same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> If the laws are written where they introduce a faith based bias in belief
> that not all people of that state believe in, then that is a violation of
> Freedom of Religion and equal protection of the laws from Discrimination by Creed.
> 
> The laws must either be written neutrally where there is no objection due to faith based
> bias from ANY person affected by that law,)
Click to expand...


What makes you think that?

Do you think that child abuse laws cannot be written to prevent beating of children even if someone's religious belief includes beating of children?

That laws regarding blood transfusions can't be written even though there are those whose religious beliefs are opposed to blood transfusions?

Hell- that laws that ensure that anyone regardless of their race can marry each other- even though there were those whose religious beliefs said that people of different races should not mix?

There is not a law that could be written that no one would not object to.


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Child Abuse Statistics
> 
> I hear conservatives constantly say "this is a Christian nation" and now the whole 'gay's can't marry or raise children it's dangerous'.
> 
> Apparently all these Christians and straight parents are harming millions of children without any help from anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear IsaacNewton The solution is still being censored from both sides.
> The same spiritual healing that has been used to address, heal and even cure the causes
> of sexual abuse and addiction
> are rejected by the SECULAR media and politics that have demonized Christianity
> but also censored by the Christians who reject medical research into these methods.
> 
> Christian doctors have been researching the process by which
> spiritual healing is used to cure diseases, including mental criminal and sexual addiction that leads to abuse.
> But the same doctors ran into as much opposition from Christians opposing the research
> as I do with secular people opposing the practice of spiritual healing on its face.
> 
> So both sides and the "false division between faith and science"
> have been cited for the reason these abuses continue
> when the cure for them has already been found
> and just can't get researched because of this divide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how does this in any manner address the fact that denying same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> If the laws are written where they introduce a faith based bias in belief
> that not all people of that state believe in, then that is a violation of
> Freedom of Religion and equal protection of the laws from Discrimination by Creed.
> 
> The laws must either be written neutrally where there is no objection due to faith based
> bias from ANY person affected by that law,)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think that?
> 
> Do you think that child abuse laws cannot be written to prevent beating of children even if someone's religious belief includes beating of children?
> 
> That laws regarding blood transfusions can't be written even though there are those whose religious beliefs are opposed to blood transfusions?
> 
> Hell- that laws that ensure that anyone regardless of their race can marry each other- even though there were those whose religious beliefs said that people of different races should not mix?
> 
> There is not a law that could be written that no one would not object to.
Click to expand...

Dear Syriusly
1. With abusing children, the abusers do not agree to be abused; so it violates their own natural laws they are under to treat others as they want to be treated. They do not consent to these laws.
Ironic you should bring this up, because I similarly argue that liberal secularists do not agree to abuse govt to establish biased faith based beliefs they disagree with -- ie when it comes to beliefs in right to prayer or public expression of Christian belief this is BARRED from public institutions to endorse through government as is the right to life REJECTED and kept out of laws where it imposes an unwanted bias in BELIEF.
THE liberal believers in separation of church and state DON'T agree to have abuses of government pushed on them, thus it contradicts abusing govt to push LGBT beliefs and bias on others through govt.

Ironic isn't it?

2. FALSE Syriusly the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed UNANIMOUSLY by Congress in 1980, and look how well it is written, read the 10 articles and tell me you don't agree these are well composed and comprehensive in scope:
www.ethics-commission.net

We CAN write and enforce laws in agreement when we define common goals and resolve conflicts and objections to reach those goals together. Ppl do this all the time, reach an agreed understanding first by mutual consent that is fully informed. Why not enforce that as common standard on law? Make sure ppl consent to a contract, how it's written and what it means, before we agree to finalize it uphold and enforce it. Common sense, right?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

emilynghiem said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Child Abuse Statistics
> 
> I hear conservatives constantly say "this is a Christian nation" and now the whole 'gay's can't marry or raise children it's dangerous'.
> 
> Apparently all these Christians and straight parents are harming millions of children without any help from anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear IsaacNewton The solution is still being censored from both sides.
> The same spiritual healing that has been used to address, heal and even cure the causes
> of sexual abuse and addiction
> are rejected by the SECULAR media and politics that have demonized Christianity
> but also censored by the Christians who reject medical research into these methods.
> 
> Christian doctors have been researching the process by which
> spiritual healing is used to cure diseases, including mental criminal and sexual addiction that leads to abuse.
> But the same doctors ran into as much opposition from Christians opposing the research
> as I do with secular people opposing the practice of spiritual healing on its face.
> 
> So both sides and the "false division between faith and science"
> have been cited for the reason these abuses continue
> when the cure for them has already been found
> and just can't get researched because of this divide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how does this in any manner address the fact that denying same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> If the laws are written where they introduce a faith based bias in belief
> that not all people of that state believe in, then that is a violation of
> Freedom of Religion and equal protection of the laws from Discrimination by Creed.
> 
> The laws must either be written neutrally where there is no objection due to faith based
> bias from ANY person affected by that law,
> or the people of that state can agree to enforce rights equally
> such as right to marriage and right to prayer where neither side
> feels the other group's beliefs are being established by the state to their exclusion.
> 
> When all the people and groups in a state are satisfied
> that NOBODY's beliefs are being favored or established by govt,
> then I'd say they have written or negotiated the laws in proper
> balance where there is AGREEMENT there is EQUAL PROTECTION
> of the laws and NOT any discrimination by creed going on.
> 
> As long as one side or the other is complaining,
> something isn't right with the writing, interpretation or enforcement
> and someone is saying it's not equally protecting the people of all beliefs
> as the Fourteenth Amendment is supposes to protect religious freedom for all
> (and the Civil Rights extensions added the language for "creed" where I include LGBT policies)
Click to expand...

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence that prohibits the states from denying same-sex couples access to marriage law applies solely to state governments, not private persons or private organizations.

As private organizations churches are at liberty to refuse to accommodate same-sex couples with regard to religious marriage rituals, or interracial couples, or couples of another faith.

Private religious entities have the First Amendment right to associate freely, to refuse to afford marriage to same-sex couples with complete impunity.

No ‘beliefs’ are being ‘violated’ when same-sex couples marry in the context of state marriage contract law.


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Child Abuse Statistics
> 
> I hear conservatives constantly say "this is a Christian nation" and now the whole 'gay's can't marry or raise children it's dangerous'.
> 
> Apparently all these Christians and straight parents are harming millions of children without any help from anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear IsaacNewton The solution is still being censored from both sides.
> The same spiritual healing that has been used to address, heal and even cure the causes
> of sexual abuse and addiction
> are rejected by the SECULAR media and politics that have demonized Christianity
> but also censored by the Christians who reject medical research into these methods.
> 
> Christian doctors have been researching the process by which
> spiritual healing is used to cure diseases, including mental criminal and sexual addiction that leads to abuse.
> But the same doctors ran into as much opposition from Christians opposing the research
> as I do with secular people opposing the practice of spiritual healing on its face.
> 
> So both sides and the "false division between faith and science"
> have been cited for the reason these abuses continue
> when the cure for them has already been found
> and just can't get researched because of this divide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how does this in any manner address the fact that denying same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> If the laws are written where they introduce a faith based bias in belief
> that not all people of that state believe in, then that is a violation of
> Freedom of Religion and equal protection of the laws from Discrimination by Creed.
> 
> The laws must either be written neutrally where there is no objection due to faith based
> bias from ANY person affected by that law,
> or the people of that state can agree to enforce rights equally
> such as right to marriage and right to prayer where neither side
> feels the other group's beliefs are being established by the state to their exclusion.
> 
> When all the people and groups in a state are satisfied
> that NOBODY's beliefs are being favored or established by govt,
> then I'd say they have written or negotiated the laws in proper
> balance where there is AGREEMENT there is EQUAL PROTECTION
> of the laws and NOT any discrimination by creed going on.
> 
> As long as one side or the other is complaining,
> something isn't right with the writing, interpretation or enforcement
> and someone is saying it's not equally protecting the people of all beliefs
> as the Fourteenth Amendment is supposes to protect religious freedom for all
> (and the Civil Rights extensions added the language for "creed" where I include LGBT policies)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th Amendment jurisprudence that prohibits the states from denying same-sex couples access to marriage law applies solely to state governments, not private persons or private organizations.
> 
> As private organizations churches are at liberty to refuse to accommodate same-sex couples with regard to religious marriage rituals, or interracial couples, or couples of another faith.
> 
> Private religious entities have the First Amendment right to associate freely, to refuse to afford marriage to same-sex couples with complete impunity.
> 
> No ‘beliefs’ are being ‘violated’ when same-sex couples marry in the context of state marriage contract law.
Click to expand...

C_Clayton_Jones 
Sure in states where Christian prayer can be established through govt and it's not challenged as violating any beliefs.
Otherwise discrimination by creed is going on, if laws recognize right to marriage including homosexual beliefs endorsed and established by govt as a protected class but not right to prayer and Christian beliefs about prayer equally protected from exclusion from public policy and institutions


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Child Abuse Statistics
> 
> I hear conservatives constantly say "this is a Christian nation" and now the whole 'gay's can't marry or raise children it's dangerous'.
> 
> Apparently all these Christians and straight parents are harming millions of children without any help from anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear IsaacNewton The solution is still being censored from both sides.
> The same spiritual healing that has been used to address, heal and even cure the causes
> of sexual abuse and addiction
> are rejected by the SECULAR media and politics that have demonized Christianity
> but also censored by the Christians who reject medical research into these methods.
> 
> Christian doctors have been researching the process by which
> spiritual healing is used to cure diseases, including mental criminal and sexual addiction that leads to abuse.
> But the same doctors ran into as much opposition from Christians opposing the research
> as I do with secular people opposing the practice of spiritual healing on its face.
> 
> So both sides and the "false division between faith and science"
> have been cited for the reason these abuses continue
> when the cure for them has already been found
> and just can't get researched because of this divide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how does this in any manner address the fact that denying same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> If the laws are written where they introduce a faith based bias in belief
> that not all people of that state believe in, then that is a violation of
> Freedom of Religion and equal protection of the laws from Discrimination by Creed.
> 
> The laws must either be written neutrally where there is no objection due to faith based
> bias from ANY person affected by that law,)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think that?
> 
> Do you think that child abuse laws cannot be written to prevent beating of children even if someone's religious belief includes beating of children?
> 
> That laws regarding blood transfusions can't be written even though there are those whose religious beliefs are opposed to blood transfusions?
> 
> Hell- that laws that ensure that anyone regardless of their race can marry each other- even though there were those whose religious beliefs said that people of different races should not mix?
> 
> There is not a law that could be written that no one would not object to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Syriusly
> 1. With abusing children, the abusers do not agree to be abused; so it violates their own natural laws they are under to treat others as they want to be treated. They do not consent to these laws.
> Ironic you should bring this up, because I similarly argue that liberal secularists do not agree to abuse govt to establish biased faith based beliefs they disagree with -- ie when it comes to beliefs in right to prayer or public expression of Christian belief this is BARRED from public institutions to endorse through government as is the right to life REJECTED and kept out of laws where it imposes an unwanted bias in BELIEF.
> THE liberal believers in separation of church and state DON'T agree to have abuses of government pushed on them, thus it contradicts abusing govt to push LGBT beliefs and bias on others through govt.
> 
> Ironic isn't it?
> 
> 2. FALSE Syriusly the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed UNANIMOUSLY by Congress in 1980, and look how well it is written, read the 10 articles and tell me you don't agree these are well composed and comprehensive in scope:
> www.ethics-commission.net
> 
> We CAN write and enforce laws in agreement when we define common goals and resolve conflicts and objections to reach those goals together. Ppl do this all the time, reach an agreed understanding first by mutual consent that is fully informed. Why not enforce that as common standard on law? Make sure ppl consent to a contract, how it's written and what it means, before we agree to finalize it uphold and enforce it. Common sense, right?
Click to expand...

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Prohibiting the states from violating the equal protection and due process rights of same-sex couples is not ‘forcing’ anything on anyone or anything.

No ‘beliefs’ are being ‘forced’ on anyone or anything when the states are appropriately and lawfully compelled to recognize the rights of same-sex couples as acknowledged and safeguarded by the 14th Amendment.

Private citizens retain the right to hate homosexuals, to oppose same-sex couples in the context of religious marriage, and to hold the belief that same-sex couples marrying is ‘immoral’ and a ‘sin,’ free from interference by the state.


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear IsaacNewton The solution is still being censored from both sides.
> The same spiritual healing that has been used to address, heal and even cure the causes
> of sexual abuse and addiction
> are rejected by the SECULAR media and politics that have demonized Christianity
> but also censored by the Christians who reject medical research into these methods.
> 
> Christian doctors have been researching the process by which
> spiritual healing is used to cure diseases, including mental criminal and sexual addiction that leads to abuse.
> But the same doctors ran into as much opposition from Christians opposing the research
> as I do with secular people opposing the practice of spiritual healing on its face.
> 
> So both sides and the "false division between faith and science"
> have been cited for the reason these abuses continue
> when the cure for them has already been found
> and just can't get researched because of this divide.
> 
> 
> 
> And how does this in any manner address the fact that denying same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> If the laws are written where they introduce a faith based bias in belief
> that not all people of that state believe in, then that is a violation of
> Freedom of Religion and equal protection of the laws from Discrimination by Creed.
> 
> The laws must either be written neutrally where there is no objection due to faith based
> bias from ANY person affected by that law,)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think that?
> 
> Do you think that child abuse laws cannot be written to prevent beating of children even if someone's religious belief includes beating of children?
> 
> That laws regarding blood transfusions can't be written even though there are those whose religious beliefs are opposed to blood transfusions?
> 
> Hell- that laws that ensure that anyone regardless of their race can marry each other- even though there were those whose religious beliefs said that people of different races should not mix?
> 
> There is not a law that could be written that no one would not object to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Syriusly
> 1. With abusing children, the abusers do not agree to be abused; so it violates their own natural laws they are under to treat others as they want to be treated. They do not consent to these laws.
> Ironic you should bring this up, because I similarly argue that liberal secularists do not agree to abuse govt to establish biased faith based beliefs they disagree with -- ie when it comes to beliefs in right to prayer or public expression of Christian belief this is BARRED from public institutions to endorse through government as is the right to life REJECTED and kept out of laws where it imposes an unwanted bias in BELIEF.
> THE liberal believers in separation of church and state DON'T agree to have abuses of government pushed on them, thus it contradicts abusing govt to push LGBT beliefs and bias on others through govt.
> 
> Ironic isn't it?
> 
> 2. FALSE Syriusly the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed UNANIMOUSLY by Congress in 1980, and look how well it is written, read the 10 articles and tell me you don't agree these are well composed and comprehensive in scope:
> www.ethics-commission.net
> 
> We CAN write and enforce laws in agreement when we define common goals and resolve conflicts and objections to reach those goals together. Ppl do this all the time, reach an agreed understanding first by mutual consent that is fully informed. Why not enforce that as common standard on law? Make sure ppl consent to a contract, how it's written and what it means, before we agree to finalize it uphold and enforce it. Common sense, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This makes no sense whatsoever.
> 
> Prohibiting the states from violating the equal protection and due process rights of same-sex couples is not ‘forcing’ anything on anyone or anything.
> 
> No ‘beliefs’ are being ‘forced’ on anyone or anything when the states are appropriately and lawfully compelled to recognize the rights of same-sex couples as acknowledged and safeguarded by the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Private citizens retain the right to hate homosexuals, to oppose same-sex couples in the context of religious marriage, and to hold the belief that same-sex couples marrying is ‘immoral’ and a ‘sin,’ free from interference by the state.
Click to expand...

Okay great C_Clayton_Jones 
So let's enforce the same with right to prayer that we enforce with right to marriage.

Let's enforce right to life as we enforce right to health care.

Let's enforce right to guns as we enforce right to vote, by agreement between parties 

And YES I agree we can enforce equal protections of the law without violating anyone's beliefs. AGREED.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how does this in any manner address the fact that denying same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> If the laws are written where they introduce a faith based bias in belief
> that not all people of that state believe in, then that is a violation of
> Freedom of Religion and equal protection of the laws from Discrimination by Creed.
> 
> The laws must either be written neutrally where there is no objection due to faith based
> bias from ANY person affected by that law,)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think that?
> 
> Do you think that child abuse laws cannot be written to prevent beating of children even if someone's religious belief includes beating of children?
> 
> That laws regarding blood transfusions can't be written even though there are those whose religious beliefs are opposed to blood transfusions?
> 
> Hell- that laws that ensure that anyone regardless of their race can marry each other- even though there were those whose religious beliefs said that people of different races should not mix?
> 
> There is not a law that could be written that no one would not object to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Syriusly
> 1. With abusing children, the abusers do not agree to be abused; so it violates their own natural laws they are under to treat others as they want to be treated. They do not consent to these laws.
> Ironic you should bring this up, because I similarly argue that liberal secularists do not agree to abuse govt to establish biased faith based beliefs they disagree with -- ie when it comes to beliefs in right to prayer or public expression of Christian belief this is BARRED from public institutions to endorse through government as is the right to life REJECTED and kept out of laws where it imposes an unwanted bias in BELIEF.
> THE liberal believers in separation of church and state DON'T agree to have abuses of government pushed on them, thus it contradicts abusing govt to push LGBT beliefs and bias on others through govt.
> 
> Ironic isn't it?
> 
> 2. FALSE Syriusly the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed UNANIMOUSLY by Congress in 1980, and look how well it is written, read the 10 articles and tell me you don't agree these are well composed and comprehensive in scope:
> www.ethics-commission.net
> 
> We CAN write and enforce laws in agreement when we define common goals and resolve conflicts and objections to reach those goals together. Ppl do this all the time, reach an agreed understanding first by mutual consent that is fully informed. Why not enforce that as common standard on law? Make sure ppl consent to a contract, how it's written and what it means, before we agree to finalize it uphold and enforce it. Common sense, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This makes no sense whatsoever.
> 
> Prohibiting the states from violating the equal protection and due process rights of same-sex couples is not ‘forcing’ anything on anyone or anything.
> 
> No ‘beliefs’ are being ‘forced’ on anyone or anything when the states are appropriately and lawfully compelled to recognize the rights of same-sex couples as acknowledged and safeguarded by the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Private citizens retain the right to hate homosexuals, to oppose same-sex couples in the context of religious marriage, and to hold the belief that same-sex couples marrying is ‘immoral’ and a ‘sin,’ free from interference by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay great C_Clayton_Jones
> So let's enforce the same with right to prayer that we enforce with right to marriage.
> 
> Let's enforce right to life as we enforce right to health care.
> 
> Let's enforce right to guns as we enforce right to vote, by agreement between parties
> 
> And YES I agree we can enforce equal protections of the law without violating anyone's beliefs. AGREED.
Click to expand...

They are enforced the same. People get to pray and they get to marry.


----------



## Tennyson

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear IsaacNewton The solution is still being censored from both sides.
> The same spiritual healing that has been used to address, heal and even cure the causes
> of sexual abuse and addiction
> are rejected by the SECULAR media and politics that have demonized Christianity
> but also censored by the Christians who reject medical research into these methods.
> 
> Christian doctors have been researching the process by which
> spiritual healing is used to cure diseases, including mental criminal and sexual addiction that leads to abuse.
> But the same doctors ran into as much opposition from Christians opposing the research
> as I do with secular people opposing the practice of spiritual healing on its face.
> 
> So both sides and the "false division between faith and science"
> have been cited for the reason these abuses continue
> when the cure for them has already been found
> and just can't get researched because of this divide.
> 
> 
> 
> And how does this in any manner address the fact that denying same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> If the laws are written where they introduce a faith based bias in belief
> that not all people of that state believe in, then that is a violation of
> Freedom of Religion and equal protection of the laws from Discrimination by Creed.
> 
> The laws must either be written neutrally where there is no objection due to faith based
> bias from ANY person affected by that law,)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think that?
> 
> Do you think that child abuse laws cannot be written to prevent beating of children even if someone's religious belief includes beating of children?
> 
> That laws regarding blood transfusions can't be written even though there are those whose religious beliefs are opposed to blood transfusions?
> 
> Hell- that laws that ensure that anyone regardless of their race can marry each other- even though there were those whose religious beliefs said that people of different races should not mix?
> 
> There is not a law that could be written that no one would not object to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Syriusly
> 1. With abusing children, the abusers do not agree to be abused; so it violates their own natural laws they are under to treat others as they want to be treated. They do not consent to these laws.
> Ironic you should bring this up, because I similarly argue that liberal secularists do not agree to abuse govt to establish biased faith based beliefs they disagree with -- ie when it comes to beliefs in right to prayer or public expression of Christian belief this is BARRED from public institutions to endorse through government as is the right to life REJECTED and kept out of laws where it imposes an unwanted bias in BELIEF.
> THE liberal believers in separation of church and state DON'T agree to have abuses of government pushed on them, thus it contradicts abusing govt to push LGBT beliefs and bias on others through govt.
> 
> Ironic isn't it?
> 
> 2. FALSE Syriusly the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed UNANIMOUSLY by Congress in 1980, and look how well it is written, read the 10 articles and tell me you don't agree these are well composed and comprehensive in scope:
> www.ethics-commission.net
> 
> We CAN write and enforce laws in agreement when we define common goals and resolve conflicts and objections to reach those goals together. Ppl do this all the time, reach an agreed understanding first by mutual consent that is fully informed. Why not enforce that as common standard on law? Make sure ppl consent to a contract, how it's written and what it means, before we agree to finalize it uphold and enforce it. Common sense, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This makes no sense whatsoever.
> 
> Prohibiting the states from violating the equal protection and due process rights of same-sex couples is not ‘forcing’ anything on anyone or anything.
> 
> No ‘beliefs’ are being ‘forced’ on anyone or anything when the states are appropriately and lawfully compelled to recognize the rights of same-sex couples as acknowledged and safeguarded by the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Private citizens retain the right to hate homosexuals, to oppose same-sex couples in the context of religious marriage, and to hold the belief that same-sex couples marrying is ‘immoral’ and a ‘sin,’ free from interference by the state.
Click to expand...


Can you explain how a state can violate the equal protection and due process rights of same-sex couples when the equal protection clause and the procedural due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment were created to govern judicial proceedings and not the laws?

Can you also explain what common law is, what forced it to start being codified in the seventeenth century, 14th Amendment jurisprudence vis-à-vis a written constitution?


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> [Q
> We CAN write and enforce laws in agreement when we define common goals and resolve conflicts and objections to reach those goals together. Ppl do this all the time, reach an agreed understanding first by mutual consent that is fully informed. Why not enforce that as common standard on law? Make sure ppl consent to a contract, how it's written and what it means, before we agree to finalize it uphold and enforce it. Common sense, right?



We define our highest common goals as the U.S. Constitution. 

the people of  State of Virginia agreed by 'mutual consent' to deny mixed race couples their right to marry.

That violated the U.S. Constitution- and was overturned.

Mutual consent cannot violate the Constitution.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how does this in any manner address the fact that denying same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> If the laws are written where they introduce a faith based bias in belief
> that not all people of that state believe in, then that is a violation of
> Freedom of Religion and equal protection of the laws from Discrimination by Creed.
> 
> The laws must either be written neutrally where there is no objection due to faith based
> bias from ANY person affected by that law,)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think that?
> 
> Do you think that child abuse laws cannot be written to prevent beating of children even if someone's religious belief includes beating of children?
> 
> That laws regarding blood transfusions can't be written even though there are those whose religious beliefs are opposed to blood transfusions?
> 
> Hell- that laws that ensure that anyone regardless of their race can marry each other- even though there were those whose religious beliefs said that people of different races should not mix?
> 
> There is not a law that could be written that no one would not object to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Syriusly
> 1. With abusing children, the abusers do not agree to be abused; so it violates their own natural laws they are under to treat others as they want to be treated. They do not consent to these laws.
> Ironic you should bring this up, because I similarly argue that liberal secularists do not agree to abuse govt to establish biased faith based beliefs they disagree with -- ie when it comes to beliefs in right to prayer or public expression of Christian belief this is BARRED from public institutions to endorse through government as is the right to life REJECTED and kept out of laws where it imposes an unwanted bias in BELIEF.
> THE liberal believers in separation of church and state DON'T agree to have abuses of government pushed on them, thus it contradicts abusing govt to push LGBT beliefs and bias on others through govt.
> 
> Ironic isn't it?
> 
> 2. FALSE Syriusly the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed UNANIMOUSLY by Congress in 1980, and look how well it is written, read the 10 articles and tell me you don't agree these are well composed and comprehensive in scope:
> www.ethics-commission.net
> 
> We CAN write and enforce laws in agreement when we define common goals and resolve conflicts and objections to reach those goals together. Ppl do this all the time, reach an agreed understanding first by mutual consent that is fully informed. Why not enforce that as common standard on law? Make sure ppl consent to a contract, how it's written and what it means, before we agree to finalize it uphold and enforce it. Common sense, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This makes no sense whatsoever.
> 
> Prohibiting the states from violating the equal protection and due process rights of same-sex couples is not ‘forcing’ anything on anyone or anything.
> 
> No ‘beliefs’ are being ‘forced’ on anyone or anything when the states are appropriately and lawfully compelled to recognize the rights of same-sex couples as acknowledged and safeguarded by the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Private citizens retain the right to hate homosexuals, to oppose same-sex couples in the context of religious marriage, and to hold the belief that same-sex couples marrying is ‘immoral’ and a ‘sin,’ free from interference by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay great C_Clayton_Jones
> So let's enforce the same with right to prayer that we enforce with right to marriage.
> 
> Let's enforce right to life as we enforce right to health care.
> 
> Let's enforce right to guns as we enforce right to vote, by agreement between parties
> 
> And YES I agree we can enforce equal protections of the law without violating anyone's beliefs. AGREED.
Click to expand...


We enforce all of those through both laws and the courts. 

When States decide to violate gun rights or the right to prayer- the courts can overturn such laws or actions.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

emilynghiem said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how does this in any manner address the fact that denying same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> If the laws are written where they introduce a faith based bias in belief
> that not all people of that state believe in, then that is a violation of
> Freedom of Religion and equal protection of the laws from Discrimination by Creed.
> 
> The laws must either be written neutrally where there is no objection due to faith based
> bias from ANY person affected by that law,)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think that?
> 
> Do you think that child abuse laws cannot be written to prevent beating of children even if someone's religious belief includes beating of children?
> 
> That laws regarding blood transfusions can't be written even though there are those whose religious beliefs are opposed to blood transfusions?
> 
> Hell- that laws that ensure that anyone regardless of their race can marry each other- even though there were those whose religious beliefs said that people of different races should not mix?
> 
> There is not a law that could be written that no one would not object to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Syriusly
> 1. With abusing children, the abusers do not agree to be abused; so it violates their own natural laws they are under to treat others as they want to be treated. They do not consent to these laws.
> Ironic you should bring this up, because I similarly argue that liberal secularists do not agree to abuse govt to establish biased faith based beliefs they disagree with -- ie when it comes to beliefs in right to prayer or public expression of Christian belief this is BARRED from public institutions to endorse through government as is the right to life REJECTED and kept out of laws where it imposes an unwanted bias in BELIEF.
> THE liberal believers in separation of church and state DON'T agree to have abuses of government pushed on them, thus it contradicts abusing govt to push LGBT beliefs and bias on others through govt.
> 
> Ironic isn't it?
> 
> 2. FALSE Syriusly the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed UNANIMOUSLY by Congress in 1980, and look how well it is written, read the 10 articles and tell me you don't agree these are well composed and comprehensive in scope:
> www.ethics-commission.net
> 
> We CAN write and enforce laws in agreement when we define common goals and resolve conflicts and objections to reach those goals together. Ppl do this all the time, reach an agreed understanding first by mutual consent that is fully informed. Why not enforce that as common standard on law? Make sure ppl consent to a contract, how it's written and what it means, before we agree to finalize it uphold and enforce it. Common sense, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This makes no sense whatsoever.
> 
> Prohibiting the states from violating the equal protection and due process rights of same-sex couples is not ‘forcing’ anything on anyone or anything.
> 
> No ‘beliefs’ are being ‘forced’ on anyone or anything when the states are appropriately and lawfully compelled to recognize the rights of same-sex couples as acknowledged and safeguarded by the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Private citizens retain the right to hate homosexuals, to oppose same-sex couples in the context of religious marriage, and to hold the belief that same-sex couples marrying is ‘immoral’ and a ‘sin,’ free from interference by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay great C_Clayton_Jones
> So let's enforce the same with right to prayer that we enforce with right to marriage.
> 
> Let's enforce right to life as we enforce right to health care.
> 
> Let's enforce right to guns as we enforce right to vote, by agreement between parties
> 
> And YES I agree we can enforce equal protections of the law without violating anyone's beliefs. AGREED.
Click to expand...

You still don’t understand.

Just as 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to government, where private citizens and organizations remain at liberty to hate gay Americans and discriminate against same-sex couples, so too does Establishment Clause jurisprudence apply solely to government, where private citizens and organizations remain at liberty to worship however they see fit, to pray in any venue they so desire, or to be free from religious doctrine and dogma altogether.

For example, teachers and students in public schools are at liberty to pray and engage in religious expression with the understanding that such religious expression is not compelled by the government (schools are components of government), does not manifest as an excessive entanglement of government and religion, and is otherwise not disruptive of normal school proceedings.

What you fail to understand is that the Constitution places limits and restrictions only on government, not private persons – government is subject to Constitutional limitations, government is prohibited from violating citizens’ protected liberties, government may not seek to disadvantage a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are; private citizens are free to discriminate, free to exclude, free to be frightened, ignorant, hateful bigots and racists.

You need to stop confusing the two – restrictions on government are not restrictions on private persons.

And prohibiting private persons from using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.


----------



## Tennyson

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> If the laws are written where they introduce a faith based bias in belief
> that not all people of that state believe in, then that is a violation of
> Freedom of Religion and equal protection of the laws from Discrimination by Creed.
> 
> The laws must either be written neutrally where there is no objection due to faith based
> bias from ANY person affected by that law,)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think that?
> 
> Do you think that child abuse laws cannot be written to prevent beating of children even if someone's religious belief includes beating of children?
> 
> That laws regarding blood transfusions can't be written even though there are those whose religious beliefs are opposed to blood transfusions?
> 
> Hell- that laws that ensure that anyone regardless of their race can marry each other- even though there were those whose religious beliefs said that people of different races should not mix?
> 
> There is not a law that could be written that no one would not object to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Syriusly
> 1. With abusing children, the abusers do not agree to be abused; so it violates their own natural laws they are under to treat others as they want to be treated. They do not consent to these laws.
> Ironic you should bring this up, because I similarly argue that liberal secularists do not agree to abuse govt to establish biased faith based beliefs they disagree with -- ie when it comes to beliefs in right to prayer or public expression of Christian belief this is BARRED from public institutions to endorse through government as is the right to life REJECTED and kept out of laws where it imposes an unwanted bias in BELIEF.
> THE liberal believers in separation of church and state DON'T agree to have abuses of government pushed on them, thus it contradicts abusing govt to push LGBT beliefs and bias on others through govt.
> 
> Ironic isn't it?
> 
> 2. FALSE Syriusly the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed UNANIMOUSLY by Congress in 1980, and look how well it is written, read the 10 articles and tell me you don't agree these are well composed and comprehensive in scope:
> www.ethics-commission.net
> 
> We CAN write and enforce laws in agreement when we define common goals and resolve conflicts and objections to reach those goals together. Ppl do this all the time, reach an agreed understanding first by mutual consent that is fully informed. Why not enforce that as common standard on law? Make sure ppl consent to a contract, how it's written and what it means, before we agree to finalize it uphold and enforce it. Common sense, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This makes no sense whatsoever.
> 
> Prohibiting the states from violating the equal protection and due process rights of same-sex couples is not ‘forcing’ anything on anyone or anything.
> 
> No ‘beliefs’ are being ‘forced’ on anyone or anything when the states are appropriately and lawfully compelled to recognize the rights of same-sex couples as acknowledged and safeguarded by the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Private citizens retain the right to hate homosexuals, to oppose same-sex couples in the context of religious marriage, and to hold the belief that same-sex couples marrying is ‘immoral’ and a ‘sin,’ free from interference by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay great C_Clayton_Jones
> So let's enforce the same with right to prayer that we enforce with right to marriage.
> 
> Let's enforce right to life as we enforce right to health care.
> 
> Let's enforce right to guns as we enforce right to vote, by agreement between parties
> 
> And YES I agree we can enforce equal protections of the law without violating anyone's beliefs. AGREED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don’t understand.
> 
> Just as 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to government, where private citizens and organizations remain at liberty to hate gay Americans and discriminate against same-sex couples, so too does Establishment Clause jurisprudence apply solely to government, where private citizens and organizations remain at liberty to worship however they see fit, to pray in any venue they so desire, or to be free from religious doctrine and dogma altogether.
> 
> For example, teachers and students in public schools are at liberty to pray and engage in religious expression with the understanding that such religious expression is not compelled by the government (schools are components of government), does not manifest as an excessive entanglement of government and religion, and is otherwise not disruptive of normal school proceedings.
> 
> What you fail to understand is that the Constitution places limits and restrictions only on government, not private persons – government is subject to Constitutional limitations, government is prohibited from violating citizens’ protected liberties, government may not seek to disadvantage a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are; private citizens are free to discriminate, free to exclude, free to be frightened, ignorant, hateful bigots and racists.
> 
> You need to stop confusing the two – restrictions on government are not restrictions on private persons.
> 
> And prohibiting private persons from using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.
Click to expand...


I am curious regarding your use of the term "jurisprudence" rather than intent. Jurisprudence and case law regarding constitutional matters is not separable from common law when there is no statute or a written constitution to rely upon. So I inquire again:

Can you also explain what common law is, what forced it to start being codified in the seventeenth century, 14th Amendment jurisprudence vis-à-vis a written constitution?


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> *And prohibiting private persons from using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.*



Again C_Clayton_Jones this is what the Christians are arguing the LGBT are doing and abusing govt for:
when laws are enforced FORCING Bakers or Photographers to attend gay weddings
and to FINE and PENALIZE them by law for discrimination for seeking to defend and practice their beliefs not to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs,
that is
*private persons ... using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.*


----------



## Damaged Eagle

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> You still don’t understand.
> 
> Just as 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to government, where private citizens and organizations remain at liberty to hate gay Americans and discriminate against same-sex couples, so too does Establishment Clause jurisprudence apply solely to government, where private citizens and organizations remain at liberty to worship however they see fit, to pray in any venue they so desire, or to be free from religious doctrine and dogma altogether.
> 
> For example, teachers and students in public schools are at liberty to pray and engage in religious expression with the understanding that such religious expression is not compelled by the government (schools are components of government), does not manifest as an excessive entanglement of government and religion, and is otherwise not disruptive of normal school proceedings.
> 
> What you fail to understand is that the Constitution places limits and restrictions only on government, not private persons – government is subject to Constitutional limitations, government is prohibited from violating citizens’ protected liberties, government may not seek to disadvantage a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are; private citizens are free to discriminate, free to exclude, free to be frightened, ignorant, hateful bigots and racists.
> 
> You need to stop confusing the two – restrictions on government are not restrictions on private persons.
> 
> And prohibiting private persons from using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.








Then you'll have no problem allowing all mature willing companions to make marriage arrangements however they choose and with whoever they choose so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

After all we don't want to discriminate or violate the Constitution... like the 14th Amendment.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And prohibiting private persons from using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again C_Clayton_Jones this is what the Christians are arguing the LGBT are doing and abusing govt for:
> when laws are enforced FORCING Bakers or Photographers to attend gay weddings
> and to FINE and PENALIZE them by law for discrimination for seeking to defend and practice their beliefs not to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs,
> that is
> *private persons ... using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.*
Click to expand...


And requiring 'Christians' to rent rooms to mixed race couples is using the government to require a business to provide services to persons regardless of their own personal religious beliefs.

Remember- if we allow a business to refuse to do business with a person because of the business owners personal religious beliefs- that means we allow business's to refuse to do business with Christians or Jews, Blacks or Chinese, handicapped or Veterans.


----------



## DOTR

What is left is limited. The Supreme Court has substituted its own fads for the law and the sycophants who vote Hillary have decided they are beyond even criticism much less being subject to any check or balance.
  There are alternatives. Or should be. But it should be recognized than none of them will be allowed. For instance a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage licenses. Or a convention of the states. But would it do any good? If you found men with the courage to to do that and and restricted marriage to what the people wanted you have seen the way language is twisted.
    If the people passed a constitutional amendment saying only one man and one woman would be recognized as married within a few years the Supreme Court would rule that a man has the freedom to call himself a woman and so get married under those auspices. Probably it is in the 14th amendment hidden and waiting. 

  The British are now finding out that voting for Brexit was a sham. Welcome to our world.


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> What is left is limited. The Supreme Court has substituted its own fads for the law and the sycophants who vote Hillary have decided they are beyond even criticism much less being subject to any check or balance.
> There are alternatives. Or should be. But it should be recognized than none of them will be allowed. For instance a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage licenses. Or a convention of the states. But would it do any good? If you found men with the courage to to do that and and restricted marriage to what the people wanted you have seen the way language is twisted.
> If the people passed a constitutional amendment saying only one man and one woman would be recognized as married within a few years the Supreme Court would rule that a man has the freedom to call himself a woman and so get married under those auspices. Probably it is in the 14th amendment hidden and waiting.
> 
> The British are now finding out that voting for Brexit was a sham. Welcome to our world.



Welcome to our world- where Americans can now marry regardless of the color or gender of their spouse. 

Yep- America is great.


----------



## DOTR

Maybe tomorrow we will Make America great Again...or maybe it will just be the beginning of a long fight to do so.


----------



## DOTR

"So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves....*With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them*—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—*we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.
Justice Scalia




 *


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

emilynghiem said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And prohibiting private persons from using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again C_Clayton_Jones this is what the Christians are arguing the LGBT are doing and abusing govt for:
> when laws are enforced FORCING Bakers or Photographers to attend gay weddings
> and to FINE and PENALIZE them by law for discrimination for seeking to defend and practice their beliefs not to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs,
> that is
> *private persons ... using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.*
Click to expand...

You still don’t understand.

And once again you’re confusing two different legal principles, one having nothing to do with the other.

The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures with regard to the markets, to ensure the integrity of the markets, and all other interrelated markets (_Wickard v. Filburn_).

Public accommodations laws are an example of necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause (_Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US_).

State and local public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation in no way ‘violate’ the rights or religious liberties of Christians or any other faith; and Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence has never sanctioned citizens ignoring or violating just and proper laws using religious expression as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ – requiring citizens to follow just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, does not interfere with religious liberty (_Employment Division v. Smith_).

Consequently, you’ve confused 14th Amendment jurisprudence with Commerce Clause jurisprudence – the former an example of government restriction in accordance with the Constitution, the latter an example of government regulation authorized by the Constitution.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

DOTR said:


> Maybe tomorrow we will Make America great Again...or maybe it will just be the beginning of a long fight to do so.


Nonsense.

America is currently great – no need for ‘again.’


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

DOTR said:


> What is left is limited. The Supreme Court has substituted its own fads for the law and the sycophants who vote Hillary have decided they are beyond even criticism much less being subject to any check or balance.
> There are alternatives. Or should be. But it should be recognized than none of them will be allowed. For instance a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage licenses. Or a convention of the states. But would it do any good? If you found men with the courage to to do that and and restricted marriage to what the people wanted you have seen the way language is twisted.
> If the people passed a constitutional amendment saying only one man and one woman would be recognized as married within a few years the Supreme Court would rule that a man has the freedom to call himself a woman and so get married under those auspices. Probably it is in the 14th amendment hidden and waiting.
> 
> The British are now finding out that voting for Brexit was a sham. Welcome to our world.


No, the settled and accepted case law the Supreme Court follows is not a ‘fad.’


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> "So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves....*With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them*—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—*we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.
> Justice Scalia
> 
> View attachment 97320 *



thanks for posting the statement of one of the losing arguments.


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> Maybe tomorrow we will Make America great Again...or maybe it will just be the beginning of a long fight to do so.



Poor bigots- Americans can marry regardless of their race or gender- and now you think America is not great.


----------



## Tennyson

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And prohibiting private persons from using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again C_Clayton_Jones this is what the Christians are arguing the LGBT are doing and abusing govt for:
> when laws are enforced FORCING Bakers or Photographers to attend gay weddings
> and to FINE and PENALIZE them by law for discrimination for seeking to defend and practice their beliefs not to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs,
> that is
> *private persons ... using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don’t understand.
> 
> And once again you’re confusing two different legal principles, one having nothing to do with the other.
> 
> The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures with regard to the markets, to ensure the integrity of the markets, and all other interrelated markets (_Wickard v. Filburn_).
> 
> Public accommodations laws are an example of necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause (_Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US_).
> 
> State and local public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation in no way ‘violate’ the rights or religious liberties of Christians or any other faith; and Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence has never sanctioned citizens ignoring or violating just and proper laws using religious expression as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ – requiring citizens to follow just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, does not interfere with religious liberty (_Employment Division v. Smith_).
> 
> Consequently, you’ve confused 14th Amendment jurisprudence with Commerce Clause jurisprudence – the former an example of government restriction in accordance with the Constitution, the latter an example of government regulation authorized by the Constitution.
Click to expand...





The commerce clause does not authorize anything other than to make commerce between the states regular. The founders were explicit regarding the difference between interstate and intrastate commerce. The entire impetus for amending the Articles of Confederation, which led to creating a new document, regarding onerous taxes on land-locked states imposed by states with waterways and ports. Intrastate commerce was not under the purview of the federal government, and nothing other than making the commerce between the states fair and regular was discussed by anyone who created the Constitution.

_Wickard v. Filburn _is the result of FDR threatening the pack the court and the ruling in Filburn would have made Hitler, Stalin, and currently, Putin very proud. The ruling was an abomination and went against everything the Constitution represents.

Public accommodation laws are not an example of the necessary and proper clause. That clause only gave Congress limited and enumerated power to carry out the enumerated powers and nothing more. The commerce clause and its intent have no jurisdiction over any business within a state. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. violated the purpose and soul of the Fifth Amendment.

The free exercise clause has no authority over the citizen of any state ignoring or violating any law. The right of conscience always prevailed over any law until twentieth century activist courts changed the intent.

You keep bringing up jurisprudence but never the intent. Again, is the Constitution common law?


----------



## Tennyson

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe tomorrow we will Make America great Again...or maybe it will just be the beginning of a long fight to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> America is currently great – no need for ‘again.’
Click to expand...


What is great about a country that is as bitterly divided as the U.S is today because of activist courts turning our written Constitution into a living constitution? The division is not resolvable. A perfunctory glance since recorded history began has demonstrated that the U.S. in its current state is not sustainable as a country.


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And prohibiting private persons from using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again C_Clayton_Jones this is what the Christians are arguing the LGBT are doing and abusing govt for:
> when laws are enforced FORCING Bakers or Photographers to attend gay weddings
> and to FINE and PENALIZE them by law for discrimination for seeking to defend and practice their beliefs not to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs,
> that is
> *private persons ... using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don’t understand.
> 
> And once again you’re confusing two different legal principles, one having nothing to do with the other.
> 
> The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures with regard to the markets, to ensure the integrity of the markets, and all other interrelated markets (_Wickard v. Filburn_).
> 
> Public accommodations laws are an example of necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause (_Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US_).
> 
> State and local public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation in no way ‘violate’ the rights or religious liberties of Christians or any other faith; and Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence has never sanctioned citizens ignoring or violating just and proper laws using religious expression as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ – requiring citizens to follow just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, does not interfere with religious liberty (_Employment Division v. Smith_).
> 
> Consequently, you’ve confused 14th Amendment jurisprudence with Commerce Clause jurisprudence – the former an example of government restriction in accordance with the Constitution, the latter an example of government regulation authorized by the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Dear C_Clayton_Jones
YES THEY DO because 'sexual orientation' is FAITH BASED
Not EVERYONE believes in recognizing that, they don't agree
if it's natural unnatural, or both in distinct cases, a choice of behavior or not, etc.
So the beliefs about that remain FAITH BASED and can't be legislated
by govt where it violates the beliefs of others.

Trying to protect this as a special category is like trying to protect
someone's preference of prayer or denomination that is FAITH BASED.

The right wing who BELIEVE that this is BEHAVIOR and CHOICE
ARE BEING IMPOSED UPON.

So if people AGREE to protect BELIEFS about orientation as a CREED,
that is equal to protecting beliefs about prayer and Christian expression as a CREED or BELIEF.

How you EXPRESS your orientation and how people react to your expression
is the same as how people EXPRESS their beliefs about prayer or denomination
and how people react to that expression.

I'd be okay if Christians and others AGREE that if you are going
to create special laws to defend "orientation" and expression of that,
then the same laws OUGHT to defend denomination and expression of other beliefs as well.

If everyone AGREES how to write and enforce such faith-based laws, GREAT!
I have no problem if everyone AGREES that the laws are so well written
that NOBODY feels imposed upon. however you want to achieve that, but
it must be by agreement and not coercion by govt where beliefs are involved.
If people consent, that means the issues were resolved, so that's a fair standard
to protect both sides from opposing beliefs.

So that's my belief, C_Clayton_Jones
I believe in respecting the BELIEFS of both sides since neither is proven to each other.
It has been proven to me this is a SPIRITUAL process of someone's identity and path in life
to go through either heterosexual, homosexual, LGBT or other such relationships or attractions,
BUT I DON'T IMPOSE MY SPIRITUAL BELIEFS ABOUT IT ON OTHERS.
I give equal free choice for you to believe one thing, and others to believe otherwise.

So I do NOT believe Govt has any authority to try to write or pass laws
concerning SPIRITUAL BELIEFS and differences over how to address or view homosexuality
and transgender orientation.

I believe in treating BOTH sides as spiritual BELIEFS, and/or religious and political beliefs,
and not to impose anybody's beliefs about this on any other.

So the only way i will support govt making laws on SPIRITUAL faith-based matters like this,
is to have an agreement on how such policies are WRITTEN interpreted and ENFORCED.

If people AGREE, that's fine, states can pass laws and these won't impose on people's BELIEFS.

If you don't believe this counts as BELIEFS, that IS part of your belief and I recognize that.
If you cannot resolve YOUR belief with that of someone else who BELIEVES it is choice of behavior, then either SEPARATE policies or go through conflict resolution to write a policy by consensus you both can live under.

But not a CONTESTED policy that people already object to on grounds of their BELIEFS being excluded. 
If that is what they believe, I respect their right to defend those beliefs,
equally as I respect yours. You both have to resolve conflicts or else keep it out of govt.

So either agree on consensus policy or agree to separate policies,
but I do NOT believe in one side imposing on the other. Not by govt!
You can discriminate all you want in private, but this does NOT
belong in public policy unless there is an AGREEMENT among people of different BELIEFS.

*You will NOT change my mind about these beliefs,
I will NOT change yours, thus govt has no authority to do so either!!!!*


----------



## DOTR

Tennyson said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe tomorrow we will Make America great Again...or maybe it will just be the beginning of a long fight to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> America is currently great – no need for ‘again.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is great about a country that is as bitterly divided as the U.S is today because of activist courts turning our written Constitution into a living constitution? The division is not resolvable. A perfunctory glance since recorded history began has demonstrated that the U.S. in its current state is not sustainable as a country.
Click to expand...

 
    Oh its resolvable. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

  So tell me Tennyson...once you have tried voting and it doesn't work whats next?


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And prohibiting private persons from using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again C_Clayton_Jones this is what the Christians are arguing the LGBT are doing and abusing govt for:
> when laws are enforced FORCING Bakers or Photographers to attend gay weddings
> and to FINE and PENALIZE them by law for discrimination for seeking to defend and practice their beliefs not to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs,
> that is
> *private persons ... using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don’t understand.
> 
> And once again you’re confusing two different legal principles, one having nothing to do with the other.
> 
> The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures with regard to the markets, to ensure the integrity of the markets, and all other interrelated markets (_Wickard v. Filburn_).
> 
> Public accommodations laws are an example of necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause (_Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US_).
> 
> State and local public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation in no way ‘violate’ the rights or religious liberties of Christians or any other faith; and Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence has never sanctioned citizens ignoring or violating just and proper laws using religious expression as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ – requiring citizens to follow just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, does not interfere with religious liberty (_Employment Division v. Smith_).
> 
> Consequently, you’ve confused 14th Amendment jurisprudence with Commerce Clause jurisprudence – the former an example of government restriction in accordance with the Constitution, the latter an example of government regulation authorized by the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> YES THEY DO because 'sexual orientation' is FAITH BASED*!*
Click to expand...


No it isn't.

Perhaps your sexual orientation is faith based but mine isn't.


----------



## Tennyson

DOTR said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe tomorrow we will Make America great Again...or maybe it will just be the beginning of a long fight to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> America is currently great – no need for ‘again.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is great about a country that is as bitterly divided as the U.S is today because of activist courts turning our written Constitution into a living constitution? The division is not resolvable. A perfunctory glance since recorded history began has demonstrated that the U.S. in its current state is not sustainable as a country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh its resolvable. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
> 
> So tell me Tennyson...once you have tried voting and it doesn't work whats next?
Click to expand...


I am not sure what Kennedy's sentence from the Alliance for Progress speech has to do with my statement or voting.


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And prohibiting private persons from using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again C_Clayton_Jones this is what the Christians are arguing the LGBT are doing and abusing govt for:
> when laws are enforced FORCING Bakers or Photographers to attend gay weddings
> and to FINE and PENALIZE them by law for discrimination for seeking to defend and practice their beliefs not to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs,
> that is
> *private persons ... using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don’t understand.
> 
> And once again you’re confusing two different legal principles, one having nothing to do with the other.
> 
> The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures with regard to the markets, to ensure the integrity of the markets, and all other interrelated markets (_Wickard v. Filburn_).
> 
> Public accommodations laws are an example of necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause (_Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US_).
> 
> State and local public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation in no way ‘violate’ the rights or religious liberties of Christians or any other faith; and Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence has never sanctioned citizens ignoring or violating just and proper laws using religious expression as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ – requiring citizens to follow just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, does not interfere with religious liberty (_Employment Division v. Smith_).
> 
> Consequently, you’ve confused 14th Amendment jurisprudence with Commerce Clause jurisprudence – the former an example of government restriction in accordance with the Constitution, the latter an example of government regulation authorized by the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> YES THEY DO because 'sexual orientation' is FAITH BASED*!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isn't.
> 
> Perhaps your sexual orientation is faith based but mine isn't.
Click to expand...

Syriusly compared with race which is determined by genetics, where even people of like nationality have a greater chance of HLA compatability when it comes to matching bone marrow donors to recipients,

Orientation has been known to change.
So if it can change for some people's cases
That makes it more like cultural beliefs or identity that can change, but are still the sole right of that person to defend and practice without fear of discrimination by creed, equal to the beliefs of others asking for the same respect for their beliefs on orientation and identity. If all people agree on birth and genetics to determine gender, that's fine. Like how prochoice agree right to life starts at birth as the starting line. If you want to change the recognition of gender to something other than scientifically established, that is faith based like deciding to recognize human identity at conception. If people don't agree with that faith based standard, then govt making such a law imposes a bias on those who reject that belief. And same with those who believe homosexuality and transgender identity are unnatural and a choice of Behavior. Neither that is proven nor the opposite that orientation is purely decided at birth and not a choice. So both views are equally faith based. The most that has been proven to me is some people can change and some people cannot change their orientation. I treat both cases as valid and part of their spiritual process, so it's their free choice how they define themselves similar to religious freedom which govt cannot regulate establish nor prohibit.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And prohibiting private persons from using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again C_Clayton_Jones this is what the Christians are arguing the LGBT are doing and abusing govt for:
> when laws are enforced FORCING Bakers or Photographers to attend gay weddings
> and to FINE and PENALIZE them by law for discrimination for seeking to defend and practice their beliefs not to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs,
> that is
> *private persons ... using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don’t understand.
> 
> And once again you’re confusing two different legal principles, one having nothing to do with the other.
> 
> The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures with regard to the markets, to ensure the integrity of the markets, and all other interrelated markets (_Wickard v. Filburn_).
> 
> Public accommodations laws are an example of necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause (_Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US_).
> 
> State and local public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation in no way ‘violate’ the rights or religious liberties of Christians or any other faith; and Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence has never sanctioned citizens ignoring or violating just and proper laws using religious expression as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ – requiring citizens to follow just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, does not interfere with religious liberty (_Employment Division v. Smith_).
> 
> Consequently, you’ve confused 14th Amendment jurisprudence with Commerce Clause jurisprudence – the former an example of government restriction in accordance with the Constitution, the latter an example of government regulation authorized by the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> YES THEY DO because 'sexual orientation' is FAITH BASED*!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isn't.
> 
> Perhaps your sexual orientation is faith based but mine isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Syriusly compared with race which is determined by genetics.
Click to expand...


Why are you comparing faith with race? Or sexual orientation with race? 

Is being left handed faith based? Is liking the taste of cilantro faith based?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

emilynghiem said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And prohibiting private persons from using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again C_Clayton_Jones this is what the Christians are arguing the LGBT are doing and abusing govt for:
> when laws are enforced FORCING Bakers or Photographers to attend gay weddings
> and to FINE and PENALIZE them by law for discrimination for seeking to defend and practice their beliefs not to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs,
> that is
> *private persons ... using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don’t understand.
> 
> And once again you’re confusing two different legal principles, one having nothing to do with the other.
> 
> The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures with regard to the markets, to ensure the integrity of the markets, and all other interrelated markets (_Wickard v. Filburn_).
> 
> Public accommodations laws are an example of necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause (_Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US_).
> 
> State and local public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation in no way ‘violate’ the rights or religious liberties of Christians or any other faith; and Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence has never sanctioned citizens ignoring or violating just and proper laws using religious expression as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ – requiring citizens to follow just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, does not interfere with religious liberty (_Employment Division v. Smith_).
> 
> Consequently, you’ve confused 14th Amendment jurisprudence with Commerce Clause jurisprudence – the former an example of government restriction in accordance with the Constitution, the latter an example of government regulation authorized by the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> YES THEY DO because 'sexual orientation' is FAITH BASED
> Not EVERYONE believes in recognizing that, they don't agree
> if it's natural unnatural, or both in distinct cases, a choice of behavior or not, etc.
> So the beliefs about that remain FAITH BASED and can't be legislated
> by govt where it violates the beliefs of others.
> 
> Trying to protect this as a special category is like trying to protect
> someone's preference of prayer or denomination that is FAITH BASED.
> 
> The right wing who BELIEVE that this is BEHAVIOR and CHOICE
> ARE BEING IMPOSED UPON.
> 
> So if people AGREE to protect BELIEFS about orientation as a CREED,
> that is equal to protecting beliefs about prayer and Christian expression as a CREED or BELIEF.
> 
> How you EXPRESS your orientation and how people react to your expression
> is the same as how people EXPRESS their beliefs about prayer or denomination
> and how people react to that expression.
> 
> I'd be okay if Christians and others AGREE that if you are going
> to create special laws to defend "orientation" and expression of that,
> then the same laws OUGHT to defend denomination and expression of other beliefs as well.
> 
> If everyone AGREES how to write and enforce such faith-based laws, GREAT!
> I have no problem if everyone AGREES that the laws are so well written
> that NOBODY feels imposed upon. however you want to achieve that, but
> it must be by agreement and not coercion by govt where beliefs are involved.
> If people consent, that means the issues were resolved, so that's a fair standard
> to protect both sides from opposing beliefs.
> 
> So that's my belief, C_Clayton_Jones
> I believe in respecting the BELIEFS of both sides since neither is proven to each other.
> It has been proven to me this is a SPIRITUAL process of someone's identity and path in life
> to go through either heterosexual, homosexual, LGBT or other such relationships or attractions,
> BUT I DON'T IMPOSE MY SPIRITUAL BELIEFS ABOUT IT ON OTHERS.
> I give equal free choice for you to believe one thing, and others to believe otherwise.
> 
> So I do NOT believe Govt has any authority to try to write or pass laws
> concerning SPIRITUAL BELIEFS and differences over how to address or view homosexuality
> and transgender orientation.
> 
> I believe in treating BOTH sides as spiritual BELIEFS, and/or religious and political beliefs,
> and not to impose anybody's beliefs about this on any other.
> 
> So the only way i will support govt making laws on SPIRITUAL faith-based matters like this,
> is to have an agreement on how such policies are WRITTEN interpreted and ENFORCED.
> 
> If people AGREE, that's fine, states can pass laws and these won't impose on people's BELIEFS.
> 
> If you don't believe this counts as BELIEFS, that IS part of your belief and I recognize that.
> If you cannot resolve YOUR belief with that of someone else who BELIEVES it is choice of behavior, then either SEPARATE policies or go through conflict resolution to write a policy by consensus you both can live under.
> 
> But not a CONTESTED policy that people already object to on grounds of their BELIEFS being excluded.
> If that is what they believe, I respect their right to defend those beliefs,
> equally as I respect yours. You both have to resolve conflicts or else keep it out of govt.
> 
> So either agree on consensus policy or agree to separate policies,
> but I do NOT believe in one side imposing on the other. Not by govt!
> You can discriminate all you want in private, but this does NOT
> belong in public policy unless there is an AGREEMENT among people of different BELIEFS.
> 
> *You will NOT change my mind about these beliefs,
> I will NOT change yours, thus govt has no authority to do so either!!!!*
Click to expand...

“…because 'sexual orientation' is FAITH BASED
Not EVERYONE believes in recognizing that, they don't agree
if it's natural unnatural, or both in distinct cases, a choice of behavior or not, etc.
So the beliefs about that remain FAITH BASED and can't be legislated
by govt where it violates the beliefs of others.”

Government isn’t ‘legislating’ anything.

Private citizens are at liberty to believe whatever they wish: to be heterosexual or homosexual, to believe in a ‘god’ or be free from faith altogether – unaffected by the fact of law that state governments may not deny same-sex couples access to marriage contract law they’re eligible to participate in, the fundamental tenet of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again C_Clayton_Jones this is what the Christians are arguing the LGBT are doing and abusing govt for:
> when laws are enforced FORCING Bakers or Photographers to attend gay weddings
> and to FINE and PENALIZE them by law for discrimination for seeking to defend and practice their beliefs not to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs,
> that is
> *private persons ... using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.*
> 
> 
> 
> You still don’t understand.
> 
> And once again you’re confusing two different legal principles, one having nothing to do with the other.
> 
> The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures with regard to the markets, to ensure the integrity of the markets, and all other interrelated markets (_Wickard v. Filburn_).
> 
> Public accommodations laws are an example of necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause (_Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US_).
> 
> State and local public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation in no way ‘violate’ the rights or religious liberties of Christians or any other faith; and Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence has never sanctioned citizens ignoring or violating just and proper laws using religious expression as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ – requiring citizens to follow just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, does not interfere with religious liberty (_Employment Division v. Smith_).
> 
> Consequently, you’ve confused 14th Amendment jurisprudence with Commerce Clause jurisprudence – the former an example of government restriction in accordance with the Constitution, the latter an example of government regulation authorized by the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> YES THEY DO because 'sexual orientation' is FAITH BASED*!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isn't.
> 
> Perhaps your sexual orientation is faith based but mine isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Syriusly compared with race which is determined by genetics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you comparing faith with race? Or sexual orientation with race?
> 
> Is being left handed faith based? Is liking the taste of cilantro faith based?
Click to expand...

Syriusly 
Because of critics opposed to LGBT laws as seeking special rights and recognition as a class who believe that homosexual and transgender identity are choices of BEHAVIOR and should not be protected from discrimination because ppl have the right to reject BEHAVIOR they don't agree with.

If you change all those people mind first, and they freely agree to adopt beliefs such as with Christian beliefs or Muslim beliefs, that's fine, but not be force of govt where they are vocally objecting on grounds of their beliefs.s

So yes if you want to compare with preference for foods, that is another choice of BEHAVIOR. 

If people have beliefs about rejecting pork or beef, or meat in general, they can defend that based on religious freedom, and cant be forced by govt to violate their beliefs, but govt cannot make laws endorsing a particular belief for all people unless they agree, based on this same principle.  Where govt can neither establish nor prohibit the free exercise of faith based belief religion or creed or it violates equal rights of those dissenting. If nobody dissents but all agree to laws passed by states, it's possible to have that on a state level. If people agree on a federal level, it's possible to pass laws there too without objection or lawsuit to challenge constitutionality.


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And prohibiting private persons from using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again C_Clayton_Jones this is what the Christians are arguing the LGBT are doing and abusing govt for:
> when laws are enforced FORCING Bakers or Photographers to attend gay weddings
> and to FINE and PENALIZE them by law for discrimination for seeking to defend and practice their beliefs not to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs,
> that is
> *private persons ... using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don’t understand.
> 
> And once again you’re confusing two different legal principles, one having nothing to do with the other.
> 
> The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures with regard to the markets, to ensure the integrity of the markets, and all other interrelated markets (_Wickard v. Filburn_).
> 
> Public accommodations laws are an example of necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause (_Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US_).
> 
> State and local public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation in no way ‘violate’ the rights or religious liberties of Christians or any other faith; and Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence has never sanctioned citizens ignoring or violating just and proper laws using religious expression as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ – requiring citizens to follow just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, does not interfere with religious liberty (_Employment Division v. Smith_).
> 
> Consequently, you’ve confused 14th Amendment jurisprudence with Commerce Clause jurisprudence – the former an example of government restriction in accordance with the Constitution, the latter an example of government regulation authorized by the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> YES THEY DO because 'sexual orientation' is FAITH BASED
> Not EVERYONE believes in recognizing that, they don't agree
> if it's natural unnatural, or both in distinct cases, a choice of behavior or not, etc.
> So the beliefs about that remain FAITH BASED and can't be legislated
> by govt where it violates the beliefs of others.
> 
> Trying to protect this as a special category is like trying to protect
> someone's preference of prayer or denomination that is FAITH BASED.
> 
> The right wing who BELIEVE that this is BEHAVIOR and CHOICE
> ARE BEING IMPOSED UPON.
> 
> So if people AGREE to protect BELIEFS about orientation as a CREED,
> that is equal to protecting beliefs about prayer and Christian expression as a CREED or BELIEF.
> 
> How you EXPRESS your orientation and how people react to your expression
> is the same as how people EXPRESS their beliefs about prayer or denomination
> and how people react to that expression.
> 
> I'd be okay if Christians and others AGREE that if you are going
> to create special laws to defend "orientation" and expression of that,
> then the same laws OUGHT to defend denomination and expression of other beliefs as well.
> 
> If everyone AGREES how to write and enforce such faith-based laws, GREAT!
> I have no problem if everyone AGREES that the laws are so well written
> that NOBODY feels imposed upon. however you want to achieve that, but
> it must be by agreement and not coercion by govt where beliefs are involved.
> If people consent, that means the issues were resolved, so that's a fair standard
> to protect both sides from opposing beliefs.
> 
> So that's my belief, C_Clayton_Jones
> I believe in respecting the BELIEFS of both sides since neither is proven to each other.
> It has been proven to me this is a SPIRITUAL process of someone's identity and path in life
> to go through either heterosexual, homosexual, LGBT or other such relationships or attractions,
> BUT I DON'T IMPOSE MY SPIRITUAL BELIEFS ABOUT IT ON OTHERS.
> I give equal free choice for you to believe one thing, and others to believe otherwise.
> 
> So I do NOT believe Govt has any authority to try to write or pass laws
> concerning SPIRITUAL BELIEFS and differences over how to address or view homosexuality
> and transgender orientation.
> 
> I believe in treating BOTH sides as spiritual BELIEFS, and/or religious and political beliefs,
> and not to impose anybody's beliefs about this on any other.
> 
> So the only way i will support govt making laws on SPIRITUAL faith-based matters like this,
> is to have an agreement on how such policies are WRITTEN interpreted and ENFORCED.
> 
> If people AGREE, that's fine, states can pass laws and these won't impose on people's BELIEFS.
> 
> If you don't believe this counts as BELIEFS, that IS part of your belief and I recognize that.
> If you cannot resolve YOUR belief with that of someone else who BELIEVES it is choice of behavior, then either SEPARATE policies or go through conflict resolution to write a policy by consensus you both can live under.
> 
> But not a CONTESTED policy that people already object to on grounds of their BELIEFS being excluded.
> If that is what they believe, I respect their right to defend those beliefs,
> equally as I respect yours. You both have to resolve conflicts or else keep it out of govt.
> 
> So either agree on consensus policy or agree to separate policies,
> but I do NOT believe in one side imposing on the other. Not by govt!
> You can discriminate all you want in private, but this does NOT
> belong in public policy unless there is an AGREEMENT among people of different BELIEFS.
> 
> *You will NOT change my mind about these beliefs,
> I will NOT change yours, thus govt has no authority to do so either!!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “…because 'sexual orientation' is FAITH BASED
> Not EVERYONE believes in recognizing that, they don't agree
> if it's natural unnatural, or both in distinct cases, a choice of behavior or not, etc.
> So the beliefs about that remain FAITH BASED and can't be legislated
> by govt where it violates the beliefs of others.”
> 
> Government isn’t ‘legislating’ anything.
> 
> Private citizens are at liberty to believe whatever they wish: to be heterosexual or homosexual, to believe in a ‘god’ or be free from faith altogether – unaffected by the fact of law that state governments may not deny same-sex couples access to marriage contract law they’re eligible to participate in, the fundamental tenet of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
Click to expand...

Dear C_Clayton_Jones 
No, not all people agree to grant Marriage license on these terms but might agree to Civil Unions.
Just like not all people may agree on prayer to God but may consent to moment of silence.

The people of each state have the right to arrive at their own consensus on their laws. No, they cannot force a law on people against or excluding their beliefs or its unconstitutional; and by that same standard if the word Marriage or God is not agreed upon, that language may need to be changed in order to pass and achieve consensus among the people of that state.

My suggestion is offer people of each state a choice: if opponents concede and allow Marriage to be used as the term instead of civil unions or domestic contracts, can schools and public institutions be allowed to endorse
GOD Jesus prayers crosses Bibles and all manner of Christian expression even if it conflicts with beliefs of others.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And prohibiting private persons from using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again C_Clayton_Jones this is what the Christians are arguing the LGBT are doing and abusing govt for:
> when laws are enforced FORCING Bakers or Photographers to attend gay weddings
> and to FINE and PENALIZE them by law for discrimination for seeking to defend and practice their beliefs not to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs,
> that is
> *private persons ... using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don’t understand.
> 
> And once again you’re confusing two different legal principles, one having nothing to do with the other.
> 
> The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures with regard to the markets, to ensure the integrity of the markets, and all other interrelated markets (_Wickard v. Filburn_).
> 
> Public accommodations laws are an example of necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause (_Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US_).
> 
> State and local public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation in no way ‘violate’ the rights or religious liberties of Christians or any other faith; and Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence has never sanctioned citizens ignoring or violating just and proper laws using religious expression as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ – requiring citizens to follow just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, does not interfere with religious liberty (_Employment Division v. Smith_).
> 
> Consequently, you’ve confused 14th Amendment jurisprudence with Commerce Clause jurisprudence – the former an example of government restriction in accordance with the Constitution, the latter an example of government regulation authorized by the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> YES THEY DO because 'sexual orientation' is FAITH BASED
> Not EVERYONE believes in recognizing that, they don't agree
> if it's natural unnatural, or both in distinct cases, a choice of behavior or not, etc.
> So the beliefs about that remain FAITH BASED and can't be legislated
> by govt where it violates the beliefs of others.
> 
> Trying to protect this as a special category is like trying to protect
> someone's preference of prayer or denomination that is FAITH BASED.
> 
> The right wing who BELIEVE that this is BEHAVIOR and CHOICE
> ARE BEING IMPOSED UPON.
> 
> So if people AGREE to protect BELIEFS about orientation as a CREED,
> that is equal to protecting beliefs about prayer and Christian expression as a CREED or BELIEF.
> 
> How you EXPRESS your orientation and how people react to your expression
> is the same as how people EXPRESS their beliefs about prayer or denomination
> and how people react to that expression.
> 
> I'd be okay if Christians and others AGREE that if you are going
> to create special laws to defend "orientation" and expression of that,
> then the same laws OUGHT to defend denomination and expression of other beliefs as well.
> 
> If everyone AGREES how to write and enforce such faith-based laws, GREAT!
> I have no problem if everyone AGREES that the laws are so well written
> that NOBODY feels imposed upon. however you want to achieve that, but
> it must be by agreement and not coercion by govt where beliefs are involved.
> If people consent, that means the issues were resolved, so that's a fair standard
> to protect both sides from opposing beliefs.
> 
> So that's my belief, C_Clayton_Jones
> I believe in respecting the BELIEFS of both sides since neither is proven to each other.
> It has been proven to me this is a SPIRITUAL process of someone's identity and path in life
> to go through either heterosexual, homosexual, LGBT or other such relationships or attractions,
> BUT I DON'T IMPOSE MY SPIRITUAL BELIEFS ABOUT IT ON OTHERS.
> I give equal free choice for you to believe one thing, and others to believe otherwise.
> 
> So I do NOT believe Govt has any authority to try to write or pass laws
> concerning SPIRITUAL BELIEFS and differences over how to address or view homosexuality
> and transgender orientation.
> 
> I believe in treating BOTH sides as spiritual BELIEFS, and/or religious and political beliefs,
> and not to impose anybody's beliefs about this on any other.
> 
> So the only way i will support govt making laws on SPIRITUAL faith-based matters like this,
> is to have an agreement on how such policies are WRITTEN interpreted and ENFORCED.
> 
> If people AGREE, that's fine, states can pass laws and these won't impose on people's BELIEFS.
> 
> If you don't believe this counts as BELIEFS, that IS part of your belief and I recognize that.
> If you cannot resolve YOUR belief with that of someone else who BELIEVES it is choice of behavior, then either SEPARATE policies or go through conflict resolution to write a policy by consensus you both can live under.
> 
> But not a CONTESTED policy that people already object to on grounds of their BELIEFS being excluded.
> If that is what they believe, I respect their right to defend those beliefs,
> equally as I respect yours. You both have to resolve conflicts or else keep it out of govt.
> 
> So either agree on consensus policy or agree to separate policies,
> but I do NOT believe in one side imposing on the other. Not by govt!
> You can discriminate all you want in private, but this does NOT
> belong in public policy unless there is an AGREEMENT among people of different BELIEFS.
> 
> *You will NOT change my mind about these beliefs,
> I will NOT change yours, thus govt has no authority to do so either!!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “…because 'sexual orientation' is FAITH BASED
> Not EVERYONE believes in recognizing that, they don't agree
> if it's natural unnatural, or both in distinct cases, a choice of behavior or not, etc.
> So the beliefs about that remain FAITH BASED and can't be legislated
> by govt where it violates the beliefs of others.”
> 
> Government isn’t ‘legislating’ anything.
> 
> Private citizens are at liberty to believe whatever they wish: to be heterosexual or homosexual, to believe in a ‘god’ or be free from faith altogether – unaffected by the fact of law that state governments may not deny same-sex couples access to marriage contract law they’re eligible to participate in, the fundamental tenet of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> No, not all people agree to grant Marriage license on these terms but might agree to Civil Unions.
> Just like not all people may agree on prayer to God but may consent to moment of silence.
> 
> The people of each state have the right to arrive at their own consensus on their laws. No, they cannot force a law on people against or excluding their beliefs or its unconstitutional; and by that same standard if the word Marriage or God is not agreed upon, that language may need to be changed in order to pass and achieve consensus among the people of that state.
> 
> My suggestion is offer people of each state a choice: if opponents concede and allow Marriage to be used as the term instead of civil unions or domestic contracts, can schools and public institutions be allowed to endorse
> GOD Jesus prayers crosses Bibles and all manner of Christian expression even if it conflicts with beliefs of others.
Click to expand...


----------



## Sneekin

Umm Emily, you are calling for separate but equal, which has been deemed unconstitutional how many times?  What if I don't like the term Civil Unions?   Can I call it Fried Cauliflower?   Just like we can't have separate lines for drinking fountains, or forced segregation, we can't call marriage civil unions for one part of the population, and marriage for the other.   Religious marriage is Holy Matrimony.   Civil Marriage is Marriage, and is completely different.   If you have a Holy Matrimony and your priest/rabbi/Imam/minister fails to sign the state document signifying you are married,  you aren't legally married.  So, the fact is, marriage is a secular contract between two persons (who can sign a contract and give consent).  I'm not sure where you obtain your legal answers from (on-line or mail-order, perhaps?), but according to attorneys and judges on both sides of the issue, we don't vote on the rights of the individual or group.  Check the Loving case and educate yourself.  You'll never have 100 percent turn out, and you have no clue as to the millions if not billions of dollars it would take to modify or create new laws granting civil unions the same rights as marriage (putting aside the fact that it's not constitutional).  Are you willing to personally fund this?  Your blather about it being unconstitutional and one is forcing gay marriage onto Christians is laughable, since the Supreme Court ruling, not even one Christian has been forced to be gay married, and I challenge you to prove differently.  Also, no church has been forced to gay marry anyone, which would violate their first amendment rights.  You are out of gas, and just like to hear yourself talk.  We don't get to vote on the meaning of words, you are foolish.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear C_Clayton_Jones and Sneekin 
In Sneekin post, two excerpts are highlighted in boldface:
1. Your quote which I also agree with on not disenfranchised or excluding others especially minorities
2. My quote on how neither of us is going to change each other's beliefs, so that neither should govt force either to do so

Can we focus there:
1. I do believe it is unconstitional to exclude gay marriage by law that should be free to exercise as anyone else beliefs including Christians for example, but I don't believe the way the correction is presented is the solution but creates equal problems and unintended consequences 
2. You make it clear you do not believe it imposes but only corrects, and I disagree. I have compared this to right to life beliefs that banning choice of abortion doesn't impose because abortion is murder and isn't a choice to begin with. You keep arguing that your right to choice in marriage is like right to choice in abortion and still leaves it open to choice. But marriage does NOT have to be through govt, it can be managed in private and privatize social benefits also, OR contract can be secularization as civil unions if people agree on that term and don't agree on marriage 
3. There remains a general difference in beliefs that 
A. Govt and courts can be used to decide matters of religious or faith based beliefs, while I say no, consent of the governed determines if states can pass such laws or not and federal govt can only find if it's constitutionally inclusive or unconstitutionally biased unequally and needs to be rewritten
B. Secular and political beliefs are different from religious beliefs instead of respecting creeds of persons equally and requiring consensus on law and process how to handle conflicting beliefs that include political beliefs on govt and limits or powers govt has or has not

I believe in addressing these as part of that process I hold legally necessary if I'm going to defend your beliefs equally as my own.

I don't believe I have or the govt has the right to abuse the legal or legislative system to deny abridge discriminate against or threaten your rights beliefs and protections of law and due process.

So how can I describe the problem here and the solution, so I may write letters to fellow Democrats Constitutionalists LGBT Greens and Libertarians asking help to organize a system for addressing and resolving these differences especially beliefs we cannot change? 

THANK YOU


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> Umm Emily, you are calling for separate but equal, which has been deemed unconstitutional how many times?  What if I don't like the term Civil Unions?   Can I call it Fried Cauliflower?   Just like we can't have separate lines for drinking fountains, or forced segregation, we can't call marriage civil unions for one part of the population, and marriage for the other.   Religious marriage is Holy Matrimony.   Civil Marriage is Marriage, and is completely different.   If you have a Holy Matrimony and your priest/rabbi/Imam/minister fails to sign the state document signifying you are married,  you aren't legally married.  So, the fact is, marriage is a secular contract between two persons (who can sign a contract and give consent).  I'm not sure where you obtain your legal answers from (on-line or mail-order, perhaps?), but according to attorneys and judges on both sides of the issue, we don't vote on the rights of the individual or group.  Check the Loving case and educate yourself.  You'll never have 100 percent turn out, and you have no clue as to the millions if not billions of dollars it would take to modify or create new laws granting civil unions the same rights as marriage (putting aside the fact that it's not constitutional).  Are you willing to personally fund this?  Your blather about it being unconstitutional and one is forcing gay marriage onto Christians is laughable, since the Supreme Court ruling, not even one Christian has been forced to be gay married, and I challenge you to prove differently.  Also, no church has been forced to gay marry anyone, which would violate their first amendment rights.  You are out of gas, and just like to hear yourself talk.  We don't get to vote on the meaning of words, you are foolish.


Dear Sneekin That's where I compare "moment of silence" that was accepted and passed into state laws but "prayer" is not endorsed for public institutions only for individuals.

This is more than just wording but preference on how the practice is done. Christians who believe in collective prayer joined in Christ aren't happy either with reducing it to moment of silence that isn't the same as agreeing in Christ what is prayed for.
But that's all the public could agree on.

The other issue is benefits which again can be privatized for all people so it's equal.

GALVESTON has its own social security system that residents pay their taxes to instead of federal. We can all do the same.

The LGBT may even save up more money than others as the LGBT business community that already invests in LGBT friendly businesses does financially well.

If people don't agree on a state level because of beliefs, find out how to make this balanced.

I know other Christians who like this idea of opening up public institutions to God Jesup and prayer in public if the LGBT expressions and practices are going to be endorsed and implemented in public policy.

If you are going to preach inclusion, then allow and endorse it equally for Christian beliefs and practices. Don't require their beliefs in public prayer joined in Christian to be excluded from public functions by reducing it to moment of silence in private which is different, then expect to be included when it's your turn to want gay marriage incorporated in govt instead of secular civil unions.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> Umm Emily, you are calling for separate but equal, which has been deemed unconstitutional how many times?  What if I don't like the term Civil Unions?   Can I call it Fried Cauliflower?   Just like we can't have separate lines for drinking fountains, or forced segregation, we can't call marriage civil unions for one part of the population, and marriage for the other.   Religious marriage is Holy Matrimony.   Civil Marriage is Marriage, and is completely different.   If you have a Holy Matrimony and your priest/rabbi/Imam/minister fails to sign the state document signifying you are married,  you aren't legally married.  So, the fact is, marriage is a secular contract between two persons (who can sign a contract and give consent).  I'm not sure where you obtain your legal answers from (on-line or mail-order, perhaps?), but according to attorneys and judges on both sides of the issue, we don't vote on the rights of the individual or group.  Check the Loving case and educate yourself.  You'll never have 100 percent turn out, and you have no clue as to the millions if not billions of dollars it would take to modify or create new laws granting civil unions the same rights as marriage (putting aside the fact that it's not constitutional).  Are you willing to personally fund this?  Your blather about it being unconstitutional and one is forcing gay marriage onto Christians is laughable, since the Supreme Court ruling, not even one Christian has been forced to be gay married, and I challenge you to prove differently.  Also, no church has been forced to gay marry anyone, which would violate their first amendment rights.  You are out of gas, and just like to hear yourself talk.  We don't get to vote on the meaning of words, you are foolish.


Dear Sneekin Syriusly C_Clayton_Jones
1. By faith based I mean the beliefs about orientation and identity as natural born or unnatural choice are faith based, neither being proven or disproven.
Both my beliefs these are spiritual, some are natural some are unnatural, some can change some cannot
Equally count as a belief
As do your beliefs that it should be protected as a distinct designation to avoid discrimination
And as do other ppl belief that it is solely a behavior or an unnatural choice and can be discriminated against by law because ppl cannot be forced to accept a faith based belief or to change their own beliefs for another

The first step is to recognize all three are beliefs, then find the best way we can agree not to impose on each other's

2. By separate but equal I am referring to marriage rituals as a practice where ppl of different beliefs are expected to practice these in their own groups separately and equally instead of imposing their beliefs about baptism, funerals, communion prayer marriage etc on other groups

The legal recognition and benefits can all be done as civil unions where everyone is treated the same, and remove any condition on personal relationship so this is neutral, similar to reducing public prayer to moment of silence that strips any other attached condition or relationship to the process.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Sneekin where is your reply in the post that quotes previous ones?

YES I have been funding independent programs so people can govern their own community by democratically elected leaders and sustainable investment based on campus models.
www.campusplan.org
I have been working two jobs since 2008  to support grassroots volunteers developing nonprofit programs in this direction, but struggling because all the tax money goes toward corporate and political interests and campaigns for office and is sucked out of the communities with no funding support.
So the nonprofits do the work for free while volunteers work 2-3jobs to pay costs.

I believe if people invest our labor and income directly in nonprofit communities organized like campuses we can directly represent and fund our own policies including education and health care through collective coops.
Www.rightsfortheworkers.org

We start by assessing restitution owed to taxpayers for crimes, corporate corruption and abuse of govt funds, and criminal racketeering including abuse of govt to conspire to violate equal civil rights. Passing DOMA and ACA are examples of wasting public resources on unconstitutional legislation contested on grounds of imposing faith based beliefs that discriminated against others by creed.

Drug and human trafficking are another source of restitution, where the victims and communities affected can claim ownership of property confiscated under RICO.

The assessment and restitution for wrongs, debts and damages can then be invested in creating solutions to the problems the right way which the flawed legislation sought to address

My plan is either hold the wrongdoers responsible for paying the restitution in order to cover costs of corrections, such as the cost of separating health care and social benefits policies under separate parties, or give credits or tax breaks to people who do invest their time labor or resources in solutions, or let citizens buy out debts or share ownership in programs for investing.
So it's similar to owning your own campus that comes with a medical or health care service program owned by the members. And the members elect and manage their own policies of terms and conditions on benefits, marriage, etc. Instead of fighting with other people or parties.


----------



## Sneekin

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm Emily, you are calling for separate but equal, which has been deemed unconstitutional how many times?  What if I don't like the term Civil Unions?   Can I call it Fried Cauliflower?   Just like we can't have separate lines for drinking fountains, or forced segregation, we can't call marriage civil unions for one part of the population, and marriage for the other.   Religious marriage is Holy Matrimony.   Civil Marriage is Marriage, and is completely different.   If you have a Holy Matrimony and your priest/rabbi/Imam/minister fails to sign the state document signifying you are married,  you aren't legally married.  So, the fact is, marriage is a secular contract between two persons (who can sign a contract and give consent).  I'm not sure where you obtain your legal answers from (on-line or mail-order, perhaps?), but according to attorneys and judges on both sides of the issue, we don't vote on the rights of the individual or group.  Check the Loving case and educate yourself.  You'll never have 100 percent turn out, and you have no clue as to the millions if not billions of dollars it would take to modify or create new laws granting civil unions the same rights as marriage (putting aside the fact that it's not constitutional).  Are you willing to personally fund this?  Your blather about it being unconstitutional and one is forcing gay marriage onto Christians is laughable, since the Supreme Court ruling, not even one Christian has been forced to be gay married, and I challenge you to prove differently.  Also, no church has been forced to gay marry anyone, which would violate their first amendment rights.  You are out of gas, and just like to hear yourself talk.  We don't get to vote on the meaning of words, you are foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin Syriusly C_Clayton_Jones
> 1. By faith based I mean the beliefs about orientation and identity as natural born or unnatural choice are faith based, neither being proven or disproven.
> Both my beliefs these are spiritual, some are natural some are unnatural, some can change some cannot
> Equally count as a belief
> As do your beliefs that it should be protected as a distinct designation to avoid discrimination
> And as do other ppl belief that it is solely a behavior or an unnatural choice and can be discriminated against by law because ppl cannot be forced to accept a faith based belief or to change their own beliefs for another
> 
> The first step is to recognize all three are beliefs, then find the best way we can agree not to impose on each other's
> 
> 2. By separate but equal I am referring to marriage rituals as a practice where ppl of different beliefs are expected to practice these in their own groups separately and equally instead of imposing their beliefs about baptism, funerals, communion prayer marriage etc on other groups
> 
> The legal recognition and benefits can all be done as civil unions where everyone is treated the same, and remove any condition on personal relationship so this is neutral, similar to reducing public prayer to moment of silence that strips any other attached condition or relationship to the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

perhaps you aren't listening, Emily.  Are you from the United States?  Is English even your first language?  You see, in this country, we don't vote to take away civil rights, as you have repeatedly done through this thread.  You seem to have no grasp on the law in the US.  We are NOT a democracy, majority doesn't ALWAYS rule.  Maybe in your country, but not the United States.

Onto your religious psycho-babble.   You are claiming Marriage is religious (it's not, it's secular ONLY), a right for all adults. YOUR religion can put additional rules, but cannot alter the laws - if your church believes in multple wives, you cannot get 20 marriage licenses and be married to all 20 wives at the same time - only one.  Secular law says ONE.  It's that nasty first amendment, where we have freedom FROM your religion.  

Something else.- the individual states did not all vote to allow a moment of silent prayer.   Don't be foolish.   Prayer in a public school is patently illegal, as the government cannot force a religion or religious belief onto anyone.   The government cannot, however, legislate what you do during your quiet time.  So if we have a moment of silence, you are free to pray, Fred is free to play a game on his phone, my spouse and Fred's spouse are free to chit-chat. You've always been able to do that emily - understand?

Again, what country are you from?  RIght to life?  The entire Roe V Wade is first based on a Right to Privacy.   Stipulations were also put on at first (usually not performed after the first trimester).  Even though you harp on it, there is no such thing as a full-term or partial birth abortion, read the facts about it.  The courts have ruled, move on. Being LGBT or having an abortion doesn't make one "unnatural born", which is the most offensive and insulting term you can use.  Quit trying to insert your religion into OUR constitution, and take at least a Junior High School Civics class, you are ignorant of laws.  Maybe watch "I'm Just A Bill" on school house rock.  I'm sure it will enlighten you.  

Civil Unions have been repeatedly addressed, and ruled patently wrong and illegal.  So just drop it, you are making a fool out of yourself.  Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships are being removed from laws and business contracts. Please get a clue and come down to earth.  Try not to make up any more law.

Finally, Marriage is not the same as baptism, or funeral rights.   Marriage is a LEGAL CONTRACT.  In the christian faith, you are referring to Holy Matrimony - if you want to call your ceremony in your church a civil union, have at it.  If you expect any of the over 1100 benefits at the federal and state level, the courts have ALREADY RULED.  The term is Marriage.  And NO, YOU DON'T GET TO VOTE ON IT.  Kapish? Already rule.  All the way up and down, and also legislated at the state and local legislatures. Educate yourself.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm Emily, you are calling for separate but equal, which has been deemed unconstitutional how many times?  What if I don't like the term Civil Unions?   Can I call it Fried Cauliflower?   Just like we can't have separate lines for drinking fountains, or forced segregation, we can't call marriage civil unions for one part of the population, and marriage for the other.   Religious marriage is Holy Matrimony.   Civil Marriage is Marriage, and is completely different.   If you have a Holy Matrimony and your priest/rabbi/Imam/minister fails to sign the state document signifying you are married,  you aren't legally married.  So, the fact is, marriage is a secular contract between two persons (who can sign a contract and give consent).  I'm not sure where you obtain your legal answers from (on-line or mail-order, perhaps?), but according to attorneys and judges on both sides of the issue, we don't vote on the rights of the individual or group.  Check the Loving case and educate yourself.  You'll never have 100 percent turn out, and you have no clue as to the millions if not billions of dollars it would take to modify or create new laws granting civil unions the same rights as marriage (putting aside the fact that it's not constitutional).  Are you willing to personally fund this?  Your blather about it being unconstitutional and one is forcing gay marriage onto Christians is laughable, since the Supreme Court ruling, not even one Christian has been forced to be gay married, and I challenge you to prove differently.  Also, no church has been forced to gay marry anyone, which would violate their first amendment rights.  You are out of gas, and just like to hear yourself talk.  We don't get to vote on the meaning of words, you are foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin Syriusly C_Clayton_Jones
> 1. By faith based I mean the beliefs about orientation and identity as natural born or unnatural choice are faith based, neither being proven or disproven.
> Both my beliefs these are spiritual, some are natural some are unnatural, some can change some cannot
> Equally count as a belief
> As do your beliefs that it should be protected as a distinct designation to avoid discrimination
> And as do other ppl belief that it is solely a behavior or an unnatural choice and can be discriminated against by law because ppl cannot be forced to accept a faith based belief or to change their own beliefs for another
> 
> The first step is to recognize all three are beliefs, then find the best way we can agree not to impose on each other's
> 
> 2. By separate but equal I am referring to marriage rituals as a practice where ppl of different beliefs are expected to practice these in their own groups separately and equally instead of imposing their beliefs about baptism, funerals, communion prayer marriage etc on other groups
> 
> The legal recognition and benefits can all be done as civil unions where everyone is treated the same, and remove any condition on personal relationship so this is neutral, similar to reducing public prayer to moment of silence that strips any other attached condition or relationship to the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> perhaps you aren't listening, Emily.  Are you from the United States?  Is English even your first language?  You see, in this country, we don't vote to take away civil rights, as you have repeatedly done through this thread.  You seem to have no grasp on the law in the US.  We are NOT a democracy, majority doesn't ALWAYS rule.  Maybe in your country, but not the United States.
> 
> Onto your religious psycho-babble.   You are claiming Marriage is religious (it's not, it's secular ONLY), a right for all adults. YOUR religion can put additional rules, but cannot alter the laws - if your church believes in multple wives, you cannot get 20 marriage licenses and be married to all 20 wives at the same time - only one.  Secular law says ONE.  It's that nasty first amendment, where we have freedom FROM your religion.
> 
> Something else.- the individual states did not all vote to allow a moment of silent prayer.   Don't be foolish.   Prayer in a public school is patently illegal, as the government cannot force a religion or religious belief onto anyone.   The government cannot, however, legislate what you do during your quiet time.  So if we have a moment of silence, you are free to pray, Fred is free to play a game on his phone, my spouse and Fred's spouse are free to chit-chat. You've always been able to do that emily - understand?
> 
> Again, what country are you from?  RIght to life?  The entire Roe V Wade is first based on a Right to Privacy.   Stipulations were also put on at first (usually not performed after the first trimester).  Even though you harp on it, there is no such thing as a full-term or partial birth abortion, read the facts about it.  The courts have ruled, move on. Being LGBT or having an abortion doesn't make one "unnatural born", which is the most offensive and insulting term you can use.  Quit trying to insert your religion into OUR constitution, and take at least a Junior High School Civics class, you are ignorant of laws.  Maybe watch "I'm Just A Bill" on school house rock.  I'm sure it will enlighten you.
> 
> Civil Unions have been repeatedly addressed, and ruled patently wrong and illegal.  So just drop it, you are making a fool out of yourself.  Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships are being removed from laws and business contracts. Please get a clue and come down to earth.  Try not to make up any more law.
> 
> Finally, Marriage is not the same as baptism, or funeral rights.   Marriage is a LEGAL CONTRACT.  In the christian faith, you are referring to Holy Matrimony - if you want to call your ceremony in your church a civil union, have at it.  If you expect any of the over 1100 benefits at the federal and state level, the courts have ALREADY RULED.  The term is Marriage.  And NO, YOU DON'T GET TO VOTE ON IT.  Kapish? Already rule.  All the way up and down, and also legislated at the state and local legislatures. Educate yourself.
Click to expand...

HI Sneekin
You bring up so many points, can you start a new thread on the others, they are all good and worth resolving in full.

1. I was born in Texas where I did read someone taking credit for the moment of silence that got passed. So maybe that's a local thing. But it speaks to states right and laws that can be passed by states and not affect the entire nation. Individual states can vote to recognize it as civil unions, civil marriages or marriages in general, as long as their citizens agree it doesn't impose on their beliefs as being contested now.

2. No I'm not trying to subvert any civil rights people have but to do the opposite and defend this from legal and political abuses. I live and volunteer in freedmens town that has a long history of suppression of rights because of political abuse of govt.
The solutions I found to defend minority interests work by consensus and mediation to resolve conflicts.  The traditional way is to outvote, overrule, or outbully the minority voice so the majority can dominate. I found out the hard way that system is abused to censor and violate equal rights by oppression and exclusion, even using legal means to justify silencing the opposition.

From what you say, you and I are both against violating the rights of others by majority bullying and discrimination.

You and I just don't agree yet how to stop that abuse correctly where it doesn't go too far the other way and impose beliefs either on one side or the other where both complain.

3. I do understand the laws we have now on religious freedom and creed do not specifically recognize or address what to do about political beliefs.

I understand this is causing major offense in appearing to support imposing religious beliefs instead of defending all beliefs equally.

Can we start there?

Thanks and I still want to get to all your other points later as we go. Thank you.

I normally write long thoughts, and since I've been on my cell phone it's coming out even sloppier and unedited. Sorry for that.

Also about language, for you and me if we don't have an issue with using the term 'marriage' being for same sex but someone else does by their beliefs, that doesn't give us the right to override their dissent. For example, shariah law may mean unlawful oppression by imposing religious beliefs or punishment on others without consent,  but to a Muslim Shariah means all the practices in Islam including fasting prayer and charity that believers do by choice and commitment not by force. So it is wrongful to pass a law banning Shariah if we don't agree on the meaning of that term. And I have found this true with terms like marriage just like God or Jesus that there ARE beliefs attached and it isn't a neutral term for all people.


----------



## Sneekin

Ok, I've reduced what you've written to a few points.

1.  Working for 35 plus years with EEO, Affirmative Action, and numerous unions, it really has to be done with some sort of mediation, and to be sure, leaving the nagging thought that the aggressor/abuser will face court and jail time, possible loss of employment, family, reputation, etc.  Can't shout them down.  These people have to be made aware that they can't vote rights away nor suppress them.  If / When the aggressor starts their reprisal, action needs to occur immediately.  Police called if necessary.  In the 80's I handled a case involving the military where an atheist gay male was being harassed by the wife of his male boss.  She would put religious literature on his desk, highlighting anti-gay portions. Informed others in the office what she was doing to the F**.  Step 1 - spoke with her, she claimed it was her religious right (which is not true in a government position).  Her boss said she would stop.  She didn't.  Spoke with his boss (her husband).  Harassment continued. Spoke with the man's COL.  No action.  Made an appointment with the 3 Star General, and a call to EEOC.  They sent an investigator out who's only job was to sit and observe.   Within hours of speaking with the General, the woman was suspended until such time as my client got a different job.  The immediate supervisor was suspended without pay as well, for 2 weeks.   Personnel, the following day provided a list of jobs for him to review and choose from.  He "left the building" and went to work away from all. He was compensated for a period of the time off he took (the actions triggered PTSD symptoms).  

Another case involved 3 females who's supervisor was making lewd statements.  Outcome?  They were secretaries in a shop setting, they were transferred out of their agency to a new one. They all ended up moving up the ladder, breaking glass ceilings, and retired at 5 times the pay they were making as secretaries. 

Again, the people have no voice in how the word marriage is used.  It's being used in the case of a legal contract.  A Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist etc can object to the use, however, the first amendment allows us to use the word.  The 14th amendment allows any couple that meets the US / State requirements to be married. 

Banning Sharia violates our First Amendment right to freedom of religion. It tells you how to live your life, every step.  The Qur'an is holy scripture (think Old Testament, they are close to identical), and the Sunna. The Sunna is essentially the prophetic example embodied in the sayings and conduct of the Prophet Mohammed.  Sharia law has been used.  One example would be divorce, where once spouse may be US, the other from the middle east (say, Egypt).  A US judge must determine whether he has jurisdiction and whether state law governs this dispute. If the conflict of laws of the US state requires that Egyptian law govern the issue of validity, the court would require expert testimony about Egyptian law that is based on Islamic law (Sharia Law).  

You may ask if Sharia is used in U.S. courts any differently than other foreign or religious systems of law? No, it is utilized the same way as Jewish law or canon law or any other law.  Another example may be if a wife asks for a restraining order because her husband raped her.  He claims that his religion allows relations whenever he demands.  Local courts found him not guilty (religious reasons); but the appellate courts overturned his decision - because it was based on Sharia Law, which prohibits spousal abuse.

As long as a provision in Jewish law, canon law or sharia does not offend our constitutional protections and public policy, courts will consider it. Otherwise, courts would not consider it. In other words, foreign law or religious law in American courts is considered within American constitutional strictures.  Our constitution is wonderful. 

A federal court recently held that a ban prohibiting Sharia Law would likely violate the Supremacy Clause and the First Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional.


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> Ok, I've reduced what you've written to a few points.
> 
> 1.  Working for 35 plus years with EEO, Affirmative Action, and numerous unions, it really has to be done with some sort of mediation, and to be sure, leaving the nagging thought that the aggressor/abuser will face court and jail time, possible loss of employment, family, reputation, etc.  Can't shout them down.  These people have to be made aware that they can't vote rights away nor suppress them.  If / When the aggressor starts their reprisal, action needs to occur immediately.  Police called if necessary.  In the 80's I handled a case involving the military where an atheist gay male was being harassed by the wife of his male boss.  She would put religious literature on his desk, highlighting anti-gay portions. Informed others in the office what she was doing to the F**.  Step 1 - spoke with her, she claimed it was her religious right (which is not true in a government position).  Her boss said she would stop.  She didn't.  Spoke with his boss (her husband).  Harassment continued. Spoke with the man's COL.  No action.  Made an appointment with the 3 Star General, and a call to EEOC.  They sent an investigator out who's only job was to sit and observe.   Within hours of speaking with the General, the woman was suspended until such time as my client got a different job.  The immediate supervisor was suspended without pay as well, for 2 weeks.   Personnel, the following day provided a list of jobs for him to review and choose from.  He "left the building" and went to work away from all. He was compensated for a period of the time off he took (the actions triggered PTSD symptoms).
> 
> Another case involved 3 females who's supervisor was making lewd statements.  Outcome?  They were secretaries in a shop setting, they were transferred out of their agency to a new one. They all ended up moving up the ladder, breaking glass ceilings, and retired at 5 times the pay they were making as secretaries.
> 
> Again, the people have no voice in how the word marriage is used.  It's being used in the case of a legal contract.  A Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist etc can object to the use, however, the first amendment allows us to use the word.  The 14th amendment allows any couple that meets the US / State requirements to be married.
> 
> Banning Sharia violates our First Amendment right to freedom of religion. It tells you how to live your life, every step.  The Qur'an is holy scripture (think Old Testament, they are close to identical), and the Sunna. The Sunna is essentially the prophetic example embodied in the sayings and conduct of the Prophet Mohammed.  Sharia law has been used.  One example would be divorce, where once spouse may be US, the other from the middle east (say, Egypt).  A US judge must determine whether he has jurisdiction and whether state law governs this dispute. If the conflict of laws of the US state requires that Egyptian law govern the issue of validity, the court would require expert testimony about Egyptian law that is based on Islamic law (Sharia Law).
> 
> You may ask if Sharia is used in U.S. courts any differently than other foreign or religious systems of law? No, it is utilized the same way as Jewish law or canon law or any other law.  Another example may be if a wife asks for a restraining order because her husband raped her.  He claims that his religion allows relations whenever he demands.  Local courts found him not guilty (religious reasons); but the appellate courts overturned his decision - because it was based on Sharia Law, which prohibits spousal abuse.
> 
> As long as a provision in Jewish law, canon law or sharia does not offend our constitutional protections and public policy, courts will consider it. Otherwise, courts would not consider it. In other words, foreign law or religious law in American courts is considered within American constitutional strictures.  Our constitution is wonderful.
> 
> A federal court recently held that a ban prohibiting Sharia Law would likely violate the Supremacy Clause and the First Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional.



Banning Sharia law does not violate the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Sharia law is not used the same as Jewish law in the US.


----------



## Sneekin

Tennyson said:


> Banning Sharia law does not violate the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Sharia law is not used the same as Jewish law in the US.



That's a big crock of BS.  It's used all the time in NY divorce courts.  Sharia Law is the same as a Christian's Biblical Law, which is the same as Judaic Law.  It's everything - in Judaic law, you can't mix certain foods.  It must be Kosher, specific grounds for marriage, divorce, etc.  Sharia law tells you the same, food must be halal, what to avoid (haram), marriage contracts, etc.  Certain sects within Judaism tell you how to dress, how to wear your hair, and that women must keep their heads covered (which is why they wear wigs) and dress modestly.  Under Catholic Law, Nuns could only display their faces and hands after taking their vows (Pre-Vatican 2) unless directed otherwise (missionaries, for example, who would be in too much danger).  These religious laws were at times used as the foundation for our common law and written laws.  Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc all have the commandment - thou shalt not kill.  We have a law prohibiting murder. Sharia law says we cannot harm our spouses (or women in general) - hmm, Tennyson, your comment doesn't pass the sniff test, as we've had domestic violence laws on the books for years. But getting back to it all, it's been used as the foundation, as is used many times - it may have to be used when a us citizen is "up against" someone who claims their religious law claims "X".  i suggest you research more and stop your bloviating about things you obviously have no knowledge of.  New Jersey lawyer Abed Awad has processed over100 cases involving sharia law with US law.  In regards to a ban, it would strip judges of their ability to fully and fairly consider such cases, and deprive Muslims of their right to marry and divorce according to their religious beliefs. Not a nice try, and no cigar. In many states, the Imam won’t issue a divorce unless to a married couple until they can bring a certificate from the county/state/parish.


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Banning Sharia law does not violate the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Sharia law is not used the same as Jewish law in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a big crock of BS.  It's used all the time in NY divorce courts.  Sharia Law is the same as a Christian's Biblical Law, which is the same as Judaic Law.  It's everything - in Judaic law, you can't mix certain foods.  It must be Kosher, specific grounds for marriage, divorce, etc.  Sharia law tells you the same, food must be halal, what to avoid (haram), marriage contracts, etc.  Certain sects within Judaism tell you how to dress, how to wear your hair, and that women must keep their heads covered (which is why they wear wigs) and dress modestly.  Under Catholic Law, Nuns could only display their faces and hands after taking their vows (Pre-Vatican 2) unless directed otherwise (missionaries, for example, who would be in too much danger).  These religious laws were at times used as the foundation for our common law and written laws.  Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc all have the commandment - thou shalt not kill.  We have a law prohibiting murder. Sharia law says we cannot harm our spouses (or women in general) - hmm, Tennyson, your comment doesn't pass the sniff test, as we've had domestic violence laws on the books for years. But getting back to it all, it's been used as the foundation, as is used many times - it may have to be used when a us citizen is "up against" someone who claims their religious law claims "X".  i suggest you research more and stop your bloviating about things you obviously have no knowledge of.  New Jersey lawyer Abed Awad has processed over100 cases involving sharia law with US law.  In regards to a ban, it would strip judges of their ability to fully and fairly consider such cases, and deprive Muslims of their right to marry and divorce according to their religious beliefs. Not a nice try, and no cigar. In many states, the Imam won’t issue a divorce unless to a married couple until they can bring a certificate from the county/state/parish.
Click to expand...


I believe using google for a law degee has confused you. 

You are confusing the First Amendment’s free exercise clause “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” with sharia law and the body of laws within the legal framework of Islamic jurisprudence. The First Amendment does not address nor does it protect a law or laws.

Sharia law is also a foreign legal tradition and operates as a body of religious and administrative law, and that is not compatible or allowed to conflict with American law. Sharia law is in direct conflict with the inalienable rights of the Bill of Rights. Sharia law does not function as a religion nor does it protect Islam but only as a legal punishment mechanism. There is no provision or right in the Constitution for the consideration of religious sectarian law. Under the doctrine of strict scrutiny and a compelling state’s interest, the outlawing of hacking off someone’s hand or stoning to death is a concept that a first year art major would grasp. Sharia law is not a religion, and if it were, the First Amendment doctrine of protection from government intrusion and the protection from religious intrusion on the government would make Sharia law an intrusion on federal, state, and local law.

Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.


----------



## emilynghiem

Thanks Sneekin for replying in
great depth and detail
I'm reading your post out of sequence and still on my cell phone so sorry if this is cut short for now (or maybe that's better that way!)
1. For the issues of religious harassment in the military and workplace, I am recommending not only training and assistance in Constitutional education and mediation, but an agreement to adhere to policies and a process for resolving them.

If all collective organizations require their members to sign agreements to respect the policies and process, this prevents or reduces conflicts so there is no need to enact further legislation for each type of harassment possible.

This not only cuts costs by preventing and addressing issues without having to resort to legal actions and costs, but helps with troubleshooting in advance. If a company or group of staff know in advance of religious conflicts, they can address and  resolve them before a confrontation occurs or agree to keep people separated. Such as when there could be a conflict with a parent and child being teacher and student, the school may separate them so they don't appear to have conflicting interests interfering with equal treatment. Some students can take their parents class and be treated like others, but some may opt out.
If someone has an abuse issues, this needs to be addressed regardless if the target is a person of another gender, race, religion, orientation etc. If that person cannot follow rules of civil standards then that's the problem not a the target of the harassment.

This also saves time and money by screening people with mental or criminal issues or behavior disorders where they are not legally competent,  and I would recommend holding people to signed agreement to pay costs of any such abuses or damages they inflict as a way to screen out people who require legal guardians or supervision because of disorders or abusive addictions that threaten others.

If the dept has an issue not enforcing or disciplining that's the dept violating equal protections, due process, or right to redress grievances. If they are putting the beliefs of the harassed over the beliefs of the target, that's discrimination and unequal treatment but it's based on religion and creed, not just the orientation of the person.

The person is basically putting their beliefs before those of the target person to their beliefs, and the dept taking sides is also discriminating by belief.

(If you want to use the example you gave that the person is violating their own laws, that is another way to rebuke that person to prevent or correct this, but that is their problem on their side of the fence.) My point is it's not necessary to define a person by their orientation to defend them against abuses that are already unlawful. The law should be taught and enforced equally to defend all persons from harassment. So this is still an example of people discriminating by creed, independent of the specific issues or beliefs involved in the conflict itself.

2. What I meant by shariah is that in one context it's used to mean the practices enforced publicly as law which you describe, but in general shariah does not mean law as your example discusses. It means something totally different. It means the spiritual practice that remains voluntary and is never forced by anyone which is against the practice.
My point was if laws were made against the abuses you discuss as an example, you'd have to agree what language to use that is general, to cover all cases of Religious Abuse, so it's not discriminating against just one form in one religion. I'm saying Muslims would have a point not to abuse or spread the misuse of the term Shariah to mean this type of law which does not exist in their practice and confuses people with what they reserve the term Shariah for which means their spiritual practice that is completely private and personal. So if they complain to the state not to use Shariah in that context and to use general terms to describe the religious abuse or cult system being banned,
That's what I'm saying should be respected and remove the term Shariah that otherwise establishes a conflicting meaning and belief about practices.




Sneekin said:


> Ok, I've reduced what you've written to a few points.
> 
> 1.  Working for 35 plus years with EEO, Affirmative Action, and numerous unions, it really has to be done with some sort of mediation, and to be sure, leaving the nagging thought that the aggressor/abuser will face court and jail time, possible loss of employment, family, reputation, etc.  Can't shout them down.  These people have to be made aware that they can't vote rights away nor suppress them.  If / When the aggressor starts their reprisal, action needs to occur immediately.  Police called if necessary.  In the 80's I handled a case involving the military where an atheist gay male was being harassed by the wife of his male boss.  She would put religious literature on his desk, highlighting anti-gay portions. Informed others in the office what she was doing to the F**.  Step 1 - spoke with her, she claimed it was her religious right (which is not true in a government position).  Her boss said she would stop.  She didn't.  Spoke with his boss (her husband).  Harassment continued. Spoke with the man's COL.  No action.  Made an appointment with the 3 Star General, and a call to EEOC.  They sent an investigator out who's only job was to sit and observe.   Within hours of speaking with the General, the woman was suspended until such time as my client got a different job.  The immediate supervisor was suspended without pay as well, for 2 weeks.   Personnel, the following day provided a list of jobs for him to review and choose from.  He "left the building" and went to work away from all. He was compensated for a period of the time off he took (the actions triggered PTSD symptoms).
> 
> Another case involved 3 females who's supervisor was making lewd statements.  Outcome?  They were secretaries in a shop setting, they were transferred out of their agency to a new one. They all ended up moving up the ladder, breaking glass ceilings, and retired at 5 times the pay they were making as secretaries.
> 
> Again, the people have no voice in how the word marriage is used.  It's being used in the case of a legal contract.  A Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist etc can object to the use, however, the first amendment allows us to use the word.  The 14th amendment allows any couple that meets the US / State requirements to be married.
> 
> Banning Sharia violates our First Amendment right to freedom of religion. It tells you how to live your life, every step.  The Qur'an is holy scripture (think Old Testament, they are close to identical), and the Sunna. The Sunna is essentially the prophetic example embodied in the sayings and conduct of the Prophet Mohammed.  Sharia law has been used.  One example would be divorce, where once spouse may be US, the other from the middle east (say, Egypt).  A US judge must determine whether he has jurisdiction and whether state law governs this dispute. If the conflict of laws of the US state requires that Egyptian law govern the issue of validity, the court would require expert testimony about Egyptian law that is based on Islamic law (Sharia Law).
> 
> You may ask if Sharia is used in U.S. courts any differently than other foreign or religious systems of law? No, it is utilized the same way as Jewish law or canon law or any other law.  Another example may be if a wife asks for a restraining order because her husband raped her.  He claims that his religion allows relations whenever he demands.  Local courts found him not guilty (religious reasons); but the appellate courts overturned his decision - because it was based on Sharia Law, which prohibits spousal abuse.
> 
> As long as a provision in Jewish law, canon law or sharia does not offend our constitutional protections and public policy, courts will consider it. Otherwise, courts would not consider it. In other words, foreign law or religious law in American courts is considered within American constitutional strictures.  Our constitution is wonderful.
> 
> A federal court recently held that a ban prohibiting Sharia Law would likely violate the Supremacy Clause and the First Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional.


Dear Sneekin I'm reading this post out of sequen


Sneekin said:


> Ok, I've reduced what you've written to a few points.
> 
> 1.  Working for 35 plus years with EEO, Affirmative Action, and numerous unions, it really has to be done with some sort of mediation, and to be sure, leaving the nagging thought that the aggressor/abuser will face court and jail time, possible loss of employment, family, reputation, etc.  Can't shout them down.  These people have to be made aware that they can't vote rights away nor suppress them.  If / When the aggressor starts their reprisal, action needs to occur immediately.  Police called if necessary.  In the 80's I handled a case involving the military where an atheist gay male was being harassed by the wife of his male boss.  She would put religious literature on his desk, highlighting anti-gay portions. Informed others in the office what she was doing to the F**.  Step 1 - spoke with her, she claimed it was her religious right (which is not true in a government position).  Her boss said she would stop.  She didn't.  Spoke with his boss (her husband).  Harassment continued. Spoke with the man's COL.  No action.  Made an appointment with the 3 Star General, and a call to EEOC.  They sent an investigator out who's only job was to sit and observe.   Within hours of speaking with the General, the woman was suspended until such time as my client got a different job.  The immediate supervisor was suspended without pay as well, for 2 weeks.   Personnel, the following day provided a list of jobs for him to review and choose from.  He "left the building" and went to work away from all. He was compensated for a period of the time off he took (the actions triggered PTSD symptoms).
> 
> Another case involved 3 females who's supervisor was making lewd statements.  Outcome?  They were secretaries in a shop setting, they were transferred out of their agency to a new one. They all ended up moving up the ladder, breaking glass ceilings, and retired at 5 times the pay they were making as secretaries.
> 
> Again, the people have no voice in how the word marriage is used.  It's being used in the case of a legal contract.  A Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist etc can object to the use, however, the first amendment allows us to use the word.  The 14th amendment allows any couple that meets the US / State requirements to be married.
> 
> Banning Sharia violates our First Amendment right to freedom of religion. It tells you how to live your life, every step.  The Qur'an is holy scripture (think Old Testament, they are close to identical), and the Sunna. The Sunna is essentially the prophetic example embodied in the sayings and conduct of the Prophet Mohammed.  Sharia law has been used.  One example would be divorce, where once spouse may be US, the other from the middle east (say, Egypt).  A US judge must determine whether he has jurisdiction and whether state law governs this dispute. If the conflict of laws of the US state requires that Egyptian law govern the issue of validity, the court would require expert testimony about Egyptian law that is based on Islamic law (Sharia Law).
> 
> You may ask if Sharia is used in U.S. courts any differently than other foreign or religious systems of law? No, it is utilized the same way as Jewish law or canon law or any other law.  Another example may be if a wife asks for a restraining order because her husband raped her.  He claims that his religion allows relations whenever he demands.  Local courts found him not guilty (religious reasons); but the appellate courts overturned his decision - because it was based on Sharia Law, which prohibits spousal abuse.
> 
> As long as a provision in Jewish law, canon law or sharia does not offend our constitutional protections and public policy, courts will consider it. Otherwise, courts would not consider it. In other words, foreign law or religious law in American courts is considered within American constitutional strictures.  Our constitution is wonderful.
> 
> A federal court recently held that a ban prohibiting Sharia Law would likely violate the Supremacy Clause and the First Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional.





Sneekin said:


> Ok, I've reduced what you've written to a few points.
> 
> 1.  Working for 35 plus years with EEO, Affirmative Action, and numerous unions, it really has to be done with some sort of mediation, and to be sure, leaving the nagging thought that the aggressor/abuser will face court and jail time, possible loss of employment, family, reputation, etc.  Can't shout them down.  These people have to be made aware that they can't vote rights away nor suppress them.  If / When the aggressor starts their reprisal, action needs to occur immediately.  Police called if necessary.  In the 80's I handled a case involving the military where an atheist gay male was being harassed by the wife of his male boss.  She would put religious literature on his desk, highlighting anti-gay portions. Informed others in the office what she was doing to the F**.  Step 1 - spoke with her, she claimed it was her religious right (which is not true in a government position).  Her boss said she would stop.  She didn't.  Spoke with his boss (her husband).  Harassment continued. Spoke with the man's COL.  No action.  Made an appointment with the 3 Star General, and a call to EEOC.  They sent an investigator out who's only job was to sit and observe.   Within hours of speaking with the General, the woman was suspended until such time as my client got a different job.  The immediate supervisor was suspended without pay as well, for 2 weeks.   Personnel, the following day provided a list of jobs for him to review and choose from.  He "left the building" and went to work away from all. He was compensated for a period of the time off he took (the actions triggered PTSD symptoms).
> 
> Another case involved 3 females who's supervisor was making lewd statements.  Outcome?  They were secretaries in a shop setting, they were transferred out of their agency to a new one. They all ended up moving up the ladder, breaking glass ceilings, and retired at 5 times the pay they were making as secretaries.
> 
> Again, the people have no voice in how the word marriage is used.  It's being used in the case of a legal contract.  A Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist etc can object to the use, however, the first amendment allows us to use the word.  The 14th amendment allows any couple that meets the US / State requirements to be married.
> 
> Banning Sharia violates our First Amendment right to freedom of religion. It tells you how to live your life, every step.  The Qur'an is holy scripture (think Old Testament, they are close to identical), and the Sunna. The Sunna is essentially the prophetic example embodied in the sayings and conduct of the Prophet Mohammed.  Sharia law has been used.  One example would be divorce, where once spouse may be US, the other from the middle east (say, Egypt).  A US judge must determine whether he has jurisdiction and whether state law governs this dispute. If the conflict of laws of the US state requires that Egyptian law govern the issue of validity, the court would require expert testimony about Egyptian law that is based on Islamic law (Sharia Law).
> 
> You may ask if Sharia is used in U.S. courts any differently than other foreign or religious systems of law? No, it is utilized the same way as Jewish law or canon law or any other law.  Another example may be if a wife asks for a restraining order because her husband raped her.  He claims that his religion allows relations whenever he demands.  Local courts found him not guilty (religious reasons); but the appellate courts overturned his decision - because it was based on Sharia Law, which prohibits spousal abuse.
> 
> As long as a provision in Jewish law, canon law or sharia does not offend our constitutional protections and public policy, courts will consider it. Otherwise, courts would not consider it. In other words, foreign law or religious law in American courts is considered within American constitutional strictures.  Our constitution is wonderful.
> 
> A federal court recently held that a ban prohibiting Sharia Law would likely violate the Supremacy Clause and the First Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional.





Sneekin said:


> Ok, I've reduced what you've written to a few points.
> 
> 1.  Working for 35 plus years with EEO, Affirmative Action, and numerous unions, it really has to be done with some sort of mediation, and to be sure, leaving the nagging thought that the aggressor/abuser will face court and jail time, possible loss of employment, family, reputation, etc.  Can't shout them down.  These people have to be made aware that they can't vote rights away nor suppress them.  If / When the aggressor starts their reprisal, action needs to occur immediately.  Police called if necessary.  In the 80's I handled a case involving the military where an atheist gay male was being harassed by the wife of his male boss.  She would put religious literature on his desk, highlighting anti-gay portions. Informed others in the office what she was doing to the F**.  Step 1 - spoke with her, she claimed it was her religious right (which is not true in a government position).  Her boss said she would stop.  She didn't.  Spoke with his boss (her husband).  Harassment continued. Spoke with the man's COL.  No action.  Made an appointment with the 3 Star General, and a call to EEOC.  They sent an investigator out who's only job was to sit and observe.   Within hours of speaking with the General, the woman was suspended until such time as my client got a different job.  The immediate supervisor was suspended without pay as well, for 2 weeks.   Personnel, the following day provided a list of jobs for him to review and choose from.  He "left the building" and went to work away from all. He was compensated for a period of the time off he took (the actions triggered PTSD symptoms).
> 
> Another case involved 3 females who's supervisor was making lewd statements.  Outcome?  They were secretaries in a shop setting, they were transferred out of their agency to a new one. They all ended up moving up the ladder, breaking glass ceilings, and retired at 5 times the pay they were making as secretaries.
> 
> Again, the people have no voice in how the word marriage is used.  It's being used in the case of a legal contract.  A Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist etc can object to the use, however, the first amendment allows us to use the word.  The 14th amendment allows any couple that meets the US / State requirements to be married.
> 
> Banning Sharia violates our First Amendment right to freedom of religion. It tells you how to live your life, every step.  The Qur'an is holy scripture (think Old Testament, they are close to identical), and the Sunna. The Sunna is essentially the prophetic example embodied in the sayings and conduct of the Prophet Mohammed.  Sharia law has been used.  One example would be divorce, where once spouse may be US, the other from the middle east (say, Egypt).  A US judge must determine whether he has jurisdiction and whether state law governs this dispute. If the conflict of laws of the US state requires that Egyptian law govern the issue of validity, the court would require expert testimony about Egyptian law that is based on Islamic law (Sharia Law).
> 
> You may ask if Sharia is used in U.S. courts any differently than other foreign or religious systems of law? No, it is utilized the same way as Jewish law or canon law or any other law.  Another example may be if a wife asks for a restraining order because her husband raped her.  He claims that his religion allows relations whenever he demands.  Local courts found him not guilty (religious reasons); but the appellate courts overturned his decision - because it was based on Sharia Law, which prohibits spousal abuse.
> 
> As long as a provision in Jewish law, canon law or sharia does not offend our constitutional protections and public policy, courts will consider it. Otherwise, courts would not consider it. In other words, foreign law or religious law in American courts is considered within American constitutional strictures.  Our constitution is wonderful.
> 
> A federal court recently held that a ban prohibiting Sharia Law would likely violate the Supremacy Clause and the First Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Banning Sharia law does not violate the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Sharia law is not used the same as Jewish law in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a big crock of BS.  It's used all the time in NY divorce courts.  Sharia Law is the same as a Christian's Biblical Law, which is the same as Judaic Law.  It's everything - in Judaic law, you can't mix certain foods.  It must be Kosher, specific grounds for marriage, divorce, etc.  Sharia law tells you the same, food must be halal, what to avoid (haram), marriage contracts, etc.  Certain sects within Judaism tell you how to dress, how to wear your hair, and that women must keep their heads covered (which is why they wear wigs) and dress modestly.  Under Catholic Law, Nuns could only display their faces and hands after taking their vows (Pre-Vatican 2) unless directed otherwise (missionaries, for example, who would be in too much danger).  These religious laws were at times used as the foundation for our common law and written laws.  Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc all have the commandment - thou shalt not kill.  We have a law prohibiting murder. Sharia law says we cannot harm our spouses (or women in general) - hmm, Tennyson, your comment doesn't pass the sniff test, as we've had domestic violence laws on the books for years. But getting back to it all, it's been used as the foundation, as is used many times - it may have to be used when a us citizen is "up against" someone who claims their religious law claims "X".  i suggest you research more and stop your bloviating about things you obviously have no knowledge of.  New Jersey lawyer Abed Awad has processed over100 cases involving sharia law with US law.  In regards to a ban, it would strip judges of their ability to fully and fairly consider such cases, and deprive Muslims of their right to marry and divorce according to their religious beliefs. Not a nice try, and no cigar. In many states, the Imam won’t issue a divorce unless to a married couple until they can bring a certificate from the county/state/parish.
Click to expand...

Dear Sneekin I think
Your answer shows again how marriage laws do inevitable get into people's personal beliefs about marriage so it is NOT secular

If the secular law only governed getting into and out of a Civil Union or contract, this would not affect the couple's beliefs or arguments touching marriage under their creeds, whether Islam or Christian or LGBT.

So you demonstrate the point very clearly by example,  Thank you!


----------



## Sneekin

Tennyson said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Banning Sharia law does not violate the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Sharia law is not used the same as Jewish law in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a big crock of BS.  It's used all the time in NY divorce courts.  Sharia Law is the same as a Christian's Biblical Law, which is the same as Judaic Law.  It's everything - in Judaic law, you can't mix certain foods.  It must be Kosher, specific grounds for marriage, divorce, etc.  Sharia law tells you the same, food must be halal, what to avoid (haram), marriage contracts, etc.  Certain sects within Judaism tell you how to dress, how to wear your hair, and that women must keep their heads covered (which is why they wear wigs) and dress modestly.  Under Catholic Law, Nuns could only display their faces and hands after taking their vows (Pre-Vatican 2) unless directed otherwise (missionaries, for example, who would be in too much danger).  These religious laws were at times used as the foundation for our common law and written laws.  Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc all have the commandment - thou shalt not kill.  We have a law prohibiting murder. Sharia law says we cannot harm our spouses (or women in general) - hmm, Tennyson, your comment doesn't pass the sniff test, as we've had domestic violence laws on the books for years. But getting back to it all, it's been used as the foundation, as is used many times - it may have to be used when a us citizen is "up against" someone who claims their religious law claims "X".  i suggest you research more and stop your bloviating about things you obviously have no knowledge of.  New Jersey lawyer Abed Awad has processed over100 cases involving sharia law with US law.  In regards to a ban, it would strip judges of their ability to fully and fairly consider such cases, and deprive Muslims of their right to marry and divorce according to their religious beliefs. Not a nice try, and no cigar. In many states, the Imam won’t issue a divorce unless to a married couple until they can bring a certificate from the county/state/parish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe using google for a law degee has confused you.
> 
> You are confusing the First Amendment’s free exercise clause “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” with sharia law and the body of laws within the legal framework of Islamic jurisprudence. The First Amendment does not address nor does it protect a law or laws.
> 
> Sharia law is also a foreign legal tradition and operates as a body of religious and administrative law, and that is not compatible or allowed to conflict with American law. Sharia law is in direct conflict with the inalienable rights of the Bill of Rights. Sharia law does not function as a religion nor does it protect Islam but only as a legal punishment mechanism. There is no provision or right in the Constitution for the consideration of religious sectarian law. Under the doctrine of strict scrutiny and a compelling state’s interest, the outlawing of hacking off someone’s hand or stoning to death is a concept that a first year art major would grasp. Sharia law is not a religion, and if it were, the First Amendment doctrine of protection from government intrusion and the protection from religious intrusion on the government would make Sharia law an intrusion on federal, state, and local law.
> 
> Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.
Click to expand...


While you may have graduated from Trump U or Google U, the rest of us attended real law school, and quoted real attorneys and quoting actual case law.  Now pull your head out of where it's obviously at right now, I confuse nothing.   Apparently you have.  That's ok, little one.  Maybe one of your offspring may actually have the intelligence to pass the LSAT.  You, apparently, cannot even spell it, and sleep with a picture of Antonin under your pillow.  Be a good boy, and let the adults talk. Everyone is sick and tired of your grandstanding and false facts.   Maybe you could get out of the basement and ask your mommy if you could go and play with your friends.

No one but you has claimed Sharia is a religion but you yourself, foolish one.  It is the sum total of the Sunna and Qur'an, fool, and is the religious LAW of Muslims.  The fact you are so ignorant that you claim Muslims hack off hands or stone to death clearly outlines your stupidity.  Sharia is deeply intertwined with Islam, and courts have ruled NUMEROUS (hint, that means many) TIMES based on Sharia Law in American courts.  Call the Attorney who's name I mentioned, and ask him to explain it to you in monosyllabic terms, because it's quite apparent you lack even a modicum of intelligence when it comes to the law.  Sharia is used in tandem with US law, fool, and not an intrusion.  Examples given, you failed to understand, as usual. Be a good boy, and be gone. We grow weary of your continued bloviating.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Banning Sharia law does not violate the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Sharia law is not used the same as Jewish law in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a big crock of BS.  It's used all the time in NY divorce courts.  Sharia Law is the same as a Christian's Biblical Law, which is the same as Judaic Law.  It's everything - in Judaic law, you can't mix certain foods.  It must be Kosher, specific grounds for marriage, divorce, etc.  Sharia law tells you the same, food must be halal, what to avoid (haram), marriage contracts, etc.  Certain sects within Judaism tell you how to dress, how to wear your hair, and that women must keep their heads covered (which is why they wear wigs) and dress modestly.  Under Catholic Law, Nuns could only display their faces and hands after taking their vows (Pre-Vatican 2) unless directed otherwise (missionaries, for example, who would be in too much danger).  These religious laws were at times used as the foundation for our common law and written laws.  Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc all have the commandment - thou shalt not kill.  We have a law prohibiting murder. Sharia law says we cannot harm our spouses (or women in general) - hmm, Tennyson, your comment doesn't pass the sniff test, as we've had domestic violence laws on the books for years. But getting back to it all, it's been used as the foundation, as is used many times - it may have to be used when a us citizen is "up against" someone who claims their religious law claims "X".  i suggest you research more and stop your bloviating about things you obviously have no knowledge of.  New Jersey lawyer Abed Awad has processed over100 cases involving sharia law with US law.  In regards to a ban, it would strip judges of their ability to fully and fairly consider such cases, and deprive Muslims of their right to marry and divorce according to their religious beliefs. Not a nice try, and no cigar. In many states, the Imam won’t issue a divorce unless to a married couple until they can bring a certificate from the county/state/parish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin I think
> Your answer shows again how marriage laws do inevitable get into people's personal beliefs about marriage so it is NOT secular
> 
> If the secular law only governed getting into and out of a Civil Union or contract, this would not affect the couple's beliefs or arguments touching marriage under their creeds, whether Islam or Christian or LGBT.
> 
> So you demonstrate the point very clearly by example,  Thank you!
Click to expand...


Odd, considering I was speaking only of religious divorce.  Marriage is civil law.  Holy Matrimony is religious only.  My child, an atheist went to city hall to get married.  In no way did her personal religious beliefs enter into the picture (her husband is Christian).   Quite the opposite.  It was, and continues to be,  secular. 

For your Holy matrimony to be recognized by State, Local and Federal Governments, a county application must be completed by you and your spouse, and signed by the religious celebrant.   You are confused.  This signing of forms by all parties didn't affect your beliefs, nor did they affect my daughter's beliefs.  If my daughter was mandated to be married in a church, it would violate her constitutional rights.  If I decide to get married, I can be any race, color, creed, sex, or gender, including Muslim, Christian or LGBT.  I am never required to go to a religious organization, I must be joined in marriage by someone authorized by the state (not all priests/rabbis/imans are).  

I think you are very close to understanding the law.  I hope this helps you to understand.


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> Umm Emily, you are calling for separate but equal, which has been deemed unconstitutional how many times?  What if I don't like the term Civil Unions?   Can I call it Fried Cauliflower?   Just like we can't have separate lines for drinking fountains, or forced segregation, we can't call marriage civil unions for one part of the population, and marriage for the other.   Religious marriage is Holy Matrimony.   Civil Marriage is Marriage, and is completely different.   If you have a Holy Matrimony and your priest/rabbi/Imam/minister fails to sign the state document signifying you are married,  you aren't legally married.  So, the fact is, marriage is a secular contract between two persons (who can sign a contract and give consent).  I'm not sure where you obtain your legal answers from (on-line or mail-order, perhaps?), but according to attorneys and judges on both sides of the issue, we don't vote on the rights of the individual or group.  Check the Loving case and educate yourself.  You'll never have 100 percent turn out, and you have no clue as to the millions if not billions of dollars it would take to modify or create new laws granting civil unions the same rights as marriage (putting aside the fact that it's not constitutional).  Are you willing to personally fund this?  Your blather about it being unconstitutional and one is forcing gay marriage onto Christians is laughable, since the Supreme Court ruling, not even one Christian has been forced to be gay married, and I challenge you to prove differently.  Also, no church has been forced to gay marry anyone, which would violate their first amendment rights.  You are out of gas, and just like to hear yourself talk.  We don't get to vote on the meaning of words, you are foolish.



You seem to have a penchant for making condescending replies to Elmily, who asks legitimate questions out of curiosity, and treats everyone with respect. You seem to have an unchecked ego. Based on your posts regarding the law, your ego is on shaky ground.  

Why don't you give me the reason why Plessy was wrongly decided and why Brown was rightly decided with the constitutional basis.


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Banning Sharia law does not violate the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Sharia law is not used the same as Jewish law in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a big crock of BS.  It's used all the time in NY divorce courts.  Sharia Law is the same as a Christian's Biblical Law, which is the same as Judaic Law.  It's everything - in Judaic law, you can't mix certain foods.  It must be Kosher, specific grounds for marriage, divorce, etc.  Sharia law tells you the same, food must be halal, what to avoid (haram), marriage contracts, etc.  Certain sects within Judaism tell you how to dress, how to wear your hair, and that women must keep their heads covered (which is why they wear wigs) and dress modestly.  Under Catholic Law, Nuns could only display their faces and hands after taking their vows (Pre-Vatican 2) unless directed otherwise (missionaries, for example, who would be in too much danger).  These religious laws were at times used as the foundation for our common law and written laws.  Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc all have the commandment - thou shalt not kill.  We have a law prohibiting murder. Sharia law says we cannot harm our spouses (or women in general) - hmm, Tennyson, your comment doesn't pass the sniff test, as we've had domestic violence laws on the books for years. But getting back to it all, it's been used as the foundation, as is used many times - it may have to be used when a us citizen is "up against" someone who claims their religious law claims "X".  i suggest you research more and stop your bloviating about things you obviously have no knowledge of.  New Jersey lawyer Abed Awad has processed over100 cases involving sharia law with US law.  In regards to a ban, it would strip judges of their ability to fully and fairly consider such cases, and deprive Muslims of their right to marry and divorce according to their religious beliefs. Not a nice try, and no cigar. In many states, the Imam won’t issue a divorce unless to a married couple until they can bring a certificate from the county/state/parish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe using google for a law degee has confused you.
> 
> You are confusing the First Amendment’s free exercise clause “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” with sharia law and the body of laws within the legal framework of Islamic jurisprudence. The First Amendment does not address nor does it protect a law or laws.
> 
> Sharia law is also a foreign legal tradition and operates as a body of religious and administrative law, and that is not compatible or allowed to conflict with American law. Sharia law is in direct conflict with the inalienable rights of the Bill of Rights. Sharia law does not function as a religion nor does it protect Islam but only as a legal punishment mechanism. There is no provision or right in the Constitution for the consideration of religious sectarian law. Under the doctrine of strict scrutiny and a compelling state’s interest, the outlawing of hacking off someone’s hand or stoning to death is a concept that a first year art major would grasp. Sharia law is not a religion, and if it were, the First Amendment doctrine of protection from government intrusion and the protection from religious intrusion on the government would make Sharia law an intrusion on federal, state, and local law.
> 
> Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While you may have graduated from Trump U or Google U, the rest of us attended real law school, and quoted real attorneys and quoting actual case law.  Now pull your head out of where it's obviously at right now, I confuse nothing.   Apparently you have.  That's ok, little one.  Maybe one of your offspring may actually have the intelligence to pass the LSAT.  You, apparently, cannot even spell it, and sleep with a picture of Antonin under your pillow.  Be a good boy, and let the adults talk. Everyone is sick and tired of your grandstanding and false facts.   Maybe you could get out of the basement and ask your mommy if you could go and play with your friends.
> 
> No one but you has claimed Sharia is a religion but you yourself, foolish one.  It is the sum total of the Sunna and Qur'an, fool, and is the religious LAW of Muslims.  The fact you are so ignorant that you claim Muslims hack off hands or stone to death clearly outlines your stupidity.  Sharia is deeply intertwined with Islam, and courts have ruled NUMEROUS (hint, that means many) TIMES based on Sharia Law in American courts.  Call the Attorney who's name I mentioned, and ask him to explain it to you in monosyllabic terms, because it's quite apparent you lack even a modicum of intelligence when it comes to the law.  Sharia is used in tandem with US law, fool, and not an intrusion.  Examples given, you failed to understand, as usual. Be a good boy, and be gone. We grow weary of your continued bloviating.
Click to expand...


Your post makes no sense, is devoid of an argument to my post, and demonstrates your are over your depth. That is par for someone trying to convince everyone on the Internet that they are an attorney. 

You are definitely some random internet troll, boring, and a waste of time. Your only goal is to distrupt threads and insult. Those déclassé characteristics are a dime a dozen on the Internet.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Banning Sharia law does not violate the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Sharia law is not used the same as Jewish law in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a big crock of BS.  It's used all the time in NY divorce courts.  Sharia Law is the same as a Christian's Biblical Law, which is the same as Judaic Law.  It's everything - in Judaic law, you can't mix certain foods.  It must be Kosher, specific grounds for marriage, divorce, etc.  Sharia law tells you the same, food must be halal, what to avoid (haram), marriage contracts, etc.  Certain sects within Judaism tell you how to dress, how to wear your hair, and that women must keep their heads covered (which is why they wear wigs) and dress modestly.  Under Catholic Law, Nuns could only display their faces and hands after taking their vows (Pre-Vatican 2) unless directed otherwise (missionaries, for example, who would be in too much danger).  These religious laws were at times used as the foundation for our common law and written laws.  Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc all have the commandment - thou shalt not kill.  We have a law prohibiting murder. Sharia law says we cannot harm our spouses (or women in general) - hmm, Tennyson, your comment doesn't pass the sniff test, as we've had domestic violence laws on the books for years. But getting back to it all, it's been used as the foundation, as is used many times - it may have to be used when a us citizen is "up against" someone who claims their religious law claims "X".  i suggest you research more and stop your bloviating about things you obviously have no knowledge of.  New Jersey lawyer Abed Awad has processed over100 cases involving sharia law with US law.  In regards to a ban, it would strip judges of their ability to fully and fairly consider such cases, and deprive Muslims of their right to marry and divorce according to their religious beliefs. Not a nice try, and no cigar. In many states, the Imam won’t issue a divorce unless to a married couple until they can bring a certificate from the county/state/parish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin I think
> Your answer shows again how marriage laws do inevitable get into people's personal beliefs about marriage so it is NOT secular
> 
> If the secular law only governed getting into and out of a Civil Union or contract, this would not affect the couple's beliefs or arguments touching marriage under their creeds, whether Islam or Christian or LGBT.
> 
> So you demonstrate the point very clearly by example,  Thank you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odd, considering I was speaking only of religious divorce.  Marriage is civil law.  Holy Matrimony is religious only.  My child, an atheist went to city hall to get married.  In no way did her personal religious beliefs enter into the picture (her husband is Christian).   Quite the opposite.  It was, and continues to be,  secular.
> 
> For your Holy matrimony to be recognized by State, Local and Federal Governments, a county application must be completed by you and your spouse, and signed by the religious celebrant.   You are confused.  This signing of forms by all parties didn't affect your beliefs, nor did they affect my daughter's beliefs.  If my daughter was mandated to be married in a church, it would violate her constitutional rights.  If I decide to get married, I can be any race, color, creed, sex, or gender, including Muslim, Christian or LGBT.  I am never required to go to a religious organization, I must be joined in marriage by someone authorized by the state (not all priests/rabbis/imans are).
> 
> I think you are very close to understanding the law.  I hope this helps you to understand.
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin 
If the process requires signing by clergy yes it is mixing church and state.
Some require just witnessing by justice of the peace.

The issue is if people of a state consent to terms, then yes they may agree to mix religious with secular authorities. 

It's when people DON'T agree to a practice, then they yell and protest imposition of beliefs on them.

So you prove the point that marriage has involved religion mixed with state.

Either agree on those terms or change the terms where people do agree!


----------



## emilynghiem

PS Sneekin when Atheists have sued to remove crosses from public property,
It was NOT because they were being forced to join or change their faith!

They argue on principle that references to beliefs not all people share should not be endorsed or adopted as public policy such as in schools or on bldg s

These should be Removed or kept in private

And same should be respected for Christians asking to remove references to beliefs not everyone shares

It does not have to be forced on someone or force someone to join
In order to be removed on principle alone that not all people believe in it


----------



## ScienceRocks

And neither is marriage between a man and a women. The constitution is all about NO's and allows a lot of room for the yeses with congress.


----------



## emilynghiem

Tennyson said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm Emily, you are calling for separate but equal, which has been deemed unconstitutional how many times?  What if I don't like the term Civil Unions?   Can I call it Fried Cauliflower?   Just like we can't have separate lines for drinking fountains, or forced segregation, we can't call marriage civil unions for one part of the population, and marriage for the other.   Religious marriage is Holy Matrimony.   Civil Marriage is Marriage, and is completely different.   If you have a Holy Matrimony and your priest/rabbi/Imam/minister fails to sign the state document signifying you are married,  you aren't legally married.  So, the fact is, marriage is a secular contract between two persons (who can sign a contract and give consent).  I'm not sure where you obtain your legal answers from (on-line or mail-order, perhaps?), but according to attorneys and judges on both sides of the issue, we don't vote on the rights of the individual or group.  Check the Loving case and educate yourself.  You'll never have 100 percent turn out, and you have no clue as to the millions if not billions of dollars it would take to modify or create new laws granting civil unions the same rights as marriage (putting aside the fact that it's not constitutional).  Are you willing to personally fund this?  Your blather about it being unconstitutional and one is forcing gay marriage onto Christians is laughable, since the Supreme Court ruling, not even one Christian has been forced to be gay married, and I challenge you to prove differently.  Also, no church has been forced to gay marry anyone, which would violate their first amendment rights.  You are out of gas, and just like to hear yourself talk.  We don't get to vote on the meaning of words, you are foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have a penchant for making condescending replies to Elmily, who asks legitimate questions out of curiosity, and treats everyone with respect. You seem to have an unchecked ego. Based on your posts regarding the law, your ego is on shaky ground.
> 
> Why don't you give me the reason why Plessy was wrongly decided and why Brown was rightly decided with the constitutional basis.
Click to expand...

Thank you Tennyson and Sneekin for your honest speech feedback details and defenses

I'm willing to set aside any remarks made personally or off topic, as you both show sincerity in answering in full and presenting  what shapes your decision or perceptions

I don't think any of us here can say we don't have an unchecked ego ourselves at times, except we help check each other. That's true in general especially online and I appreciate your help in this.

Tennyson I hope we don't insult your intelligence or burden you as trolls do

I believe the intent is sincere and no insults or condescending remarks are intended.  We are honestly ignorant of where each other is coming from, and the only way to learn is to ask even if it makes us look stupid to others.

Sorry if what we ask or say disappoints or taxes your time and energy, but I'm happy to continue this discourse and direction despite those hiccups and would rather keep hearing from you and Sneekin so we finish where we can go with this! Thank you both!
Yours truly Emily
If new threads are needed please tag me and I'll follow your lead there


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> [
> Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.



And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way. 

Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.

Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> PS Sneekin when Atheists have sued to remove crosses from public property,
> It was NOT because they were being forced to join or change their faith!
> 
> They argue on principle that references to beliefs not all people share should not be endorsed or adopted as public policy such as in schools or on bldg s
> 
> These should be Removed or kept in private
> 
> And same should be respected for Christians asking to remove references to beliefs not everyone shares
> 
> It does not have to be forced on someone or force someone to join
> In order to be removed on principle alone that not all people believe in it



No- atheists are not arguing that religious symbols must be kept in private- only that no specific religious belief be promoted on public grounds. Either all religions need to be offered the same opportunity to display their symbology on public land- Muslims, Hindu's, Satanists, etc- or no one should. Seems simpler to have none- though I am fine with exceptions for grandfathering in religious symbology that has historic significance. 

If a Christian wants to put up a cross in his front yard- or builds a church on private property I have no objection to it at all.


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS Sneekin when Atheists have sued to remove crosses from public property,
> It was NOT because they were being forced to join or change their faith!
> 
> They argue on principle that references to beliefs not all people share should not be endorsed or adopted as public policy such as in schools or on bldg s
> 
> These should be Removed or kept in private
> 
> And same should be respected for Christians asking to remove references to beliefs not everyone shares
> 
> It does not have to be forced on someone or force someone to join
> In order to be removed on principle alone that not all people believe in it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- atheists are not arguing that religious symbols must be kept in private- only that no specific religious belief be promoted on public grounds. Either all religions need to be offered the same opportunity to display their symbology on public land- Muslims, Hindu's, Satanists, etc- or no one should. Seems simpler to have none- though I am fine with exceptions for grandfathering in religious symbology that has historic significance.
> 
> If a Christian wants to put up a cross in his front yard- or builds a church on private property I have no objection to it at all.
Click to expand...

Yes Syriusly 
But they HAVE sued to REMOVE crosses from public property. One case required selling the land to private ownership to settle the issue. So likewise opponents can SUE to remove MARRIAGE from states and keep it private. Or sue to remove it from federal and enforce it by states, where I recommend separating policy by party if needed to resolve this on State level where it belongs.

If you have Statist beliefs that federal should control marriage then take that up with Boss who agrees Statist constitutes a political creed. We can't discriminate against your Statist beliefs if you don't violate our belief in States rights. Agreed? Or do you really think you can argue to impose your beliefs and creeds about marriage and govt on people who believe otherwise while you complain about the same thing!

Sure people CAN agree to allow crosses if everyone else can display their beliefs, but that isn't what's happening. So I agree let's be fair and treat them the same. And let states decide how to settle this constituionally. Not dictated by courts who can only say yes or no. The resolutions are written and passed by process through the states. It relies on the people affected since beliefs and creeds are involved. Feds can't make laws for states and people unless they agree; if you agree to be ruled by judges that's your free choice not mine. If all people agree on such a law or ruling, that's fine. Otherwise forcing people to change their beliefs is not for govt to impose. If you do not agree that's your belief and you can choose to be imposed on all you like. Not me!


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss is it possible to write a law or agreement that if Statist legally require feds to pass laws or make rulings before they can invoke equal rights, they can have that without affecting others who believe those rights exist naturally or belong to states or people not feds. RWS suggested a separate govt that isn't connected to the external one. I suggested connecting Parties like States in a union but JakeStarkey had a herd of NOOOO cows and said that would disrupt the govt process. I asked isnt unchecked coercion and Collusion already happening with parties, media, and corporations outside govt checks and this is to address abuses and correct causes of conflict. Can parties and media be combined in better ways?


----------



## emilynghiem

BTW I think Statist is a,much better term for this belief on depending on federal govt. Shariah Democrats might work if ir werent such an insult to Muslims who don't use the word that way. But neither do people use govt the same way obviously!


----------



## Sneekin

Tennyson said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm Emily, you are calling for separate but equal, which has been deemed unconstitutional how many times?  What if I don't like the term Civil Unions?   Can I call it Fried Cauliflower?   Just like we can't have separate lines for drinking fountains, or forced segregation, we can't call marriage civil unions for one part of the population, and marriage for the other.   Religious marriage is Holy Matrimony.   Civil Marriage is Marriage, and is completely different.   If you have a Holy Matrimony and your priest/rabbi/Imam/minister fails to sign the state document signifying you are married,  you aren't legally married.  So, the fact is, marriage is a secular contract between two persons (who can sign a contract and give consent).  I'm not sure where you obtain your legal answers from (on-line or mail-order, perhaps?), but according to attorneys and judges on both sides of the issue, we don't vote on the rights of the individual or group.  Check the Loving case and educate yourself.  You'll never have 100 percent turn out, and you have no clue as to the millions if not billions of dollars it would take to modify or create new laws granting civil unions the same rights as marriage (putting aside the fact that it's not constitutional).  Are you willing to personally fund this?  Your blather about it being unconstitutional and one is forcing gay marriage onto Christians is laughable, since the Supreme Court ruling, not even one Christian has been forced to be gay married, and I challenge you to prove differently.  Also, no church has been forced to gay marry anyone, which would violate their first amendment rights.  You are out of gas, and just like to hear yourself talk.  We don't get to vote on the meaning of words, you are foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have a penchant for making condescending replies to Elmily, who asks legitimate questions out of curiosity, and treats everyone with respect. You seem to have an unchecked ego. Based on your posts regarding the law, your ego is on shaky ground.
> 
> Why don't you give me the reason why Plessy was wrongly decided and why Brown was rightly decided with the constitutional basis.
Click to expand...

Well, Tennyson, perhaps if you graduate high school, and college, take your LSAT, and move to where I teach, you'll get your answers.   I don't answer questions from people like yourself, who simply troll and attack.    Plessy was decided based on "Separate but Equal"  Begone, gnat.

FYI - I'm not condescending.  Emily can ask in 10,000 words what can be asked in 100 or 1000.   She asks very interesting questions at times, but doesn't like the answers she receives on several, and refuses to admit when she is wrong on a particular issue.  

Any more insults you wish to troll, Tenny?   I assure you (as will my students) that my ego is fine.  You have repeatedly been caught in lies, and refuse to quote case law or sources. It is you that has no knowledge of law, continue to make false allegations regarding the law, and have an ego comparable to none and grossly overblown.  
I'm not on shaky ground, and neither is my ego - and the phrase has no meaning.  Perhaps, Tenny, you meant to use my pride, or my confidence?  Those words can be used and make sense, as opposed to your phrase.  I apologize if English isn't your first language, and your translation software erroneously used the word.  Don't waste our time, Tenny. Leave us alone until you have some knowledge in the subject.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Banning Sharia law does not violate the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Sharia law is not used the same as Jewish law in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a big crock of BS.  It's used all the time in NY divorce courts.  Sharia Law is the same as a Christian's Biblical Law, which is the same as Judaic Law.  It's everything - in Judaic law, you can't mix certain foods.  It must be Kosher, specific grounds for marriage, divorce, etc.  Sharia law tells you the same, food must be halal, what to avoid (haram), marriage contracts, etc.  Certain sects within Judaism tell you how to dress, how to wear your hair, and that women must keep their heads covered (which is why they wear wigs) and dress modestly.  Under Catholic Law, Nuns could only display their faces and hands after taking their vows (Pre-Vatican 2) unless directed otherwise (missionaries, for example, who would be in too much danger).  These religious laws were at times used as the foundation for our common law and written laws.  Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc all have the commandment - thou shalt not kill.  We have a law prohibiting murder. Sharia law says we cannot harm our spouses (or women in general) - hmm, Tennyson, your comment doesn't pass the sniff test, as we've had domestic violence laws on the books for years. But getting back to it all, it's been used as the foundation, as is used many times - it may have to be used when a us citizen is "up against" someone who claims their religious law claims "X".  i suggest you research more and stop your bloviating about things you obviously have no knowledge of.  New Jersey lawyer Abed Awad has processed over100 cases involving sharia law with US law.  In regards to a ban, it would strip judges of their ability to fully and fairly consider such cases, and deprive Muslims of their right to marry and divorce according to their religious beliefs. Not a nice try, and no cigar. In many states, the Imam won’t issue a divorce unless to a married couple until they can bring a certificate from the county/state/parish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin I think
> Your answer shows again how marriage laws do inevitable get into people's personal beliefs about marriage so it is NOT secular
> 
> If the secular law only governed getting into and out of a Civil Union or contract, this would not affect the couple's beliefs or arguments touching marriage under their creeds, whether Islam or Christian or LGBT.
> 
> So you demonstrate the point very clearly by example,  Thank you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odd, considering I was speaking only of religious divorce.  Marriage is civil law.  Holy Matrimony is religious only.  My child, an atheist went to city hall to get married.  In no way did her personal religious beliefs enter into the picture (her husband is Christian).   Quite the opposite.  It was, and continues to be,  secular.
> 
> For your Holy matrimony to be recognized by State, Local and Federal Governments, a county application must be completed by you and your spouse, and signed by the religious celebrant.   You are confused.  This signing of forms by all parties didn't affect your beliefs, nor did they affect my daughter's beliefs.  If my daughter was mandated to be married in a church, it would violate her constitutional rights.  If I decide to get married, I can be any race, color, creed, sex, or gender, including Muslim, Christian or LGBT.  I am never required to go to a religious organization, I must be joined in marriage by someone authorized by the state (not all priests/rabbis/imans are).
> 
> I think you are very close to understanding the law.  I hope this helps you to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> If the process requires signing by clergy yes it is mixing church and state.
> Some require just witnessing by justice of the peace.
> 
> The issue is if people of a state consent to terms, then yes they may agree to mix religious with secular authorities.
> 
> It's when people DON'T agree to a practice, then they yell and protest imposition of beliefs on them.
> 
> So you prove the point that marriage has involved religion mixed with state.
> 
> Either agree on those terms or change the terms where people do agree!
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, you are confused.  It's not mixing church and state.  "State" requires ONLY the completed document.  No matter how many religious documents you get signed, none will allow you to claim you are legally married in the eyes of the law.  You are never required to be married by clergy, that is your personal choice.  No mixture - a mixture implies it's a requirement.  I sincerely hope this helps you to understand.

If the state would require me to get married in say a Baptist church, that would be protested because the state would be imposing religious beliefs upon me.  

Your claims that they are mandated are ludicrous - you can get married in your church, and not have it be recognized.  To be legally married requires the marriage license. If the state says you have to get married by a judge, THEN they would be imposing their secular beliefs - but they don't.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> BTW I think Statist is a,much better term for this belief on depending on federal govt. Shariah Democrats might work if ir werent such an insult to Muslims who don't use the word that way. But neither do people use govt the same way obviously!


Sharia is laws according to the Sunna and Qur'an, it has nothing to do with Democrats.  In fact, there are thousands of Republican Muslims.   Your comments, in fact, are rude and insulting.  No Muslim uses that phrase, because it's a rude and insulting term - wouldn't you be offended if someone said all Republicans are all Talibani Christofacist Republicans?  To me, that would be a gross misuse as well, and just as offensive.

How do people not use government the same way?


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Boss is it possible to write a law or agreement that if Statist legally require feds to pass laws or make rulings before they can invoke equal rights, they can have that without affecting others who believe those rights exist naturally or belong to states or people not feds. RWS suggested a separate govt that isn't connected to the external one. I suggested connecting Parties like States in a union but JakeStarkey had a herd of NOOOO cows and said that would disrupt the govt process. I asked isnt unchecked coercion and Collusion already happening with parties, media, and corporations outside govt checks and this is to address abuses and correct causes of conflict. Can parties and media be combined in better ways?


Very interesting thoughts, Emily!


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS Sneekin when Atheists have sued to remove crosses from public property,
> It was NOT because they were being forced to join or change their faith!
> 
> They argue on principle that references to beliefs not all people share should not be endorsed or adopted as public policy such as in schools or on bldg s
> 
> These should be Removed or kept in private
> 
> And same should be respected for Christians asking to remove references to beliefs not everyone shares
> 
> It does not have to be forced on someone or force someone to join
> In order to be removed on principle alone that not all people believe in it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- atheists are not arguing that religious symbols must be kept in private- only that no specific religious belief be promoted on public grounds. Either all religions need to be offered the same opportunity to display their symbology on public land- Muslims, Hindu's, Satanists, etc- or no one should. Seems simpler to have none- though I am fine with exceptions for grandfathering in religious symbology that has historic significance.
> 
> If a Christian wants to put up a cross in his front yard- or builds a church on private property I have no objection to it at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes Syriusly
> But they HAVE sued to REMOVE crosses from public property. One case required selling the land to private ownership to settle the issue. So likewise opponents can SUE to remove MARRIAGE from states and keep it private. Or sue to remove it from federal and enforce it by states, where I recommend separating policy by party if needed to resolve this on State level where it belongs.
> 
> If you have Statist beliefs that federal should control marriage!
Click to expand...


The federal government doesn't control marriage. 

It is an interesting idea- to sue to remove marriage from being a legal institution- but what is the basis for the suit?


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> [ So I agree let's be fair and treat them the same. And let states decide how to settle this constituionally. Not dictated by courts who can only say yes or no. !



States don't decide on what is constitutional- that is what courts do. 

If it were left up to the states- contraception might still be illegal in much of the United States- or even distributing literature that discusses contraception. 
If it were left up to the states- mixed race marriage might still be illegal in much of the United States.
If it were left up to the states- gun ownership might be illegal in some states.
If it were left up to the states voters might still have to pay a poll tax in order to vote.

States can pass laws- but the Supreme Court is recourse for when those laws don't pass constitutional muster.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> PS Sneekin when Atheists have sued to remove crosses from public property,
> It was NOT because they were being forced to join or change their faith!
> 
> They argue on principle that references to beliefs not all people share should not be endorsed or adopted as public policy such as in schools or on bldg s
> 
> These should be Removed or kept in private
> 
> And same should be respected for Christians asking to remove references to beliefs not everyone shares
> 
> It does not have to be forced on someone or force someone to join
> In order to be removed on principle alone that not all people believe in it


Sorry, Emily, but you are wrong.  When Atheists sue to remove Crosses (as well as Menorahs. Ten Commandments, Creche,  and other religious objects), they are suing because it violates their freedom FROM religion under the first amendment.  To allow Crosses, the Ten Commandments, etc on public property gives the appearance of having or endorsing a state religion.  Many Christians erroneously think that it violates their religious freedom, but the courts have decided several times that that is simply not true.  In our city, the former mayor thought he had a work around, and for a few years, it worked - a cross/Creche would be allowed at Christmas time, as long as every other religion was represented if asked.  A menorah came in one year, some pagans brought in something to celebrate the winter solstice.  The last year, Satanists demanded that they have a goat head on display.  He pitched a fit and told them they couldn't, they filed suit, and upon receipt, all persons were called and told to remove items from the city center.


----------



## Sneekin

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ So I agree let's be fair and treat them the same. And let states decide how to settle this constituionally. Not dictated by courts who can only say yes or no. !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> States don't decide on what is constitutional- that is what courts do.
> 
> If it were left up to the states- contraception might still be illegal in much of the United States- or even distributing literature that discusses contraception.
> If it were left up to the states- mixed race marriage might still be illegal in much of the United States.
> If it were left up to the states- gun ownership might be illegal in some states.
> If it were left up to the states voters might still have to pay a poll tax in order to vote.
> 
> States can pass laws- but the Supreme Court is recourse for when those laws don't pass constitutional muster.
Click to expand...

That definitely deserves a big shout out!!  Excellent comment.


----------



## Syriusly

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS Sneekin when Atheists have sued to remove crosses from public property,
> It was NOT because they were being forced to join or change their faith!
> 
> They argue on principle that references to beliefs not all people share should not be endorsed or adopted as public policy such as in schools or on bldg s
> 
> These should be Removed or kept in private
> 
> And same should be respected for Christians asking to remove references to beliefs not everyone shares
> 
> It does not have to be forced on someone or force someone to join
> In order to be removed on principle alone that not all people believe in it
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Emily, but you are wrong.  When Atheists sue to remove Crosses (as well as Menorahs. Ten Commandments, Creche,  and other religious objects), they are suing because it violates their freedom FROM religion under the first amendment.  To allow Crosses, the Ten Commandments, etc on public property gives the appearance of having or endorsing a state religion.  Many Christians erroneously think that it violates their religious freedom, but the courts have decided several times that that is simply not true.  In our city, the former mayor thought he had a work around, and for a few years, it worked - a cross/Creche would be allowed at Christmas time, as long as every other religion was represented if asked.  A menorah came in one year, some pagans brought in something to celebrate the winter solstice.  The last year, Satanists demanded that they have a goat head on display.  He pitched a fit and told them they couldn't, they filed suit, and upon receipt, all persons were called and told to remove items from the city center.
Click to expand...


Well and that sort of displays the crux of the issue.

Generally people don't want freedom to have religious displays- they want to be able to have their religious displays on public property, but often are upset when religious displays that they don't agree with are displayed on public property.

Preventing all religious displays on public property means that Christians don't need to feel like their government is endorsing Islam or Buddhism, and Jews don't have to feel like their government is endorsing Catholicism or Mormons, etc, etc. 

I am no purist when it comes to this- in general if no one has a problem with it, I don't really care, and I absolutely think that when a display has historical significance, then there should be room to grandfather it in.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm Emily, you are calling for separate but equal, which has been deemed unconstitutional how many times?  What if I don't like the term Civil Unions?   Can I call it Fried Cauliflower?   Just like we can't have separate lines for drinking fountains, or forced segregation, we can't call marriage civil unions for one part of the population, and marriage for the other.   Religious marriage is Holy Matrimony.   Civil Marriage is Marriage, and is completely different.   If you have a Holy Matrimony and your priest/rabbi/Imam/minister fails to sign the state document signifying you are married,  you aren't legally married.  So, the fact is, marriage is a secular contract between two persons (who can sign a contract and give consent).  I'm not sure where you obtain your legal answers from (on-line or mail-order, perhaps?), but according to attorneys and judges on both sides of the issue, we don't vote on the rights of the individual or group.  Check the Loving case and educate yourself.  You'll never have 100 percent turn out, and you have no clue as to the millions if not billions of dollars it would take to modify or create new laws granting civil unions the same rights as marriage (putting aside the fact that it's not constitutional).  Are you willing to personally fund this?  Your blather about it being unconstitutional and one is forcing gay marriage onto Christians is laughable, since the Supreme Court ruling, not even one Christian has been forced to be gay married, and I challenge you to prove differently.  Also, no church has been forced to gay marry anyone, which would violate their first amendment rights.  You are out of gas, and just like to hear yourself talk.  We don't get to vote on the meaning of words, you are foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have a penchant for making condescending replies to Elmily, who asks legitimate questions out of curiosity, and treats everyone with respect. You seem to have an unchecked ego. Based on your posts regarding the law, your ego is on shaky ground.
> 
> Why don't you give me the reason why Plessy was wrongly decided and why Brown was rightly decided with the constitutional basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Tennyson, perhaps if you graduate high school, and college, take your LSAT, and move to where I teach, you'll get your answers.   I don't answer questions from people like yourself, who simply troll and attack.    Plessy was decided based on "Separate but Equal"  Begone, gnat.
> 
> FYI - I'm not condescending.  Emily can ask in 10,000 words what can be asked in 100 or 1000.   She asks very interesting questions at times, but doesn't like the answers she receives on several, and refuses to admit when she is wrong on a particular issue.
> 
> Any more insults you wish to troll, Tenny?   I assure you (as will my students) that my ego is fine.  You have repeatedly been caught in lies, and refuse to quote case law or sources. It is you that has no knowledge of law, continue to make false allegations regarding the law, and have an ego comparable to none and grossly overblown.
> I'm not on shaky ground, and neither is my ego - and the phrase has no meaning.  Perhaps, Tenny, you meant to use my pride, or my confidence?  Those words can be used and make sense, as opposed to your phrase.  I apologize if English isn't your first language, and your translation software erroneously used the word.  Don't waste our time, Tenny. Leave us alone until you have some knowledge in the subject.
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
I see that we have different modes and means of communicating.
When I am "brainstorming" around, trying to find what angle to take with someone
where we can actually anchor in and gets somewhere,
yes, of course I ramble around trying to pick brains and do "process of elimination"
with the haystack of possibilities until we find the needle to work with!

In this case, I think we struck a chord with the "Shariah Law" issues.
My friend Mustafaa Carroll of Houston's CAIR is an award winning civic leader and volunteer with the local Peace and Justice community. He made it very clear to me that in traditional (not politicized) Muslim teachings, "Jihad and Shariah" DO NOT MEAN the political warfare and oppression that the militant groups use these for.
Mustafaa studies the Bible, has traditional Christian pastors in his own family, works with both the Christian and other leaders of faith on unity against war and promotion of nonviolent dialogue to foster stronger peaceful relations locally if we're going to do the same globally.  He meets with any people who invite dialogue, he's met with Christian leaders who at least talked with him face to face. 
If you have trouble understanding this, please also know he didn't know that believing and teaching natural laws as given by God was part of "Constitutionalism" and hadn't heard of that label either. So he did not know there is a name for what he goes around teaching about the Bill of Rights and Constitutional laws as a citizen and civic leader. He just does that naturally, and takes the history of natural laws from where Mohammad issued decrees and spread teachings on "no compulsion in religion" (the equivalent of religious freedom).

With both of you talking about Shariah Law used to mean the indoctrinated forced type of authority as in CULTS, I would THINK the more general laws to prevent such abuses would be focused against
* religious abuse
* cult abuse
and don't have to specifically be about Islamic imposition of "Shariah Law" on people or members of the community or family.

so this is a VERY good example for comparing the different between specifically targeting "Shariah Law"
and address *ALL religious or cult abuse* (or domestic and relationship abuse) 
where ALL cases are covered, instead of just targeting abuses related to "Muslim" or "Shariah Law"

So with the case of the husband and wife in conflict and the husband is trying to cite religious freedom
for his beliefs that his authority or authority of Islam comes before her rights and consent,
then we can cite the 9th Amendment that religious freedom in the 1st Amendment cannot be
construed to violate the other rights the wife has including due process of law to defend liberty from deprivation,
protection from excessive punishment, "involuntary servitude unless as penalty for commission of a crime" etc. etc.

What I would propose IN GENERAL to cover ALL cases is to hold States
responsible for addressing complaints of ANY collective organization (any corporation or religious organization, nonprofit business  educational, POLITICAL such as PACs or Parties, or MEDIA companies but not the content itself by the MANAGEMENT which is a business) for violating the same rights of citizens and individuals
that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect from collective abuse of authority influence or resources.

There should be a grievance process in place, similar to OSHA that has a code and a process for issuing citations and resolving penalties by correction or fines, or hearing/trial if necessary),
that is ACCESSIBLE to the public so that conflicts can be mediated or arbitrated to avoid 
legal actions or costs in a court system that ISN'T affordable or accessible in part because it's so backlogged.

Sneekin by having a systematic way of addressing Religious Abuses, corporate or political abuses,
then the cases of gay/marriage/transgender issues and harassment/exclusion because of religious
conflicts can be included and addressed this way, targeting the Behavior of the Abuser, the Bullying
or Oppression of rights, instead of arguing over who believes what about homosexuality or marriage or
the content of the beliefs in conflict.

Trying to abuse parties or media to pass a law that others object to by religious beliefs or political creed,
causes disruptions and violations either way.

So it's that BEHAVIOR -- the bullying by coercion, imposition, exclusion or discrimination -- 
that can be focused on as wrongful and in violation of equal protections under law.

Political bullying, judicial and legal abuse should be addressed REGARDLESS
of the "content" of the sides and beliefs involved in the dispute.

So that is my proposal how to address this more generally, instead of
insulting attacking and harassing people for which side or belief they favor.

That's part of the problem, and taking one side over the other is never going to solve it.


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ So I agree let's be fair and treat them the same. And let states decide how to settle this constituionally. Not dictated by courts who can only say yes or no. !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> States don't decide on what is constitutional- that is what courts do.
> 
> If it were left up to the states- contraception might still be illegal in much of the United States- or even distributing literature that discusses contraception.
> If it were left up to the states- mixed race marriage might still be illegal in much of the United States.
> If it were left up to the states- gun ownership might be illegal in some states.
> If it were left up to the states voters might still have to pay a poll tax in order to vote.
> 
> States can pass laws- but the Supreme Court is recourse for when those laws don't pass constitutional muster.
Click to expand...


There is no constitutional power granted to any branch of the federal government over a state's constitution or a state's law other than issues between states or any other state to state or individual to state or individual.


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.
> 
> Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.
> 
> Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.
Click to expand...


There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS Sneekin when Atheists have sued to remove crosses from public property,
> It was NOT because they were being forced to join or change their faith!
> 
> They argue on principle that references to beliefs not all people share should not be endorsed or adopted as public policy such as in schools or on bldg s
> 
> These should be Removed or kept in private
> 
> And same should be respected for Christians asking to remove references to beliefs not everyone shares
> 
> It does not have to be forced on someone or force someone to join
> In order to be removed on principle alone that not all people believe in it
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Emily, but you are wrong.  When Atheists sue to remove Crosses (as well as Menorahs. Ten Commandments, Creche,  and other religious objects), they are suing because it violates their freedom FROM religion under the first amendment.  To allow Crosses, the Ten Commandments, etc on public property gives the appearance of having or endorsing a state religion.  Many Christians erroneously think that it violates their religious freedom, but the courts have decided several times that that is simply not true.  In our city, the former mayor thought he had a work around, and for a few years, it worked - a cross/Creche would be allowed at Christmas time, as long as every other religion was represented if asked.  A menorah came in one year, some pagans brought in something to celebrate the winter solstice.  The last year, Satanists demanded that they have a goat head on display.  He pitched a fit and told them they couldn't, they filed suit, and upon receipt, all persons were called and told to remove items from the city center.
Click to expand...


Freedom from religion is not a constitutional concept. That is a twentieth century activist court's creation.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW I think Statist is a,much better term for this belief on depending on federal govt. Shariah Democrats might work if ir werent such an insult to Muslims who don't use the word that way. But neither do people use govt the same way obviously!
> 
> 
> 
> Sharia is laws according to the Sunna and Qur'an, it has nothing to do with Democrats.  In fact, there are thousands of Republican Muslims.   Your comments, in fact, are rude and insulting.  No Muslim uses that phrase, because it's a rude and insulting term - wouldn't you be offended if someone said all Republicans are all Talibani Christofacist Republicans?  To me, that would be a gross misuse as well, and just as offensive.
> 
> How do people not use government the same way?
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin 
My point exactly! 

The Radical Liberals after Rousseau use Govt to establish the collective will of the people
where the whole compels the individual to comply.

The Classic Liberals after Locke, today's conservatives, believe in Limited Govt
where the Constitution is a "social contract" between the people and govt 
on what duties to authorize govt to fulfill and no more.
Agreement between the people, or consent of the governed, is the basis of law and
social contracts, and what compels and gives authority to the govt, not vice versa.

So one model uses govt to mandate or impose laws,
the other empowers people to have natural rights and the govt and laws reflect the 
consent and authority of the people.

Liberals and Democrats also believe "the people are the govt"
but somehow separate people "on the right" as "imposing their beliefs through govt"
while not recognizing they are doing the same with their "beliefs"
(which aren't recognized as religious since they are expressed in secular form).

Both sides are guilty of abusing govt to Compete or Bully between
these political beliefs, because
A. the beliefs on the left are NOT recognized as creeds but are allowed to be pushed through govt
B. the people on the right do not believe or trust that liberals can be reasoned with
to RECOGNIZE they are pushing secular beliefs similar to religious beliefs,
and thus they end up giving in to this same game of abusing majority rule to impose one belief on the other.

I've been trying to find people on BOTH sides who can recognize
that the beliefs on the left are that, and not merely "ignorance of history or law"
but TRULY what they believe.  If someone believes in God or Nature as the default source of rights,
or someone believe in GOVERNMENT as the source of recognizing rights,
those beliefs cannot be changed by force of law.

Since they can't be changed, people go to political war trying to impose on the other side's ways.

What I think we really need is a 
TRUCE a formal public recognition and resolution between parties
Recognizing that parties are pushing political religions beliefs or creeds
and to EMBRACE and RESPECT the fact that people BELIEVE in what they are defending.

once we get over that, and quit trying to compete to outshout or override or overrule
each other's beliefs,
maybe we can map out 
how the heck we can ACCOMMODATE all these beliefs
that clash when we are trying to formulate and enforce public policies.

What do we keep public, and what do we revert to private
so the funding and resources can be where we agree to apply them collectively,
but where we disagree, we can organize separate means of
investing and managing our resources so we DON'T fight over terms and conditions in conflict.

That's where I think this conversation
and this country
are heading.  We need to have THAT discussion, openly and transparently,
instead of tiptoeing around the huge Elephant (and Donkey) in the room.


----------



## Tennyson

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW I think Statist is a,much better term for this belief on depending on federal govt. Shariah Democrats might work if ir werent such an insult to Muslims who don't use the word that way. But neither do people use govt the same way obviously!
> 
> 
> 
> Sharia is laws according to the Sunna and Qur'an, it has nothing to do with Democrats.  In fact, there are thousands of Republican Muslims.   Your comments, in fact, are rude and insulting.  No Muslim uses that phrase, because it's a rude and insulting term - wouldn't you be offended if someone said all Republicans are all Talibani Christofacist Republicans?  To me, that would be a gross misuse as well, and just as offensive.
> 
> How do people not use government the same way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> My point exactly!
> 
> The Radical Liberals after Rousseau use Govt to establish the collective will of the people
> where the whole compels the individual to comply.
> 
> The Classic Liberals after Locke, today's conservatives, believe in Limited Govt
> where the Constitution is a "social contract" between the people and govt
> on what duties to authorize govt to fulfill and no more.
> Agreement between the people, or consent of the governed, is the basis of law and
> social contracts, and what compels and gives authority to the govt, not vice versa.
> 
> So one model uses govt to mandate or impose laws,
> the other empowers people to have natural rights and the govt and laws reflect the
> consent and authority of the people.
> 
> Liberals and Democrats also believe "the people are the govt"
> but somehow separate people "on the right" as "imposing their beliefs through govt"
> while not recognizing they are doing the same with their "beliefs"
> (which aren't recognized as religious since they are expressed in secular form).
> 
> Both sides are guilty of abusing govt to Compete or Bully between
> these political beliefs, because
> A. the beliefs on the left are NOT recognized as creeds but are allowed to be pushed through govt
> B. the people on the right do not believe or trust that liberals can be reasoned with
> to RECOGNIZE they are pushing secular beliefs similar to religious beliefs,
> and thus they end up giving in to this same game of abusing majority rule to impose one belief on the other.
> 
> I've been trying to find people on BOTH sides who can recognize
> that the beliefs on the left are that, and not merely "ignorance of history or law"
> but TRULY what they believe.  If someone believes in God or Nature as the default source of rights,
> or someone believe in GOVERNMENT as the source of recognizing rights,
> those beliefs cannot be changed by force of law.
> 
> Since they can't be changed, people go to political war trying to impose on the other side's ways.
> 
> What I think we really need is a
> TRUCE a formal public recognition and resolution between parties
> Recognizing that parties are pushing political religions beliefs or creeds
> and to EMBRACE and RESPECT the fact that people BELIEVE in what they are defending.
> 
> once we get over that, and quit trying to compete to outshout or override or overrule
> each other's beliefs,
> maybe we can map out
> how the heck we can ACCOMMODATE all these beliefs
> that clash when we are trying to formulate and enforce public policies.
> 
> What do we keep public, and what do we revert to private
> so the funding and resources can be where we agree to apply them collectively,
> but where we disagree, we can organize separate means of
> investing and managing our resources so we DON'T fight over terms and conditions in conflict.
> 
> That's where I think this conversation
> and this country
> are heading.  We need to have THAT discussion, openly and transparently,
> instead of tiptoeing around the huge Elephant (and Donkey) in the room.
Click to expand...


Even though Morris had to re-model the preamble because of New Jersey and he used a hint of Rousseau's social contract, the Constitution is a compact between the states. This is evidenced by the language in the preamble, the statements by the founders, and Article VII.


----------



## emilynghiem

Tennyson said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS Sneekin when Atheists have sued to remove crosses from public property,
> It was NOT because they were being forced to join or change their faith!
> 
> They argue on principle that references to beliefs not all people share should not be endorsed or adopted as public policy such as in schools or on bldg s
> 
> These should be Removed or kept in private
> 
> And same should be respected for Christians asking to remove references to beliefs not everyone shares
> 
> It does not have to be forced on someone or force someone to join
> In order to be removed on principle alone that not all people believe in it
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Emily, but you are wrong.  When Atheists sue to remove Crosses (as well as Menorahs. Ten Commandments, Creche,  and other religious objects), they are suing because it violates their freedom FROM religion under the first amendment.  To allow Crosses, the Ten Commandments, etc on public property gives the appearance of having or endorsing a state religion.  Many Christians erroneously think that it violates their religious freedom, but the courts have decided several times that that is simply not true.  In our city, the former mayor thought he had a work around, and for a few years, it worked - a cross/Creche would be allowed at Christmas time, as long as every other religion was represented if asked.  A menorah came in one year, some pagans brought in something to celebrate the winter solstice.  The last year, Satanists demanded that they have a goat head on display.  He pitched a fit and told them they couldn't, they filed suit, and upon receipt, all persons were called and told to remove items from the city center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom from religion is not a constitutional concept. That is a twentieth century activist court's creation.
Click to expand...

Dear Tennyson's there are many ways to paraphrase the
concept of govt/Congress "neither
Establishing nor Prohibiting" the free exercise of religion

freedom of religion is the free exercise clause
freedom from religion is the paraphrasing of the "not establishing" clause

For Anarchists to be included in this, I would paraphrase as "free will" or "informed consent"
"free choice" or "civil liberty" as other ways to say "freedom to exercise" one's beliefs that can be about anything

If we only used "freedom of religion' to mean "large organized world religions"
that would be discrimination by creed based on what affiliation a person has or not.

So to treat all people fairly I go with the more universal interpretation
of free will, which is still subject to the rest of the First Amendment and Bill of Rights.

Free speech and Free will/exercise cannot be "taken out of context"
so as to violate the freedom or peace or security of others (ie right to assemble peaceably and securely)
or their due process or equal protections of law from deprivation of liberty or discrimination by creed
WITHOUT VIOLATING the same laws being invoked.

That's probably the most liberal interpretation, but I use that so even
atheists or anarchists who don't claim any religion can be included and protected equally.
They just can't impose their beliefs on others if they don't want others imposing their beliefs on them,
by these same laws.

=============

*Chants violated First Amendment right*
*In response to the letter from Bolie Williams IV (Thresher, Sept. 1),
if Rice University claims not to discriminate on the basis of religion,
then students who believe in free speech should be accommodated equally
as those, like Williams, who may not consider it an inalienable human right.*

*However, one might expect advocates of First Amendment rights and freedoms
to show the same respect for "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"
by refraining from speech or actions that would deliberately cause a breach
of the peace and disrupt a public assembly.*

*The example quoted was "yelling fire in a crowded theater." In this case,
it could be argued that the chanting and other jacks during matriculation
temporarily abridged other people's freedom of speech and right to assemble peaceably.*

*Unlike Williams, I believe that the First Amendment can be quite effective
when interpreted in a way that checks itself, which I recommend here.*

-- September 8, 1995
http://houstonprogressive.org/letters.html


----------



## emilynghiem

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.
> 
> Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.
> 
> Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.
Click to expand...


Dear Tennyson 

If Muslims petition to change the wording because "Shariah Law" is overly broad
and unintentionally bans voluntary practice of prayer and charity by Muslims in private,
but the state does not accommodate this as a religious conflict or bias,
then the federal govt could be petitioned if it doesn't get resolved on a state level.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm Emily, you are calling for separate but equal, which has been deemed unconstitutional how many times?  What if I don't like the term Civil Unions?   Can I call it Fried Cauliflower?   Just like we can't have separate lines for drinking fountains, or forced segregation, we can't call marriage civil unions for one part of the population, and marriage for the other.   Religious marriage is Holy Matrimony.   Civil Marriage is Marriage, and is completely different.   If you have a Holy Matrimony and your priest/rabbi/Imam/minister fails to sign the state document signifying you are married,  you aren't legally married.  So, the fact is, marriage is a secular contract between two persons (who can sign a contract and give consent).  I'm not sure where you obtain your legal answers from (on-line or mail-order, perhaps?), but according to attorneys and judges on both sides of the issue, we don't vote on the rights of the individual or group.  Check the Loving case and educate yourself.  You'll never have 100 percent turn out, and you have no clue as to the millions if not billions of dollars it would take to modify or create new laws granting civil unions the same rights as marriage (putting aside the fact that it's not constitutional).  Are you willing to personally fund this?  Your blather about it being unconstitutional and one is forcing gay marriage onto Christians is laughable, since the Supreme Court ruling, not even one Christian has been forced to be gay married, and I challenge you to prove differently.  Also, no church has been forced to gay marry anyone, which would violate their first amendment rights.  You are out of gas, and just like to hear yourself talk.  We don't get to vote on the meaning of words, you are foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have a penchant for making condescending replies to Elmily, who asks legitimate questions out of curiosity, and treats everyone with respect. You seem to have an unchecked ego. Based on your posts regarding the law, your ego is on shaky ground.
> 
> Why don't you give me the reason why Plessy was wrongly decided and why Brown was rightly decided with the constitutional basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Tennyson, perhaps if you graduate high school, and college, take your LSAT, and move to where I teach, you'll get your answers.   I don't answer questions from people like yourself, who simply troll and attack.    Plessy was decided based on "Separate but Equal"  Begone, gnat.
> 
> FYI - I'm not condescending.  Emily can ask in 10,000 words what can be asked in 100 or 1000.   She asks very interesting questions at times, but doesn't like the answers she receives on several, and refuses to admit when she is wrong on a particular issue.
> 
> Any more insults you wish to troll, Tenny?   I assure you (as will my students) that my ego is fine.  You have repeatedly been caught in lies, and refuse to quote case law or sources. It is you that has no knowledge of law, continue to make false allegations regarding the law, and have an ego comparable to none and grossly overblown.
> I'm not on shaky ground, and neither is my ego - and the phrase has no meaning.  Perhaps, Tenny, you meant to use my pride, or my confidence?  Those words can be used and make sense, as opposed to your phrase.  I apologize if English isn't your first language, and your translation software erroneously used the word.  Don't waste our time, Tenny. Leave us alone until you have some knowledge in the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> I see that we have different modes and means of communicating.
> When I am "brainstorming" around, trying to find what angle to take with someone
> where we can actually anchor in and gets somewhere,
> yes, of course I ramble around trying to pick brains and do "process of elimination"
> with the haystack of possibilities until we find the needle to work with!
> 
> In this case, I think we struck a chord with the "Shariah Law" issues.
> My friend Mustafaa Carroll of Houston's CAIR is an award winning civic leader and volunteer with the local Peace and Justice community. He made it very clear to me that in traditional (not politicized) Muslim teachings, "Jihad and Shariah" DO NOT MEAN the political warfare and oppression that the militant groups use these for.
> Mustafaa studies the Bible, has traditional Christian pastors in his own family, works with both the Christian and other leaders of faith on unity against war and promotion of nonviolent dialogue to foster stronger peaceful relations locally if we're going to do the same globally.  He meets with any people who invite dialogue, he's met with Christian leaders who at least talked with him face to face.
> If you have trouble understanding this, please also know he didn't know that believing and teaching natural laws as given by God was part of "Constitutionalism" and hadn't heard of that label either. So he did not know there is a name for what he goes around teaching about the Bill of Rights and Constitutional laws as a citizen and civic leader. He just does that naturally, and takes the history of natural laws from where Mohammad issued decrees and spread teachings on "no compulsion in religion" (the equivalent of religious freedom).
> 
> With both of you talking about Shariah Law used to mean the indoctrinated forced type of authority as in CULTS, I would THINK the more general laws to prevent such abuses would be focused against
> * religious abuse
> * cult abuse
> and don't have to specifically be about Islamic imposition of "Shariah Law" on people or members of the community or family.
> 
> so this is a VERY good example for comparing the different between specifically targeting "Shariah Law"
> and address *ALL religious or cult abuse* (or domestic and relationship abuse)
> where ALL cases are covered, instead of just targeting abuses related to "Muslim" or "Shariah Law"
> 
> So with the case of the husband and wife in conflict and the husband is trying to cite religious freedom
> for his beliefs that his authority or authority of Islam comes before her rights and consent,
> then we can cite the 9th Amendment that religious freedom in the 1st Amendment cannot be
> construed to violate the other rights the wife has including due process of law to defend liberty from deprivation,
> protection from excessive punishment, "involuntary servitude unless as penalty for commission of a crime" etc. etc.
> 
> What I would propose IN GENERAL to cover ALL cases is to hold States
> responsible for addressing complaints of ANY collective organization (any corporation or religious organization, nonprofit business  educational, POLITICAL such as PACs or Parties, or MEDIA companies but not the content itself by the MANAGEMENT which is a business) for violating the same rights of citizens and individuals
> that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect from collective abuse of authority influence or resources.
> 
> There should be a grievance process in place, similar to OSHA that has a code and a process for issuing citations and resolving penalties by correction or fines, or hearing/trial if necessary),
> that is ACCESSIBLE to the public so that conflicts can be mediated or arbitrated to avoid
> legal actions or costs in a court system that ISN'T affordable or accessible in part because it's so backlogged.
> 
> Sneekin by having a systematic way of addressing Religious Abuses, corporate or political abuses,
> then the cases of gay/marriage/transgender issues and harassment/exclusion because of religious
> conflicts can be included and addressed this way, targeting the Behavior of the Abuser, the Bullying
> or Oppression of rights, instead of arguing over who believes what about homosexuality or marriage or
> the content of the beliefs in conflict.
> 
> Trying to abuse parties or media to pass a law that others object to by religious beliefs or political creed,
> causes disruptions and violations either way.
> 
> So it's that BEHAVIOR -- the bullying by coercion, imposition, exclusion or discrimination --
> that can be focused on as wrongful and in violation of equal protections under law.
> 
> Political bullying, judicial and legal abuse should be addressed REGARDLESS
> of the "content" of the sides and beliefs involved in the dispute.
> 
> So that is my proposal how to address this more generally, instead of
> insulting attacking and harassing people for which side or belief they favor.
> 
> That's part of the problem, and taking one side over the other is never going to solve it.
Click to expand...

Actually, Emily, I agree with 100 percent of what the gentleman from CAIR said - it's exactly what I gleaned from my studies of Islam, and in conversations with friends that are Muslims, and a couple of the area Imams.  

The case that I quoted, regarding divorce, involved a non-muslim woman from the US divorcing her Muslim husband.   The judge ruled, using both US law and Shariah law, using the same language that your friend used - that it's not a religion of violence, that women should not be abused, etc, etc.This is but one court case that was ruled upon in the US using the tenets from the US laws, but incorporating Shariah law, to assure that dowries were returned, IAW Islamic law,  In S.D. v. M.J.R (New Jersey), a woman filed to get a restraining order against her husband. His excuse was that under Islamic (Sharia) Law, a wife must submit whenever her husband acts.  The Judge didn't issue the restraining order. She appealed, The appellate ruling is consistent with Islamic law, which prohibits spousal abuse, including nonconsensual sexual relations. The summary that follows is pulled directly from LexisNexis:

"In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminal sexual contact and thus violated the PDVA. We also found that the judge was mistaken in failing to enter a final restraining order in the matter."

Again, speaking only for myself, I hold to the true meanings of Shariah Law, and not the Cult definitions (which are offensive), and those that profess those disgusting beliefs are just pathetic and ignorant people.


----------



## emilynghiem

Tennyson said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW I think Statist is a,much better term for this belief on depending on federal govt. Shariah Democrats might work if ir werent such an insult to Muslims who don't use the word that way. But neither do people use govt the same way obviously!
> 
> 
> 
> Sharia is laws according to the Sunna and Qur'an, it has nothing to do with Democrats.  In fact, there are thousands of Republican Muslims.   Your comments, in fact, are rude and insulting.  No Muslim uses that phrase, because it's a rude and insulting term - wouldn't you be offended if someone said all Republicans are all Talibani Christofacist Republicans?  To me, that would be a gross misuse as well, and just as offensive.
> 
> How do people not use government the same way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> My point exactly!
> 
> The Radical Liberals after Rousseau use Govt to establish the collective will of the people
> where the whole compels the individual to comply.
> 
> The Classic Liberals after Locke, today's conservatives, believe in Limited Govt
> where the Constitution is a "social contract" between the people and govt
> on what duties to authorize govt to fulfill and no more.
> Agreement between the people, or consent of the governed, is the basis of law and
> social contracts, and what compels and gives authority to the govt, not vice versa.
> 
> So one model uses govt to mandate or impose laws,
> the other empowers people to have natural rights and the govt and laws reflect the
> consent and authority of the people.
> 
> Liberals and Democrats also believe "the people are the govt"
> but somehow separate people "on the right" as "imposing their beliefs through govt"
> while not recognizing they are doing the same with their "beliefs"
> (which aren't recognized as religious since they are expressed in secular form).
> 
> Both sides are guilty of abusing govt to Compete or Bully between
> these political beliefs, because
> A. the beliefs on the left are NOT recognized as creeds but are allowed to be pushed through govt
> B. the people on the right do not believe or trust that liberals can be reasoned with
> to RECOGNIZE they are pushing secular beliefs similar to religious beliefs,
> and thus they end up giving in to this same game of abusing majority rule to impose one belief on the other.
> 
> I've been trying to find people on BOTH sides who can recognize
> that the beliefs on the left are that, and not merely "ignorance of history or law"
> but TRULY what they believe.  If someone believes in God or Nature as the default source of rights,
> or someone believe in GOVERNMENT as the source of recognizing rights,
> those beliefs cannot be changed by force of law.
> 
> Since they can't be changed, people go to political war trying to impose on the other side's ways.
> 
> What I think we really need is a
> TRUCE a formal public recognition and resolution between parties
> Recognizing that parties are pushing political religions beliefs or creeds
> and to EMBRACE and RESPECT the fact that people BELIEVE in what they are defending.
> 
> once we get over that, and quit trying to compete to outshout or override or overrule
> each other's beliefs,
> maybe we can map out
> how the heck we can ACCOMMODATE all these beliefs
> that clash when we are trying to formulate and enforce public policies.
> 
> What do we keep public, and what do we revert to private
> so the funding and resources can be where we agree to apply them collectively,
> but where we disagree, we can organize separate means of
> investing and managing our resources so we DON'T fight over terms and conditions in conflict.
> 
> That's where I think this conversation
> and this country
> are heading.  We need to have THAT discussion, openly and transparently,
> instead of tiptoeing around the huge Elephant (and Donkey) in the room.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even though Morris had to re-model the preamble because of New Jersey and he used a hint of Rousseau's social contract, the Constitution is a compact between the states. This is evidenced by the language in the preamble, the statements by the founders, and Article VII.
Click to expand...


Dear Tennyson To some people, this is like teaching the Bible comes from God and applies to all people by nature. that the Law represented by "the Lord" governs all people under Jesus as Justice.

Some people do NOT believe in the social contract theory.
This isn't just ignorance or being propagandized into a cultlike belief against this,
as some people TRULY do NOT believe in a personified God
and aren't just rebelling against theists and Christianity for personal or political reasons.

Some people really DO  have such beliefs
other than how you and I see and teach it based on history.

Christians believe they are teaching history also, when using the Bible, and not a belief system.

But even where people agree to use the Bible as an authority,
some believers, some Muslims or Jehovah's Witnesses only follow
the Bible and Jesus teachings as Natural Law
and don't relate to the Divine Law or Divinity of God incarnated in Jesus Christ.

And same with Constitutional laws,
Some only believe and follow the letter where if the court or president issues a "decree"
then since that official was elected or appointed, that makes it "law."
Whatever Congress or states pass, that is automatically "law" by majority rule.

If that is where their BELIEFS are, 
and some are inherent and cannot change
while perhaps some CAN change just like people CAN adopt Christian faith if they decide to,
then this happens by FREE CHOICE
and can't be forced on people by govt.

However Tennyson, as my question to Boss
What if these secularists DO believe that Govt has the right to dictate secular beliefs for them?
Then if they AGREE govt has authority to establish beliefs,
don't these citizens have the right to choose to be imposed upon?

It may be against your and my beliefs as Constitutionalists.
But if they AGREE that this godlike Govt has the divine right to rule over them,
why not give them what they ask?


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS Sneekin when Atheists have sued to remove crosses from public property,
> It was NOT because they were being forced to join or change their faith!
> 
> They argue on principle that references to beliefs not all people share should not be endorsed or adopted as public policy such as in schools or on bldg s
> 
> These should be Removed or kept in private
> 
> And same should be respected for Christians asking to remove references to beliefs not everyone shares
> 
> It does not have to be forced on someone or force someone to join
> In order to be removed on principle alone that not all people believe in it
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Emily, but you are wrong.  When Atheists sue to remove Crosses (as well as Menorahs. Ten Commandments, Creche,  and other religious objects), they are suing because it violates their freedom FROM religion under the first amendment.  To allow Crosses, the Ten Commandments, etc on public property gives the appearance of having or endorsing a state religion.  Many Christians erroneously think that it violates their religious freedom, but the courts have decided several times that that is simply not true.  In our city, the former mayor thought he had a work around, and for a few years, it worked - a cross/Creche would be allowed at Christmas time, as long as every other religion was represented if asked.  A menorah came in one year, some pagans brought in something to celebrate the winter solstice.  The last year, Satanists demanded that they have a goat head on display.  He pitched a fit and told them they couldn't, they filed suit, and upon receipt, all persons were called and told to remove items from the city center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom from religion is not a constitutional concept. That is a twentieth century activist court's creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Tennyson's there are many ways to paraphrase the
> concept of govt/Congress "neither
> Establishing nor Prohibiting" the free exercise of religion
> 
> freedom of religion is the free exercise clause
> freedom from religion is the paraphrasing of the "not establishing" clause
> 
> For Anarchists to be included in this, I would paraphrase as "free will" or "informed consent"
> "free choice" or "civil liberty" as other ways to say "freedom to exercise" one's beliefs that can be about anything
> 
> If we only used "freedom of religion' to mean "large organized world religions"
> that would be discrimination by creed based on what affiliation a person has or not.
> 
> So to treat all people fairly I go with the more universal interpretation
> of free will, which is still subject to the rest of the First Amendment and Bill of Rights.
> 
> Free speech and Free will/exercise cannot be "taken out of context"
> so as to violate the freedom or peace or security of others (ie right to assemble peaceably and securely)
> or their due process or equal protections of law from deprivation of liberty or discrimination by creed
> WITHOUT VIOLATING the same laws being invoked.
> 
> That's probably the most liberal interpretation, but I use that so even
> atheists or anarchists who don't claim any religion can be included and protected equally.
> They just can't impose their beliefs on others if they don't want others imposing their beliefs on them,
> by these same laws.
> 
> =============
> 
> *Chants violated First Amendment right*
> *In response to the letter from Bolie Williams IV (Thresher, Sept. 1),*
> *if Rice University claims not to discriminate on the basis of religion,*
> *then students who believe in free speech should be accommodated equally*
> *as those, like Williams, who may not consider it an inalienable human right.*
> 
> *However, one might expect advocates of First Amendment rights and freedoms*
> *to show the same respect for "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"*
> *by refraining from speech or actions that would deliberately cause a breach*
> *of the peace and disrupt a public assembly.*
> 
> *The example quoted was "yelling fire in a crowded theater." In this case,*
> *it could be argued that the chanting and other jacks during matriculation*
> *temporarily abridged other people's freedom of speech and right to assemble peaceably.*
> 
> *Unlike Williams, I believe that the First Amendment can be quite effective*
> *when interpreted in a way that checks itself, which I recommend here.*
> 
> -- September 8, 1995
> http://houstonprogressive.org/letters.html
Click to expand...

Actually, Freedom from religion is the same as freedom OF religion - they both fall under the free exercise clause.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm Emily, you are calling for separate but equal, which has been deemed unconstitutional how many times?  What if I don't like the term Civil Unions?   Can I call it Fried Cauliflower?   Just like we can't have separate lines for drinking fountains, or forced segregation, we can't call marriage civil unions for one part of the population, and marriage for the other.   Religious marriage is Holy Matrimony.   Civil Marriage is Marriage, and is completely different.   If you have a Holy Matrimony and your priest/rabbi/Imam/minister fails to sign the state document signifying you are married,  you aren't legally married.  So, the fact is, marriage is a secular contract between two persons (who can sign a contract and give consent).  I'm not sure where you obtain your legal answers from (on-line or mail-order, perhaps?), but according to attorneys and judges on both sides of the issue, we don't vote on the rights of the individual or group.  Check the Loving case and educate yourself.  You'll never have 100 percent turn out, and you have no clue as to the millions if not billions of dollars it would take to modify or create new laws granting civil unions the same rights as marriage (putting aside the fact that it's not constitutional).  Are you willing to personally fund this?  Your blather about it being unconstitutional and one is forcing gay marriage onto Christians is laughable, since the Supreme Court ruling, not even one Christian has been forced to be gay married, and I challenge you to prove differently.  Also, no church has been forced to gay marry anyone, which would violate their first amendment rights.  You are out of gas, and just like to hear yourself talk.  We don't get to vote on the meaning of words, you are foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have a penchant for making condescending replies to Elmily, who asks legitimate questions out of curiosity, and treats everyone with respect. You seem to have an unchecked ego. Based on your posts regarding the law, your ego is on shaky ground.
> 
> Why don't you give me the reason why Plessy was wrongly decided and why Brown was rightly decided with the constitutional basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Tennyson, perhaps if you graduate high school, and college, take your LSAT, and move to where I teach, you'll get your answers.   I don't answer questions from people like yourself, who simply troll and attack.    Plessy was decided based on "Separate but Equal"  Begone, gnat.
> 
> FYI - I'm not condescending.  Emily can ask in 10,000 words what can be asked in 100 or 1000.   She asks very interesting questions at times, but doesn't like the answers she receives on several, and refuses to admit when she is wrong on a particular issue.
> 
> Any more insults you wish to troll, Tenny?   I assure you (as will my students) that my ego is fine.  You have repeatedly been caught in lies, and refuse to quote case law or sources. It is you that has no knowledge of law, continue to make false allegations regarding the law, and have an ego comparable to none and grossly overblown.
> I'm not on shaky ground, and neither is my ego - and the phrase has no meaning.  Perhaps, Tenny, you meant to use my pride, or my confidence?  Those words can be used and make sense, as opposed to your phrase.  I apologize if English isn't your first language, and your translation software erroneously used the word.  Don't waste our time, Tenny. Leave us alone until you have some knowledge in the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> I see that we have different modes and means of communicating.
> When I am "brainstorming" around, trying to find what angle to take with someone
> where we can actually anchor in and gets somewhere,
> yes, of course I ramble around trying to pick brains and do "process of elimination"
> with the haystack of possibilities until we find the needle to work with!
> 
> In this case, I think we struck a chord with the "Shariah Law" issues.
> My friend Mustafaa Carroll of Houston's CAIR is an award winning civic leader and volunteer with the local Peace and Justice community. He made it very clear to me that in traditional (not politicized) Muslim teachings, "Jihad and Shariah" DO NOT MEAN the political warfare and oppression that the militant groups use these for.
> Mustafaa studies the Bible, has traditional Christian pastors in his own family, works with both the Christian and other leaders of faith on unity against war and promotion of nonviolent dialogue to foster stronger peaceful relations locally if we're going to do the same globally.  He meets with any people who invite dialogue, he's met with Christian leaders who at least talked with him face to face.
> If you have trouble understanding this, please also know he didn't know that believing and teaching natural laws as given by God was part of "Constitutionalism" and hadn't heard of that label either. So he did not know there is a name for what he goes around teaching about the Bill of Rights and Constitutional laws as a citizen and civic leader. He just does that naturally, and takes the history of natural laws from where Mohammad issued decrees and spread teachings on "no compulsion in religion" (the equivalent of religious freedom).
> 
> With both of you talking about Shariah Law used to mean the indoctrinated forced type of authority as in CULTS, I would THINK the more general laws to prevent such abuses would be focused against
> * religious abuse
> * cult abuse
> and don't have to specifically be about Islamic imposition of "Shariah Law" on people or members of the community or family.
> 
> so this is a VERY good example for comparing the different between specifically targeting "Shariah Law"
> and address *ALL religious or cult abuse* (or domestic and relationship abuse)
> where ALL cases are covered, instead of just targeting abuses related to "Muslim" or "Shariah Law"
> 
> So with the case of the husband and wife in conflict and the husband is trying to cite religious freedom
> for his beliefs that his authority or authority of Islam comes before her rights and consent,
> then we can cite the 9th Amendment that religious freedom in the 1st Amendment cannot be
> construed to violate the other rights the wife has including due process of law to defend liberty from deprivation,
> protection from excessive punishment, "involuntary servitude unless as penalty for commission of a crime" etc. etc.
> 
> What I would propose IN GENERAL to cover ALL cases is to hold States
> responsible for addressing complaints of ANY collective organization (any corporation or religious organization, nonprofit business  educational, POLITICAL such as PACs or Parties, or MEDIA companies but not the content itself by the MANAGEMENT which is a business) for violating the same rights of citizens and individuals
> that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect from collective abuse of authority influence or resources.
> 
> There should be a grievance process in place, similar to OSHA that has a code and a process for issuing citations and resolving penalties by correction or fines, or hearing/trial if necessary),
> that is ACCESSIBLE to the public so that conflicts can be mediated or arbitrated to avoid
> legal actions or costs in a court system that ISN'T affordable or accessible in part because it's so backlogged.
> 
> Sneekin by having a systematic way of addressing Religious Abuses, corporate or political abuses,
> then the cases of gay/marriage/transgender issues and harassment/exclusion because of religious
> conflicts can be included and addressed this way, targeting the Behavior of the Abuser, the Bullying
> or Oppression of rights, instead of arguing over who believes what about homosexuality or marriage or
> the content of the beliefs in conflict.
> 
> Trying to abuse parties or media to pass a law that others object to by religious beliefs or political creed,
> causes disruptions and violations either way.
> 
> So it's that BEHAVIOR -- the bullying by coercion, imposition, exclusion or discrimination --
> that can be focused on as wrongful and in violation of equal protections under law.
> 
> Political bullying, judicial and legal abuse should be addressed REGARDLESS
> of the "content" of the sides and beliefs involved in the dispute.
> 
> So that is my proposal how to address this more generally, instead of
> insulting attacking and harassing people for which side or belief they favor.
> 
> That's part of the problem, and taking one side over the other is never going to solve it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Emily, I agree with 100 percent of what the gentleman from CAIR said - it's exactly what I gleaned from my studies of Islam, and in conversations with friends that are Muslims, and a couple of the area Imams.
> 
> The case that I quoted, regarding divorce, involved a non-muslim woman from the US divorcing her Muslim husband.   The judge ruled, using both US law and Shariah law, using the same language that your friend used - that it's not a religion of violence, that women should not be abused, etc, etc.This is but one court case that was ruled upon in the US using the tenets from the US laws, but incorporating Shariah law, to assure that dowries were returned, IAW Islamic law,  In S.D. v. M.J.R (New Jersey), a woman filed to get a restraining order against her husband. His excuse was that under Islamic (Sharia) Law, a wife must submit whenever her husband acts.  The Judge didn't issue the restraining order. She appealed, The appellate ruling is consistent with Islamic law, which prohibits spousal abuse, including nonconsensual sexual relations. The summary that follows is pulled directly from LexisNexis:
> 
> "In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminal sexual contact and thus violated the PDVA. We also found that the judge was mistaken in failing to enter a final restraining order in the matter."
> 
> Again, speaking only for myself, I hold to the true meanings of Shariah Law, and not the Cult definitions (which are offensive), and those that profess those disgusting beliefs are just pathetic and ignorant people.
Click to expand...


Hi Sneekin I don't really endorse the last part you added, having to disparage people if they are
ignorant of what Shariah means in different contexts.  But the content of what you said, sure I agree with.

I don't agree with secular courts "incorporating Shariah Law" or having to use principles in Islam to check itself which is getting into the religion.
Govt is not supposed to be regulating religion, but enforcing civil and criminal laws for all citizens publicly.
The courts can use secular laws on abuse and show these are violations of civil law.

In private, sure, the local Imam or counselors could use the principles
they are committed to in order to rebuke and correct the wrongs.

I hoped you were just commenting on the side how this is consistent with Islamic principles
and not that the court really had to spell anything out using Islamic law. If the woman in her
defense explained it, that's her beliefs, but I don't think the court needed to incorporate that,
and just citing secular laws was better so they are policing those laws and not intervening and policing religion.


----------



## Sneekin

Tennyson said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS Sneekin when Atheists have sued to remove crosses from public property,
> It was NOT because they were being forced to join or change their faith!
> 
> They argue on principle that references to beliefs not all people share should not be endorsed or adopted as public policy such as in schools or on bldg s
> 
> These should be Removed or kept in private
> 
> And same should be respected for Christians asking to remove references to beliefs not everyone shares
> 
> It does not have to be forced on someone or force someone to join
> In order to be removed on principle alone that not all people believe in it
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Emily, but you are wrong.  When Atheists sue to remove Crosses (as well as Menorahs. Ten Commandments, Creche,  and other religious objects), they are suing because it violates their freedom FROM religion under the first amendment.  To allow Crosses, the Ten Commandments, etc on public property gives the appearance of having or endorsing a state religion.  Many Christians erroneously think that it violates their religious freedom, but the courts have decided several times that that is simply not true.  In our city, the former mayor thought he had a work around, and for a few years, it worked - a cross/Creche would be allowed at Christmas time, as long as every other religion was represented if asked.  A menorah came in one year, some pagans brought in something to celebrate the winter solstice.  The last year, Satanists demanded that they have a goat head on display.  He pitched a fit and told them they couldn't, they filed suit, and upon receipt, all persons were called and told to remove items from the city center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom from religion is not a constitutional concept. That is a twentieth century activist court's creation.
Click to expand...

Really? You mean our founding fathers and the Supreme Court were wrong?  Please provide the portion of the constitution that requires a person to belong to a religion- and remember, as has been stated by Atheists for years, Atheism is NOT a religion. Proof - put up, or shut up.   Once again, you don't know what you are speaking about.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS Sneekin when Atheists have sued to remove crosses from public property,
> It was NOT because they were being forced to join or change their faith!
> 
> They argue on principle that references to beliefs not all people share should not be endorsed or adopted as public policy such as in schools or on bldg s
> 
> These should be Removed or kept in private
> 
> And same should be respected for Christians asking to remove references to beliefs not everyone shares
> 
> It does not have to be forced on someone or force someone to join
> In order to be removed on principle alone that not all people believe in it
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Emily, but you are wrong.  When Atheists sue to remove Crosses (as well as Menorahs. Ten Commandments, Creche,  and other religious objects), they are suing because it violates their freedom FROM religion under the first amendment.  To allow Crosses, the Ten Commandments, etc on public property gives the appearance of having or endorsing a state religion.  Many Christians erroneously think that it violates their religious freedom, but the courts have decided several times that that is simply not true.  In our city, the former mayor thought he had a work around, and for a few years, it worked - a cross/Creche would be allowed at Christmas time, as long as every other religion was represented if asked.  A menorah came in one year, some pagans brought in something to celebrate the winter solstice.  The last year, Satanists demanded that they have a goat head on display.  He pitched a fit and told them they couldn't, they filed suit, and upon receipt, all persons were called and told to remove items from the city center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom from religion is not a constitutional concept. That is a twentieth century activist court's creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Tennyson's there are many ways to paraphrase the
> concept of govt/Congress "neither
> Establishing nor Prohibiting" the free exercise of religion
> 
> freedom of religion is the free exercise clause
> freedom from religion is the paraphrasing of the "not establishing" clause
> 
> For Anarchists to be included in this, I would paraphrase as "free will" or "informed consent"
> "free choice" or "civil liberty" as other ways to say "freedom to exercise" one's beliefs that can be about anything
> 
> If we only used "freedom of religion' to mean "large organized world religions"
> that would be discrimination by creed based on what affiliation a person has or not.
> 
> So to treat all people fairly I go with the more universal interpretation
> of free will, which is still subject to the rest of the First Amendment and Bill of Rights.
> 
> Free speech and Free will/exercise cannot be "taken out of context"
> so as to violate the freedom or peace or security of others (ie right to assemble peaceably and securely)
> or their due process or equal protections of law from deprivation of liberty or discrimination by creed
> WITHOUT VIOLATING the same laws being invoked.
> 
> That's probably the most liberal interpretation, but I use that so even
> atheists or anarchists who don't claim any religion can be included and protected equally.
> They just can't impose their beliefs on others if they don't want others imposing their beliefs on them,
> by these same laws.
> 
> =============
> 
> *Chants violated First Amendment right*
> *In response to the letter from Bolie Williams IV (Thresher, Sept. 1),*
> *if Rice University claims not to discriminate on the basis of religion,*
> *then students who believe in free speech should be accommodated equally*
> *as those, like Williams, who may not consider it an inalienable human right.*
> 
> *However, one might expect advocates of First Amendment rights and freedoms*
> *to show the same respect for "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"*
> *by refraining from speech or actions that would deliberately cause a breach*
> *of the peace and disrupt a public assembly.*
> 
> *The example quoted was "yelling fire in a crowded theater." In this case,*
> *it could be argued that the chanting and other jacks during matriculation*
> *temporarily abridged other people's freedom of speech and right to assemble peaceably.*
> 
> *Unlike Williams, I believe that the First Amendment can be quite effective*
> *when interpreted in a way that checks itself, which I recommend here.*
> 
> -- September 8, 1995
> http://houstonprogressive.org/letters.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Freedom from religion is the same as freedom OF religion - they both fall under the free exercise clause.
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin Yes and No
"neither establishing or prohibiting" are two different things.
so technically it's "freedom of or from religion"
if you want to make it one thing.

What's funny is some people combine
"right to assemble and to petition" as one thing
but I see three things:
right to assemble peaceably, which I also interpret loosely as right to security,
right to petition for redress of grievances (where I don't believe in abusing laws to obstruct justice
and prevent someone from resolving their grievance, or that's violating civil rights by my standards)
or both together as right to assemble and to petition as collectively negotiating.


----------



## Sneekin

Tennyson said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Banning Sharia law does not violate the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Sharia law is not used the same as Jewish law in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a big crock of BS.  It's used all the time in NY divorce courts.  Sharia Law is the same as a Christian's Biblical Law, which is the same as Judaic Law.  It's everything - in Judaic law, you can't mix certain foods.  It must be Kosher, specific grounds for marriage, divorce, etc.  Sharia law tells you the same, food must be halal, what to avoid (haram), marriage contracts, etc.  Certain sects within Judaism tell you how to dress, how to wear your hair, and that women must keep their heads covered (which is why they wear wigs) and dress modestly.  Under Catholic Law, Nuns could only display their faces and hands after taking their vows (Pre-Vatican 2) unless directed otherwise (missionaries, for example, who would be in too much danger).  These religious laws were at times used as the foundation for our common law and written laws.  Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc all have the commandment - thou shalt not kill.  We have a law prohibiting murder. Sharia law says we cannot harm our spouses (or women in general) - hmm, Tennyson, your comment doesn't pass the sniff test, as we've had domestic violence laws on the books for years. But getting back to it all, it's been used as the foundation, as is used many times - it may have to be used when a us citizen is "up against" someone who claims their religious law claims "X".  i suggest you research more and stop your bloviating about things you obviously have no knowledge of.  New Jersey lawyer Abed Awad has processed over100 cases involving sharia law with US law.  In regards to a ban, it would strip judges of their ability to fully and fairly consider such cases, and deprive Muslims of their right to marry and divorce according to their religious beliefs. Not a nice try, and no cigar. In many states, the Imam won’t issue a divorce unless to a married couple until they can bring a certificate from the county/state/parish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe using google for a law degee has confused you.
> 
> You are confusing the First Amendment’s free exercise clause “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” with sharia law and the body of laws within the legal framework of Islamic jurisprudence. The First Amendment does not address nor does it protect a law or laws.
> 
> Sharia law is also a foreign legal tradition and operates as a body of religious and administrative law, and that is not compatible or allowed to conflict with American law. Sharia law is in direct conflict with the inalienable rights of the Bill of Rights. Sharia law does not function as a religion nor does it protect Islam but only as a legal punishment mechanism. There is no provision or right in the Constitution for the consideration of religious sectarian law. Under the doctrine of strict scrutiny and a compelling state’s interest, the outlawing of hacking off someone’s hand or stoning to death is a concept that a first year art major would grasp. Sharia law is not a religion, and if it were, the First Amendment doctrine of protection from government intrusion and the protection from religious intrusion on the government would make Sharia law an intrusion on federal, state, and local law.
> 
> Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While you may have graduated from Trump U or Google U, the rest of us attended real law school, and quoted real attorneys and quoting actual case law.  Now pull your head out of where it's obviously at right now, I confuse nothing.   Apparently you have.  That's ok, little one.  Maybe one of your offspring may actually have the intelligence to pass the LSAT.  You, apparently, cannot even spell it, and sleep with a picture of Antonin under your pillow.  Be a good boy, and let the adults talk. Everyone is sick and tired of your grandstanding and false facts.   Maybe you could get out of the basement and ask your mommy if you could go and play with your friends.
> 
> No one but you has claimed Sharia is a religion but you yourself, foolish one.  It is the sum total of the Sunna and Qur'an, fool, and is the religious LAW of Muslims.  The fact you are so ignorant that you claim Muslims hack off hands or stone to death clearly outlines your stupidity.  Sharia is deeply intertwined with Islam, and courts have ruled NUMEROUS (hint, that means many) TIMES based on Sharia Law in American courts.  Call the Attorney who's name I mentioned, and ask him to explain it to you in monosyllabic terms, because it's quite apparent you lack even a modicum of intelligence when it comes to the law.  Sharia is used in tandem with US law, fool, and not an intrusion.  Examples given, you failed to understand, as usual. Be a good boy, and be gone. We grow weary of your continued bloviating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post makes no sense, is devoid of an argument to my post, and demonstrates your are over your depth. That is par for someone trying to convince everyone on the Internet that they are an attorney.
> 
> You are definitely some random internet troll, boring, and a waste of time. Your only goal is to distrupt threads and insult. Those déclassé characteristics are a dime a dozen on the Internet.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Troll, I get paid to teach Law at a prominent school.  We already knew that your déclassé characteristics are a dime a dozen - on the net, AND in real life.  Troll away, little boy - you are so far out of your depth it's not funny.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS Sneekin when Atheists have sued to remove crosses from public property,
> It was NOT because they were being forced to join or change their faith!
> 
> They argue on principle that references to beliefs not all people share should not be endorsed or adopted as public policy such as in schools or on bldg s
> 
> These should be Removed or kept in private
> 
> And same should be respected for Christians asking to remove references to beliefs not everyone shares
> 
> It does not have to be forced on someone or force someone to join
> In order to be removed on principle alone that not all people believe in it
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Emily, but you are wrong.  When Atheists sue to remove Crosses (as well as Menorahs. Ten Commandments, Creche,  and other religious objects), they are suing because it violates their freedom FROM religion under the first amendment.  To allow Crosses, the Ten Commandments, etc on public property gives the appearance of having or endorsing a state religion.  Many Christians erroneously think that it violates their religious freedom, but the courts have decided several times that that is simply not true.  In our city, the former mayor thought he had a work around, and for a few years, it worked - a cross/Creche would be allowed at Christmas time, as long as every other religion was represented if asked.  A menorah came in one year, some pagans brought in something to celebrate the winter solstice.  The last year, Satanists demanded that they have a goat head on display.  He pitched a fit and told them they couldn't, they filed suit, and upon receipt, all persons were called and told to remove items from the city center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom from religion is not a constitutional concept. That is a twentieth century activist court's creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? You mean our founding fathers and the Supreme Court were wrong?  Please provide the portion of the constitution that requires a person to belong to a religion- and remember, as has been stated by Atheists for years, Atheism is NOT a religion. Proof - put up, or shut up.   Once again, you don't know what you are speaking about.
Click to expand...


Yes and no Sneekin and Tennyson
some people ARE literalists and require the Govt or Constitution
to specifically state "political creed" or "secular belief" or it doesn't count to them as under "free exercise of religion"

I have run into literalists here who cannot make that leap.
I know, I know. 
I can't stand that either that we don't believe the same things,
and can't "interpret the law" to already protect beliefs whether religious, political or secular.

Grieves me that we have to go through a whole process to write a law
or have a court or govt ruling to resolve this issue of interpretation.

But I ran into this wall with other liberals, who depend on govt
to spell out and interpret it that way, before they feel it is part of the law.

I keep hoping there's a short cut, like interpreting "no discrimination by creed"
to open up the interpretation to include all beliefs, and not just organized religions.

Do we REALLY have to have a federal lawsuit go all the way to the Supreme Court
before it's "okay" to interpret beliefs religions and creeds to include ALL people's???


----------



## Sneekin

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.
> 
> Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.
> 
> Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.
Click to expand...

Once again, EXCELLENT demonstration of lying.   I'm quoting directly from established CASE LAW.  The courts, on more than one occasion, have made sure that the US decision didn't violate said law.  You are an internet troll and buffoon.  I can see you've repeatedly threatened and attacked and refused direct questions for verification and references.  Sorry, you can't bully me, Tenny.  You bore me. But I'm always happy to point out your stupidity.  I used to think you were just ignorant of a few facts, but you have proven that you are either completely stupid, or doing nothing but trolling to try and "win" these threads. There is no win or lose - but in your case, it's compounding one ignorant lie after another.


----------



## emilynghiem

Tennyson said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW I think Statist is a,much better term for this belief on depending on federal govt. Shariah Democrats might work if ir werent such an insult to Muslims who don't use the word that way. But neither do people use govt the same way obviously!
> 
> 
> 
> Sharia is laws according to the Sunna and Qur'an, it has nothing to do with Democrats.  In fact, there are thousands of Republican Muslims.   Your comments, in fact, are rude and insulting.  No Muslim uses that phrase, because it's a rude and insulting term - wouldn't you be offended if someone said all Republicans are all Talibani Christofacist Republicans?  To me, that would be a gross misuse as well, and just as offensive.
> 
> How do people not use government the same way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> My point exactly!
> 
> The Radical Liberals after Rousseau use Govt to establish the collective will of the people
> where the whole compels the individual to comply.
> 
> The Classic Liberals after Locke, today's conservatives, believe in Limited Govt
> where the Constitution is a "social contract" between the people and govt
> on what duties to authorize govt to fulfill and no more.
> Agreement between the people, or consent of the governed, is the basis of law and
> social contracts, and what compels and gives authority to the govt, not vice versa.
> 
> So one model uses govt to mandate or impose laws,
> the other empowers people to have natural rights and the govt and laws reflect the
> consent and authority of the people.
> 
> Liberals and Democrats also believe "the people are the govt"
> but somehow separate people "on the right" as "imposing their beliefs through govt"
> while not recognizing they are doing the same with their "beliefs"
> (which aren't recognized as religious since they are expressed in secular form).
> 
> Both sides are guilty of abusing govt to Compete or Bully between
> these political beliefs, because
> A. the beliefs on the left are NOT recognized as creeds but are allowed to be pushed through govt
> B. the people on the right do not believe or trust that liberals can be reasoned with
> to RECOGNIZE they are pushing secular beliefs similar to religious beliefs,
> and thus they end up giving in to this same game of abusing majority rule to impose one belief on the other.
> 
> I've been trying to find people on BOTH sides who can recognize
> that the beliefs on the left are that, and not merely "ignorance of history or law"
> but TRULY what they believe.  If someone believes in God or Nature as the default source of rights,
> or someone believe in GOVERNMENT as the source of recognizing rights,
> those beliefs cannot be changed by force of law.
> 
> Since they can't be changed, people go to political war trying to impose on the other side's ways.
> 
> What I think we really need is a
> TRUCE a formal public recognition and resolution between parties
> Recognizing that parties are pushing political religions beliefs or creeds
> and to EMBRACE and RESPECT the fact that people BELIEVE in what they are defending.
> 
> once we get over that, and quit trying to compete to outshout or override or overrule
> each other's beliefs,
> maybe we can map out
> how the heck we can ACCOMMODATE all these beliefs
> that clash when we are trying to formulate and enforce public policies.
> 
> What do we keep public, and what do we revert to private
> so the funding and resources can be where we agree to apply them collectively,
> but where we disagree, we can organize separate means of
> investing and managing our resources so we DON'T fight over terms and conditions in conflict.
> 
> That's where I think this conversation
> and this country
> are heading.  We need to have THAT discussion, openly and transparently,
> instead of tiptoeing around the huge Elephant (and Donkey) in the room.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even though Morris had to re-model the preamble because of New Jersey and he used a hint of Rousseau's social contract, the Constitution is a compact between the states. This is evidenced by the language in the preamble, the statements by the founders, and Article VII.
Click to expand...


Sure Tennyson I'm okay with that.
And the 10th Amendment on the rights reserved to people and states
leaves it open for people to agree to social contracts among them that the State law then reflects.

So the people to state relationship mirrors the state to federal relationship.

I have no problem with that.

Question: Do you believe the balances of power was thrown off by
* Senators getting elected by people instead of appointed by the State to balance the House Reps?
* the Pres and VP coming from the same ticket/part instead of first and second place winner of votes?


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.
> 
> Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.
> 
> Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again, EXCELLENT demonstration of lying.   I'm quoting directly from established CASE LAW.  The courts, on more than one occasion, have made sure that the US decision didn't violate said law.  You are an internet troll and buffoon.  I can see you've repeatedly threatened and attacked and refused direct questions for verification and references.  Sorry, you can't bully me, Tenny.  You bore me. But I'm always happy to point out your stupidity.  I used to think you were just ignorant of a few facts, but you have proven that you are either completely stupid, or doing nothing but trolling to try and "win" these threads. There is no win or lose - but in your case, it's compounding one ignorant lie after another.
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin I don't think Tennyson is either a liar or a troll.
I think we are all actively engaging in sharing what we really know about history and past interpretations.

If someone is overstating their point despite flaws, that might be just how they communicate.

Nobody here is a troll that I can see, but as I defined it before,
I reserve the word troll for those who blindly post and have no intention of responding or engaging.
Clearly that's not the case here.

I see sincere people all stating what we know and believe.
But maybe we just express that in different styles of communicating.
I can live with that. I would take the worst flaws of anyone here
because the best of the content being shared is more than worth it!
Thanks!


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm Emily, you are calling for separate but equal, which has been deemed unconstitutional how many times?  What if I don't like the term Civil Unions?   Can I call it Fried Cauliflower?   Just like we can't have separate lines for drinking fountains, or forced segregation, we can't call marriage civil unions for one part of the population, and marriage for the other.   Religious marriage is Holy Matrimony.   Civil Marriage is Marriage, and is completely different.   If you have a Holy Matrimony and your priest/rabbi/Imam/minister fails to sign the state document signifying you are married,  you aren't legally married.  So, the fact is, marriage is a secular contract between two persons (who can sign a contract and give consent).  I'm not sure where you obtain your legal answers from (on-line or mail-order, perhaps?), but according to attorneys and judges on both sides of the issue, we don't vote on the rights of the individual or group.  Check the Loving case and educate yourself.  You'll never have 100 percent turn out, and you have no clue as to the millions if not billions of dollars it would take to modify or create new laws granting civil unions the same rights as marriage (putting aside the fact that it's not constitutional).  Are you willing to personally fund this?  Your blather about it being unconstitutional and one is forcing gay marriage onto Christians is laughable, since the Supreme Court ruling, not even one Christian has been forced to be gay married, and I challenge you to prove differently.  Also, no church has been forced to gay marry anyone, which would violate their first amendment rights.  You are out of gas, and just like to hear yourself talk.  We don't get to vote on the meaning of words, you are foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have a penchant for making condescending replies to Elmily, who asks legitimate questions out of curiosity, and treats everyone with respect. You seem to have an unchecked ego. Based on your posts regarding the law, your ego is on shaky ground.
> 
> Why don't you give me the reason why Plessy was wrongly decided and why Brown was rightly decided with the constitutional basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Tennyson, perhaps if you graduate high school, and college, take your LSAT, and move to where I teach, you'll get your answers.   I don't answer questions from people like yourself, who simply troll and attack.    Plessy was decided based on "Separate but Equal"  Begone, gnat.
> 
> FYI - I'm not condescending.  Emily can ask in 10,000 words what can be asked in 100 or 1000.   She asks very interesting questions at times, but doesn't like the answers she receives on several, and refuses to admit when she is wrong on a particular issue.
> 
> Any more insults you wish to troll, Tenny?   I assure you (as will my students) that my ego is fine.  You have repeatedly been caught in lies, and refuse to quote case law or sources. It is you that has no knowledge of law, continue to make false allegations regarding the law, and have an ego comparable to none and grossly overblown.
> I'm not on shaky ground, and neither is my ego - and the phrase has no meaning.  Perhaps, Tenny, you meant to use my pride, or my confidence?  Those words can be used and make sense, as opposed to your phrase.  I apologize if English isn't your first language, and your translation software erroneously used the word.  Don't waste our time, Tenny. Leave us alone until you have some knowledge in the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> I see that we have different modes and means of communicating.
> When I am "brainstorming" around, trying to find what angle to take with someone
> where we can actually anchor in and gets somewhere,
> yes, of course I ramble around trying to pick brains and do "process of elimination"
> with the haystack of possibilities until we find the needle to work with!
> 
> In this case, I think we struck a chord with the "Shariah Law" issues.
> My friend Mustafaa Carroll of Houston's CAIR is an award winning civic leader and volunteer with the local Peace and Justice community. He made it very clear to me that in traditional (not politicized) Muslim teachings, "Jihad and Shariah" DO NOT MEAN the political warfare and oppression that the militant groups use these for.
> Mustafaa studies the Bible, has traditional Christian pastors in his own family, works with both the Christian and other leaders of faith on unity against war and promotion of nonviolent dialogue to foster stronger peaceful relations locally if we're going to do the same globally.  He meets with any people who invite dialogue, he's met with Christian leaders who at least talked with him face to face.
> If you have trouble understanding this, please also know he didn't know that believing and teaching natural laws as given by God was part of "Constitutionalism" and hadn't heard of that label either. So he did not know there is a name for what he goes around teaching about the Bill of Rights and Constitutional laws as a citizen and civic leader. He just does that naturally, and takes the history of natural laws from where Mohammad issued decrees and spread teachings on "no compulsion in religion" (the equivalent of religious freedom).
> 
> With both of you talking about Shariah Law used to mean the indoctrinated forced type of authority as in CULTS, I would THINK the more general laws to prevent such abuses would be focused against
> * religious abuse
> * cult abuse
> and don't have to specifically be about Islamic imposition of "Shariah Law" on people or members of the community or family.
> 
> so this is a VERY good example for comparing the different between specifically targeting "Shariah Law"
> and address *ALL religious or cult abuse* (or domestic and relationship abuse)
> where ALL cases are covered, instead of just targeting abuses related to "Muslim" or "Shariah Law"
> 
> So with the case of the husband and wife in conflict and the husband is trying to cite religious freedom
> for his beliefs that his authority or authority of Islam comes before her rights and consent,
> then we can cite the 9th Amendment that religious freedom in the 1st Amendment cannot be
> construed to violate the other rights the wife has including due process of law to defend liberty from deprivation,
> protection from excessive punishment, "involuntary servitude unless as penalty for commission of a crime" etc. etc.
> 
> What I would propose IN GENERAL to cover ALL cases is to hold States
> responsible for addressing complaints of ANY collective organization (any corporation or religious organization, nonprofit business  educational, POLITICAL such as PACs or Parties, or MEDIA companies but not the content itself by the MANAGEMENT which is a business) for violating the same rights of citizens and individuals
> that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect from collective abuse of authority influence or resources.
> 
> There should be a grievance process in place, similar to OSHA that has a code and a process for issuing citations and resolving penalties by correction or fines, or hearing/trial if necessary),
> that is ACCESSIBLE to the public so that conflicts can be mediated or arbitrated to avoid
> legal actions or costs in a court system that ISN'T affordable or accessible in part because it's so backlogged.
> 
> Sneekin by having a systematic way of addressing Religious Abuses, corporate or political abuses,
> then the cases of gay/marriage/transgender issues and harassment/exclusion because of religious
> conflicts can be included and addressed this way, targeting the Behavior of the Abuser, the Bullying
> or Oppression of rights, instead of arguing over who believes what about homosexuality or marriage or
> the content of the beliefs in conflict.
> 
> Trying to abuse parties or media to pass a law that others object to by religious beliefs or political creed,
> causes disruptions and violations either way.
> 
> So it's that BEHAVIOR -- the bullying by coercion, imposition, exclusion or discrimination --
> that can be focused on as wrongful and in violation of equal protections under law.
> 
> Political bullying, judicial and legal abuse should be addressed REGARDLESS
> of the "content" of the sides and beliefs involved in the dispute.
> 
> So that is my proposal how to address this more generally, instead of
> insulting attacking and harassing people for which side or belief they favor.
> 
> That's part of the problem, and taking one side over the other is never going to solve it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Emily, I agree with 100 percent of what the gentleman from CAIR said - it's exactly what I gleaned from my studies of Islam, and in conversations with friends that are Muslims, and a couple of the area Imams.
> 
> The case that I quoted, regarding divorce, involved a non-muslim woman from the US divorcing her Muslim husband.   The judge ruled, using both US law and Shariah law, using the same language that your friend used - that it's not a religion of violence, that women should not be abused, etc, etc.This is but one court case that was ruled upon in the US using the tenets from the US laws, but incorporating Shariah law, to assure that dowries were returned, IAW Islamic law,  In S.D. v. M.J.R (New Jersey), a woman filed to get a restraining order against her husband. His excuse was that under Islamic (Sharia) Law, a wife must submit whenever her husband acts.  The Judge didn't issue the restraining order. She appealed, The appellate ruling is consistent with Islamic law, which prohibits spousal abuse, including nonconsensual sexual relations. The summary that follows is pulled directly from LexisNexis:
> 
> "In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminal sexual contact and thus violated the PDVA. We also found that the judge was mistaken in failing to enter a final restraining order in the matter."
> 
> Again, speaking only for myself, I hold to the true meanings of Shariah Law, and not the Cult definitions (which are offensive), and those that profess those disgusting beliefs are just pathetic and ignorant people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Sneekin I don't really endorse the last part you added, having to disparage people if they are
> ignorant of what Shariah means in different contexts.  But the content of what you said, sure I agree with.
> 
> I don't agree with secular courts "incorporating Shariah Law" or having to use principles in Islam to check itself which is getting into the religion.
> Govt is not supposed to be regulating religion, but enforcing civil and criminal laws for all citizens publicly.
> The courts can use secular laws on abuse and show these are violations of civil law.
> 
> In private, sure, the local Imam or counselors could use the principles
> they are committed to in order to rebuke and correct the wrongs.
> 
> I hoped you were just commenting on the side how this is consistent with Islamic principles
> and not that the court really had to spell anything out using Islamic law. If the woman in her
> defense explained it, that's her beliefs, but I don't think the court needed to incorporate that,
> and just citing secular laws was better so they are policing those laws and not intervening and policing religion.
Click to expand...

Emily, you are incorrect - 

 U.S. courts are required to regularly interpret and apply foreign law — including Islamic law — to everything from the recognition of foreign divorces and custody decrees to the validity of marriages, the enforcement of money judgments, probating an Islamic will and the damages element in a commercial dispute. Sharia is relevant in a U.S. court either as a foreign law or as a source of information to understand the expectations of the parties in a dispute.  Again, established case law.  It's an actual requirement of the judicial system to incorporate it, in certain situations.  And when it is applied, it must be applied correctly (ie, the original judge erroneously denied a restraining order because the husband believed something that was not a part of Shariah law, the Appellate court granted it, which is the correct way to go.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW I think Statist is a,much better term for this belief on depending on federal govt. Shariah Democrats might work if ir werent such an insult to Muslims who don't use the word that way. But neither do people use govt the same way obviously!
> 
> 
> 
> Sharia is laws according to the Sunna and Qur'an, it has nothing to do with Democrats.  In fact, there are thousands of Republican Muslims.   Your comments, in fact, are rude and insulting.  No Muslim uses that phrase, because it's a rude and insulting term - wouldn't you be offended if someone said all Republicans are all Talibani Christofacist Republicans?  To me, that would be a gross misuse as well, and just as offensive.
> 
> How do people not use government the same way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> My point exactly!
> 
> The Radical Liberals after Rousseau use Govt to establish the collective will of the people
> where the whole compels the individual to comply.
> 
> The Classic Liberals after Locke, today's conservatives, believe in Limited Govt
> where the Constitution is a "social contract" between the people and govt
> on what duties to authorize govt to fulfill and no more.
> Agreement between the people, or consent of the governed, is the basis of law and
> social contracts, and what compels and gives authority to the govt, not vice versa.
> 
> So one model uses govt to mandate or impose laws,
> the other empowers people to have natural rights and the govt and laws reflect the
> consent and authority of the people.
> 
> Liberals and Democrats also believe "the people are the govt"
> but somehow separate people "on the right" as "imposing their beliefs through govt"
> while not recognizing they are doing the same with their "beliefs"
> (which aren't recognized as religious since they are expressed in secular form).
> 
> Both sides are guilty of abusing govt to Compete or Bully between
> these political beliefs, because
> A. the beliefs on the left are NOT recognized as creeds but are allowed to be pushed through govt
> B. the people on the right do not believe or trust that liberals can be reasoned with
> to RECOGNIZE they are pushing secular beliefs similar to religious beliefs,
> and thus they end up giving in to this same game of abusing majority rule to impose one belief on the other.
> 
> I've been trying to find people on BOTH sides who can recognize
> that the beliefs on the left are that, and not merely "ignorance of history or law"
> but TRULY what they believe.  If someone believes in God or Nature as the default source of rights,
> or someone believe in GOVERNMENT as the source of recognizing rights,
> those beliefs cannot be changed by force of law.
> 
> Since they can't be changed, people go to political war trying to impose on the other side's ways.
> 
> What I think we really need is a
> TRUCE a formal public recognition and resolution between parties
> Recognizing that parties are pushing political religions beliefs or creeds
> and to EMBRACE and RESPECT the fact that people BELIEVE in what they are defending.
> 
> once we get over that, and quit trying to compete to outshout or override or overrule
> each other's beliefs,
> maybe we can map out
> how the heck we can ACCOMMODATE all these beliefs
> that clash when we are trying to formulate and enforce public policies.
> 
> What do we keep public, and what do we revert to private
> so the funding and resources can be where we agree to apply them collectively,
> but where we disagree, we can organize separate means of
> investing and managing our resources so we DON'T fight over terms and conditions in conflict.
> 
> That's where I think this conversation
> and this country
> are heading.  We need to have THAT discussion, openly and transparently,
> instead of tiptoeing around the huge Elephant (and Donkey) in the room.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even though Morris had to re-model the preamble because of New Jersey and he used a hint of Rousseau's social contract, the Constitution is a compact between the states. This is evidenced by the language in the preamble, the statements by the founders, and Article VII.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure Tennyson I'm okay with that.
> And the 10th Amendment on the rights reserved to people and states
> leaves it open for people to agree to social contracts among them that the State law then reflects.
> 
> So the people to state relationship mirrors the state to federal relationship.
> 
> I have no problem with that.
> 
> Question: Do you believe the balances of power was thrown off by
> * Senators getting elected by people instead of appointed by the State to balance the House Reps?
> * the Pres and VP coming from the same ticket/part instead of first and second place winner of votes?
Click to expand...

Emily, I'd love to see the VP the second place winner of votes.   I think the last 8 years would have been a lot smoother and a lot less finger pointing!


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.
> 
> Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.
> 
> Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again, EXCELLENT demonstration of lying.   I'm quoting directly from established CASE LAW.  The courts, on more than one occasion, have made sure that the US decision didn't violate said law.  You are an internet troll and buffoon.  I can see you've repeatedly threatened and attacked and refused direct questions for verification and references.  Sorry, you can't bully me, Tenny.  You bore me. But I'm always happy to point out your stupidity.  I used to think you were just ignorant of a few facts, but you have proven that you are either completely stupid, or doing nothing but trolling to try and "win" these threads. There is no win or lose - but in your case, it's compounding one ignorant lie after another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin I don't think Tennyson is either a liar or a troll.
> I think we are all actively engaging in sharing what we really know about history and past interpretations.
> 
> If someone is overstating their point despite flaws, that might be just how they communicate.
> 
> Nobody here is a troll that I can see, but as I defined it before,
> I reserve the word troll for those who blindly post and have no intention of responding or engaging.
> Clearly that's not the case here.
> 
> I see sincere people all stating what we know and believe.
> But maybe we just express that in different styles of communicating.
> I can live with that. I would take the worst flaws of anyone here
> because the best of the content being shared is more than worth it!
> Thanks!
Click to expand...

I'd like to believe you, Emily, but he's already driven a few people away.  When asked simple questions, like sources, which he could have easily provided (or googled, if it actually existed, or via LexisNexis), he acts like the typical internet troll - "I know the answer, but I'm not telling".  He also bullies whoever catches him in lies. Apparently that also frustrates him, because he's managed to state more and more erroneous information.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have a penchant for making condescending replies to Elmily, who asks legitimate questions out of curiosity, and treats everyone with respect. You seem to have an unchecked ego. Based on your posts regarding the law, your ego is on shaky ground.
> 
> Why don't you give me the reason why Plessy was wrongly decided and why Brown was rightly decided with the constitutional basis.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Tennyson, perhaps if you graduate high school, and college, take your LSAT, and move to where I teach, you'll get your answers.   I don't answer questions from people like yourself, who simply troll and attack.    Plessy was decided based on "Separate but Equal"  Begone, gnat.
> 
> FYI - I'm not condescending.  Emily can ask in 10,000 words what can be asked in 100 or 1000.   She asks very interesting questions at times, but doesn't like the answers she receives on several, and refuses to admit when she is wrong on a particular issue.
> 
> Any more insults you wish to troll, Tenny?   I assure you (as will my students) that my ego is fine.  You have repeatedly been caught in lies, and refuse to quote case law or sources. It is you that has no knowledge of law, continue to make false allegations regarding the law, and have an ego comparable to none and grossly overblown.
> I'm not on shaky ground, and neither is my ego - and the phrase has no meaning.  Perhaps, Tenny, you meant to use my pride, or my confidence?  Those words can be used and make sense, as opposed to your phrase.  I apologize if English isn't your first language, and your translation software erroneously used the word.  Don't waste our time, Tenny. Leave us alone until you have some knowledge in the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> I see that we have different modes and means of communicating.
> When I am "brainstorming" around, trying to find what angle to take with someone
> where we can actually anchor in and gets somewhere,
> yes, of course I ramble around trying to pick brains and do "process of elimination"
> with the haystack of possibilities until we find the needle to work with!
> 
> In this case, I think we struck a chord with the "Shariah Law" issues.
> My friend Mustafaa Carroll of Houston's CAIR is an award winning civic leader and volunteer with the local Peace and Justice community. He made it very clear to me that in traditional (not politicized) Muslim teachings, "Jihad and Shariah" DO NOT MEAN the political warfare and oppression that the militant groups use these for.
> Mustafaa studies the Bible, has traditional Christian pastors in his own family, works with both the Christian and other leaders of faith on unity against war and promotion of nonviolent dialogue to foster stronger peaceful relations locally if we're going to do the same globally.  He meets with any people who invite dialogue, he's met with Christian leaders who at least talked with him face to face.
> If you have trouble understanding this, please also know he didn't know that believing and teaching natural laws as given by God was part of "Constitutionalism" and hadn't heard of that label either. So he did not know there is a name for what he goes around teaching about the Bill of Rights and Constitutional laws as a citizen and civic leader. He just does that naturally, and takes the history of natural laws from where Mohammad issued decrees and spread teachings on "no compulsion in religion" (the equivalent of religious freedom).
> 
> With both of you talking about Shariah Law used to mean the indoctrinated forced type of authority as in CULTS, I would THINK the more general laws to prevent such abuses would be focused against
> * religious abuse
> * cult abuse
> and don't have to specifically be about Islamic imposition of "Shariah Law" on people or members of the community or family.
> 
> so this is a VERY good example for comparing the different between specifically targeting "Shariah Law"
> and address *ALL religious or cult abuse* (or domestic and relationship abuse)
> where ALL cases are covered, instead of just targeting abuses related to "Muslim" or "Shariah Law"
> 
> So with the case of the husband and wife in conflict and the husband is trying to cite religious freedom
> for his beliefs that his authority or authority of Islam comes before her rights and consent,
> then we can cite the 9th Amendment that religious freedom in the 1st Amendment cannot be
> construed to violate the other rights the wife has including due process of law to defend liberty from deprivation,
> protection from excessive punishment, "involuntary servitude unless as penalty for commission of a crime" etc. etc.
> 
> What I would propose IN GENERAL to cover ALL cases is to hold States
> responsible for addressing complaints of ANY collective organization (any corporation or religious organization, nonprofit business  educational, POLITICAL such as PACs or Parties, or MEDIA companies but not the content itself by the MANAGEMENT which is a business) for violating the same rights of citizens and individuals
> that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect from collective abuse of authority influence or resources.
> 
> There should be a grievance process in place, similar to OSHA that has a code and a process for issuing citations and resolving penalties by correction or fines, or hearing/trial if necessary),
> that is ACCESSIBLE to the public so that conflicts can be mediated or arbitrated to avoid
> legal actions or costs in a court system that ISN'T affordable or accessible in part because it's so backlogged.
> 
> Sneekin by having a systematic way of addressing Religious Abuses, corporate or political abuses,
> then the cases of gay/marriage/transgender issues and harassment/exclusion because of religious
> conflicts can be included and addressed this way, targeting the Behavior of the Abuser, the Bullying
> or Oppression of rights, instead of arguing over who believes what about homosexuality or marriage or
> the content of the beliefs in conflict.
> 
> Trying to abuse parties or media to pass a law that others object to by religious beliefs or political creed,
> causes disruptions and violations either way.
> 
> So it's that BEHAVIOR -- the bullying by coercion, imposition, exclusion or discrimination --
> that can be focused on as wrongful and in violation of equal protections under law.
> 
> Political bullying, judicial and legal abuse should be addressed REGARDLESS
> of the "content" of the sides and beliefs involved in the dispute.
> 
> So that is my proposal how to address this more generally, instead of
> insulting attacking and harassing people for which side or belief they favor.
> 
> That's part of the problem, and taking one side over the other is never going to solve it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Emily, I agree with 100 percent of what the gentleman from CAIR said - it's exactly what I gleaned from my studies of Islam, and in conversations with friends that are Muslims, and a couple of the area Imams.
> 
> The case that I quoted, regarding divorce, involved a non-muslim woman from the US divorcing her Muslim husband.   The judge ruled, using both US law and Shariah law, using the same language that your friend used - that it's not a religion of violence, that women should not be abused, etc, etc.This is but one court case that was ruled upon in the US using the tenets from the US laws, but incorporating Shariah law, to assure that dowries were returned, IAW Islamic law,  In S.D. v. M.J.R (New Jersey), a woman filed to get a restraining order against her husband. His excuse was that under Islamic (Sharia) Law, a wife must submit whenever her husband acts.  The Judge didn't issue the restraining order. She appealed, The appellate ruling is consistent with Islamic law, which prohibits spousal abuse, including nonconsensual sexual relations. The summary that follows is pulled directly from LexisNexis:
> 
> "In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminal sexual contact and thus violated the PDVA. We also found that the judge was mistaken in failing to enter a final restraining order in the matter."
> 
> Again, speaking only for myself, I hold to the true meanings of Shariah Law, and not the Cult definitions (which are offensive), and those that profess those disgusting beliefs are just pathetic and ignorant people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Sneekin I don't really endorse the last part you added, having to disparage people if they are
> ignorant of what Shariah means in different contexts.  But the content of what you said, sure I agree with.
> 
> I don't agree with secular courts "incorporating Shariah Law" or having to use principles in Islam to check itself which is getting into the religion.
> Govt is not supposed to be regulating religion, but enforcing civil and criminal laws for all citizens publicly.
> The courts can use secular laws on abuse and show these are violations of civil law.
> 
> In private, sure, the local Imam or counselors could use the principles
> they are committed to in order to rebuke and correct the wrongs.
> 
> I hoped you were just commenting on the side how this is consistent with Islamic principles
> and not that the court really had to spell anything out using Islamic law. If the woman in her
> defense explained it, that's her beliefs, but I don't think the court needed to incorporate that,
> and just citing secular laws was better so they are policing those laws and not intervening and policing religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, you are incorrect -
> 
> U.S. courts are required to regularly interpret and apply foreign law — including Islamic law — to everything from the recognition of foreign divorces and custody decrees to the validity of marriages, the enforcement of money judgments, probating an Islamic will and the damages element in a commercial dispute. Sharia is relevant in a U.S. court either as a foreign law or as a source of information to understand the expectations of the parties in a dispute.  Again, established case law.  It's an actual requirement of the judicial system to incorporate it, in certain situations.  And when it is applied, it must be applied correctly (ie, the original judge erroneously denied a restraining order because the husband believed something that was not a part of Shariah law, the Appellate court granted it, which is the correct way to go.
Click to expand...


So this was an international case regarding foreign law?
In that case it is not "religious law" as in "free exercise of religion" which is private.

If you are using "Shariah" to mean the foreign law of a nation that mixes it with religion,
the mixture with religion is on their part. The tenets and principles are the "law of that nation,"
and not the global or personal "religion" which the govt does not govern.

Sorry I thought you were citing a local law involving a couple where the husband was citing
his "religious beliefs" so that's why I was WONDERING why would the US court make
ruling citing his personal religion instead of just citing secular laws that say the same thing.

Sorry and thanks for the clarification.

I'm not trying to insist on "something wrong" I am trying to find out what is "right"


----------



## Tennyson

emilynghiem said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS Sneekin when Atheists have sued to remove crosses from public property,
> It was NOT because they were being forced to join or change their faith!
> 
> They argue on principle that references to beliefs not all people share should not be endorsed or adopted as public policy such as in schools or on bldg s
> 
> These should be Removed or kept in private
> 
> And same should be respected for Christians asking to remove references to beliefs not everyone shares
> 
> It does not have to be forced on someone or force someone to join
> In order to be removed on principle alone that not all people believe in it
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Emily, but you are wrong.  When Atheists sue to remove Crosses (as well as Menorahs. Ten Commandments, Creche,  and other religious objects), they are suing because it violates their freedom FROM religion under the first amendment.  To allow Crosses, the Ten Commandments, etc on public property gives the appearance of having or endorsing a state religion.  Many Christians erroneously think that it violates their religious freedom, but the courts have decided several times that that is simply not true.  In our city, the former mayor thought he had a work around, and for a few years, it worked - a cross/Creche would be allowed at Christmas time, as long as every other religion was represented if asked.  A menorah came in one year, some pagans brought in something to celebrate the winter solstice.  The last year, Satanists demanded that they have a goat head on display.  He pitched a fit and told them they couldn't, they filed suit, and upon receipt, all persons were called and told to remove items from the city center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom from religion is not a constitutional concept. That is a twentieth century activist court's creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Tennyson's there are many ways to paraphrase the
> concept of govt/Congress "neither
> Establishing nor Prohibiting" the free exercise of religion
> 
> freedom of religion is the free exercise clause
> freedom from religion is the paraphrasing of the "not establishing" clause
> 
> For Anarchists to be included in this, I would paraphrase as "free will" or "informed consent"
> "free choice" or "civil liberty" as other ways to say "freedom to exercise" one's beliefs that can be about anything
> 
> If we only used "freedom of religion' to mean "large organized world religions"
> that would be discrimination by creed based on what affiliation a person has or not.
> 
> So to treat all people fairly I go with the more universal interpretation
> of free will, which is still subject to the rest of the First Amendment and Bill of Rights.
> 
> Free speech and Free will/exercise cannot be "taken out of context"
> so as to violate the freedom or peace or security of others (ie right to assemble peaceably and securely)
> or their due process or equal protections of law from deprivation of liberty or discrimination by creed
> WITHOUT VIOLATING the same laws being invoked.
> 
> That's probably the most liberal interpretation, but I use that so even
> atheists or anarchists who don't claim any religion can be included and protected equally.
> They just can't impose their beliefs on others if they don't want others imposing their beliefs on them,
> by these same laws.
> 
> =============
> 
> *Chants violated First Amendment right*
> *In response to the letter from Bolie Williams IV (Thresher, Sept. 1),*
> *if Rice University claims not to discriminate on the basis of religion,*
> *then students who believe in free speech should be accommodated equally*
> *as those, like Williams, who may not consider it an inalienable human right.*
> 
> *However, one might expect advocates of First Amendment rights and freedoms*
> *to show the same respect for "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"*
> *by refraining from speech or actions that would deliberately cause a breach*
> *of the peace and disrupt a public assembly.*
> 
> *The example quoted was "yelling fire in a crowded theater." In this case,*
> *it could be argued that the chanting and other jacks during matriculation*
> *temporarily abridged other people's freedom of speech and right to assemble peaceably.*
> 
> *Unlike Williams, I believe that the First Amendment can be quite effective*
> *when interpreted in a way that checks itself, which I recommend here.*
> 
> -- September 8, 1995
> http://houstonprogressive.org/letters.html
Click to expand...



Emily,

I am not sure how to answer this. There are not any ways to paraphrase “neither Establishing or Prohibiting” the free exercise of religion. They are two separate phrases with two separate meanings, intent, and backgrounds. The establishment clause was created only as a prohibition on the federal government; this precludes any mention of state. The dual purpose was to avoid another Church of England, and to no give one Protestant religion an advantage over other Protestant religions. This was started at the convention between Madison and Ames in what is referred to as the Gentlemen’s Agreement.  The free exercise clause came from Madison’s personal experience of how Baptists were treated in Virginia when he was younger. It only applied to the federal government as does the entire Bill of Rights.


----------



## Tennyson

emilynghiem said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.
> 
> Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.
> 
> Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Tennyson
> 
> If Muslims petition to change the wording because "Shariah Law" is overly broad
> and unintentionally bans voluntary practice of prayer and charity by Muslims in private,
> but the state does not accommodate this as a religious conflict or bias,
> then the federal govt could be petitioned if it doesn't get resolved on a state level.
Click to expand...


Emily,

There is no constitutional concept of a state or individual petitioning the federal government over the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm Emily, you are calling for separate but equal, which has been deemed unconstitutional how many times?  What if I don't like the term Civil Unions?   Can I call it Fried Cauliflower?   Just like we can't have separate lines for drinking fountains, or forced segregation, we can't call marriage civil unions for one part of the population, and marriage for the other.   Religious marriage is Holy Matrimony.   Civil Marriage is Marriage, and is completely different.   If you have a Holy Matrimony and your priest/rabbi/Imam/minister fails to sign the state document signifying you are married,  you aren't legally married.  So, the fact is, marriage is a secular contract between two persons (who can sign a contract and give consent).  I'm not sure where you obtain your legal answers from (on-line or mail-order, perhaps?), but according to attorneys and judges on both sides of the issue, we don't vote on the rights of the individual or group.  Check the Loving case and educate yourself.  You'll never have 100 percent turn out, and you have no clue as to the millions if not billions of dollars it would take to modify or create new laws granting civil unions the same rights as marriage (putting aside the fact that it's not constitutional).  Are you willing to personally fund this?  Your blather about it being unconstitutional and one is forcing gay marriage onto Christians is laughable, since the Supreme Court ruling, not even one Christian has been forced to be gay married, and I challenge you to prove differently.  Also, no church has been forced to gay marry anyone, which would violate their first amendment rights.  You are out of gas, and just like to hear yourself talk.  We don't get to vote on the meaning of words, you are foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have a penchant for making condescending replies to Elmily, who asks legitimate questions out of curiosity, and treats everyone with respect. You seem to have an unchecked ego. Based on your posts regarding the law, your ego is on shaky ground.
> 
> Why don't you give me the reason why Plessy was wrongly decided and why Brown was rightly decided with the constitutional basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Tennyson, perhaps if you graduate high school, and college, take your LSAT, and move to where I teach, you'll get your answers.   I don't answer questions from people like yourself, who simply troll and attack.    Plessy was decided based on "Separate but Equal"  Begone, gnat.
> 
> FYI - I'm not condescending.  Emily can ask in 10,000 words what can be asked in 100 or 1000.   She asks very interesting questions at times, but doesn't like the answers she receives on several, and refuses to admit when she is wrong on a particular issue.
> 
> Any more insults you wish to troll, Tenny?   I assure you (as will my students) that my ego is fine.  You have repeatedly been caught in lies, and refuse to quote case law or sources. It is you that has no knowledge of law, continue to make false allegations regarding the law, and have an ego comparable to none and grossly overblown.
> I'm not on shaky ground, and neither is my ego - and the phrase has no meaning.  Perhaps, Tenny, you meant to use my pride, or my confidence?  Those words can be used and make sense, as opposed to your phrase.  I apologize if English isn't your first language, and your translation software erroneously used the word.  Don't waste our time, Tenny. Leave us alone until you have some knowledge in the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> I see that we have different modes and means of communicating.
> When I am "brainstorming" around, trying to find what angle to take with someone
> where we can actually anchor in and gets somewhere,
> yes, of course I ramble around trying to pick brains and do "process of elimination"
> with the haystack of possibilities until we find the needle to work with!
> 
> In this case, I think we struck a chord with the "Shariah Law" issues.
> My friend Mustafaa Carroll of Houston's CAIR is an award winning civic leader and volunteer with the local Peace and Justice community. He made it very clear to me that in traditional (not politicized) Muslim teachings, "Jihad and Shariah" DO NOT MEAN the political warfare and oppression that the militant groups use these for.
> Mustafaa studies the Bible, has traditional Christian pastors in his own family, works with both the Christian and other leaders of faith on unity against war and promotion of nonviolent dialogue to foster stronger peaceful relations locally if we're going to do the same globally.  He meets with any people who invite dialogue, he's met with Christian leaders who at least talked with him face to face.
> If you have trouble understanding this, please also know he didn't know that believing and teaching natural laws as given by God was part of "Constitutionalism" and hadn't heard of that label either. So he did not know there is a name for what he goes around teaching about the Bill of Rights and Constitutional laws as a citizen and civic leader. He just does that naturally, and takes the history of natural laws from where Mohammad issued decrees and spread teachings on "no compulsion in religion" (the equivalent of religious freedom).
> 
> With both of you talking about Shariah Law used to mean the indoctrinated forced type of authority as in CULTS, I would THINK the more general laws to prevent such abuses would be focused against
> * religious abuse
> * cult abuse
> and don't have to specifically be about Islamic imposition of "Shariah Law" on people or members of the community or family.
> 
> so this is a VERY good example for comparing the different between specifically targeting "Shariah Law"
> and address *ALL religious or cult abuse* (or domestic and relationship abuse)
> where ALL cases are covered, instead of just targeting abuses related to "Muslim" or "Shariah Law"
> 
> So with the case of the husband and wife in conflict and the husband is trying to cite religious freedom
> for his beliefs that his authority or authority of Islam comes before her rights and consent,
> then we can cite the 9th Amendment that religious freedom in the 1st Amendment cannot be
> construed to violate the other rights the wife has including due process of law to defend liberty from deprivation,
> protection from excessive punishment, "involuntary servitude unless as penalty for commission of a crime" etc. etc.
> 
> What I would propose IN GENERAL to cover ALL cases is to hold States
> responsible for addressing complaints of ANY collective organization (any corporation or religious organization, nonprofit business  educational, POLITICAL such as PACs or Parties, or MEDIA companies but not the content itself by the MANAGEMENT which is a business) for violating the same rights of citizens and individuals
> that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect from collective abuse of authority influence or resources.
> 
> There should be a grievance process in place, similar to OSHA that has a code and a process for issuing citations and resolving penalties by correction or fines, or hearing/trial if necessary),
> that is ACCESSIBLE to the public so that conflicts can be mediated or arbitrated to avoid
> legal actions or costs in a court system that ISN'T affordable or accessible in part because it's so backlogged.
> 
> Sneekin by having a systematic way of addressing Religious Abuses, corporate or political abuses,
> then the cases of gay/marriage/transgender issues and harassment/exclusion because of religious
> conflicts can be included and addressed this way, targeting the Behavior of the Abuser, the Bullying
> or Oppression of rights, instead of arguing over who believes what about homosexuality or marriage or
> the content of the beliefs in conflict.
> 
> Trying to abuse parties or media to pass a law that others object to by religious beliefs or political creed,
> causes disruptions and violations either way.
> 
> So it's that BEHAVIOR -- the bullying by coercion, imposition, exclusion or discrimination --
> that can be focused on as wrongful and in violation of equal protections under law.
> 
> Political bullying, judicial and legal abuse should be addressed REGARDLESS
> of the "content" of the sides and beliefs involved in the dispute.
> 
> So that is my proposal how to address this more generally, instead of
> insulting attacking and harassing people for which side or belief they favor.
> 
> That's part of the problem, and taking one side over the other is never going to solve it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Emily, I agree with 100 percent of what the gentleman from CAIR said - it's exactly what I gleaned from my studies of Islam, and in conversations with friends that are Muslims, and a couple of the area Imams.
> 
> The case that I quoted, regarding divorce, involved a non-muslim woman from the US divorcing her Muslim husband.   The judge ruled, using both US law and Shariah law, using the same language that your friend used - that it's not a religion of violence, that women should not be abused, etc, etc.This is but one court case that was ruled upon in the US using the tenets from the US laws, but incorporating Shariah law, to assure that dowries were returned, IAW Islamic law,  In S.D. v. M.J.R (New Jersey), a woman filed to get a restraining order against her husband. His excuse was that under Islamic (Sharia) Law, a wife must submit whenever her husband acts.  The Judge didn't issue the restraining order. She appealed, The appellate ruling is consistent with Islamic law, which prohibits spousal abuse, including nonconsensual sexual relations. The summary that follows is pulled directly from LexisNexis:
> 
> "In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminal sexual contact and thus violated the PDVA. We also found that the judge was mistaken in failing to enter a final restraining order in the matter."
> 
> Again, speaking only for myself, I hold to the true meanings of Shariah Law, and not the Cult definitions (which are offensive), and those that profess those disgusting beliefs are just pathetic and ignorant people.
Click to expand...


That is not what the case was about, that is not part of the case, and a first year law student would know to cite the case rather than some random opinion about the case found on the internet rather than their own opinion regarding the case or citing passages from the ruling.

The case is _S.D. v. M.J.R_. of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division from 2010.


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS Sneekin when Atheists have sued to remove crosses from public property,
> It was NOT because they were being forced to join or change their faith!
> 
> They argue on principle that references to beliefs not all people share should not be endorsed or adopted as public policy such as in schools or on bldg s
> 
> These should be Removed or kept in private
> 
> And same should be respected for Christians asking to remove references to beliefs not everyone shares
> 
> It does not have to be forced on someone or force someone to join
> In order to be removed on principle alone that not all people believe in it
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Emily, but you are wrong.  When Atheists sue to remove Crosses (as well as Menorahs. Ten Commandments, Creche,  and other religious objects), they are suing because it violates their freedom FROM religion under the first amendment.  To allow Crosses, the Ten Commandments, etc on public property gives the appearance of having or endorsing a state religion.  Many Christians erroneously think that it violates their religious freedom, but the courts have decided several times that that is simply not true.  In our city, the former mayor thought he had a work around, and for a few years, it worked - a cross/Creche would be allowed at Christmas time, as long as every other religion was represented if asked.  A menorah came in one year, some pagans brought in something to celebrate the winter solstice.  The last year, Satanists demanded that they have a goat head on display.  He pitched a fit and told them they couldn't, they filed suit, and upon receipt, all persons were called and told to remove items from the city center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom from religion is not a constitutional concept. That is a twentieth century activist court's creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Tennyson's there are many ways to paraphrase the
> concept of govt/Congress "neither
> Establishing nor Prohibiting" the free exercise of religion
> 
> freedom of religion is the free exercise clause
> freedom from religion is the paraphrasing of the "not establishing" clause
> 
> For Anarchists to be included in this, I would paraphrase as "free will" or "informed consent"
> "free choice" or "civil liberty" as other ways to say "freedom to exercise" one's beliefs that can be about anything
> 
> If we only used "freedom of religion' to mean "large organized world religions"
> that would be discrimination by creed based on what affiliation a person has or not.
> 
> So to treat all people fairly I go with the more universal interpretation
> of free will, which is still subject to the rest of the First Amendment and Bill of Rights.
> 
> Free speech and Free will/exercise cannot be "taken out of context"
> so as to violate the freedom or peace or security of others (ie right to assemble peaceably and securely)
> or their due process or equal protections of law from deprivation of liberty or discrimination by creed
> WITHOUT VIOLATING the same laws being invoked.
> 
> That's probably the most liberal interpretation, but I use that so even
> atheists or anarchists who don't claim any religion can be included and protected equally.
> They just can't impose their beliefs on others if they don't want others imposing their beliefs on them,
> by these same laws.
> 
> =============
> 
> *Chants violated First Amendment right*
> *In response to the letter from Bolie Williams IV (Thresher, Sept. 1),*
> *if Rice University claims not to discriminate on the basis of religion,*
> *then students who believe in free speech should be accommodated equally*
> *as those, like Williams, who may not consider it an inalienable human right.*
> 
> *However, one might expect advocates of First Amendment rights and freedoms*
> *to show the same respect for "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"*
> *by refraining from speech or actions that would deliberately cause a breach*
> *of the peace and disrupt a public assembly.*
> 
> *The example quoted was "yelling fire in a crowded theater." In this case,*
> *it could be argued that the chanting and other jacks during matriculation*
> *temporarily abridged other people's freedom of speech and right to assemble peaceably.*
> 
> *Unlike Williams, I believe that the First Amendment can be quite effective*
> *when interpreted in a way that checks itself, which I recommend here.*
> 
> -- September 8, 1995
> http://houstonprogressive.org/letters.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Freedom from religion is the same as freedom OF religion - they both fall under the free exercise clause.
Click to expand...


Freedom from religion is not the same as freedom of religion. That is a twentieth century activist court creation. During the debates, it was discussed that atheist had no standing under the religion clauses of the First Amendment; atheists could not hold office or serve on juries in the states; and you cannot produce one iota of evidence substantiating your statement other than from a twentieth century court and you cannot find any constitutional basis in their ruling.


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS Sneekin when Atheists have sued to remove crosses from public property,
> It was NOT because they were being forced to join or change their faith!
> 
> They argue on principle that references to beliefs not all people share should not be endorsed or adopted as public policy such as in schools or on bldg s
> 
> These should be Removed or kept in private
> 
> And same should be respected for Christians asking to remove references to beliefs not everyone shares
> 
> It does not have to be forced on someone or force someone to join
> In order to be removed on principle alone that not all people believe in it
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Emily, but you are wrong.  When Atheists sue to remove Crosses (as well as Menorahs. Ten Commandments, Creche,  and other religious objects), they are suing because it violates their freedom FROM religion under the first amendment.  To allow Crosses, the Ten Commandments, etc on public property gives the appearance of having or endorsing a state religion.  Many Christians erroneously think that it violates their religious freedom, but the courts have decided several times that that is simply not true.  In our city, the former mayor thought he had a work around, and for a few years, it worked - a cross/Creche would be allowed at Christmas time, as long as every other religion was represented if asked.  A menorah came in one year, some pagans brought in something to celebrate the winter solstice.  The last year, Satanists demanded that they have a goat head on display.  He pitched a fit and told them they couldn't, they filed suit, and upon receipt, all persons were called and told to remove items from the city center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom from religion is not a constitutional concept. That is a twentieth century activist court's creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? You mean our founding fathers and the Supreme Court were wrong?  Please provide the portion of the constitution that requires a person to belong to a religion- and remember, as has been stated by Atheists for years, Atheism is NOT a religion. Proof - put up, or shut up.   Once again, you don't know what you are speaking about.
Click to expand...


What were they wrong about? None of the founders mentioned freedom from religion or the concept. No court ruled on freedom from religion until the twentieth century. All you have are activist courts from the twentieth century.


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Banning Sharia law does not violate the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Sharia law is not used the same as Jewish law in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a big crock of BS.  It's used all the time in NY divorce courts.  Sharia Law is the same as a Christian's Biblical Law, which is the same as Judaic Law.  It's everything - in Judaic law, you can't mix certain foods.  It must be Kosher, specific grounds for marriage, divorce, etc.  Sharia law tells you the same, food must be halal, what to avoid (haram), marriage contracts, etc.  Certain sects within Judaism tell you how to dress, how to wear your hair, and that women must keep their heads covered (which is why they wear wigs) and dress modestly.  Under Catholic Law, Nuns could only display their faces and hands after taking their vows (Pre-Vatican 2) unless directed otherwise (missionaries, for example, who would be in too much danger).  These religious laws were at times used as the foundation for our common law and written laws.  Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc all have the commandment - thou shalt not kill.  We have a law prohibiting murder. Sharia law says we cannot harm our spouses (or women in general) - hmm, Tennyson, your comment doesn't pass the sniff test, as we've had domestic violence laws on the books for years. But getting back to it all, it's been used as the foundation, as is used many times - it may have to be used when a us citizen is "up against" someone who claims their religious law claims "X".  i suggest you research more and stop your bloviating about things you obviously have no knowledge of.  New Jersey lawyer Abed Awad has processed over100 cases involving sharia law with US law.  In regards to a ban, it would strip judges of their ability to fully and fairly consider such cases, and deprive Muslims of their right to marry and divorce according to their religious beliefs. Not a nice try, and no cigar. In many states, the Imam won’t issue a divorce unless to a married couple until they can bring a certificate from the county/state/parish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe using google for a law degee has confused you.
> 
> You are confusing the First Amendment’s free exercise clause “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” with sharia law and the body of laws within the legal framework of Islamic jurisprudence. The First Amendment does not address nor does it protect a law or laws.
> 
> Sharia law is also a foreign legal tradition and operates as a body of religious and administrative law, and that is not compatible or allowed to conflict with American law. Sharia law is in direct conflict with the inalienable rights of the Bill of Rights. Sharia law does not function as a religion nor does it protect Islam but only as a legal punishment mechanism. There is no provision or right in the Constitution for the consideration of religious sectarian law. Under the doctrine of strict scrutiny and a compelling state’s interest, the outlawing of hacking off someone’s hand or stoning to death is a concept that a first year art major would grasp. Sharia law is not a religion, and if it were, the First Amendment doctrine of protection from government intrusion and the protection from religious intrusion on the government would make Sharia law an intrusion on federal, state, and local law.
> 
> Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While you may have graduated from Trump U or Google U, the rest of us attended real law school, and quoted real attorneys and quoting actual case law.  Now pull your head out of where it's obviously at right now, I confuse nothing.   Apparently you have.  That's ok, little one.  Maybe one of your offspring may actually have the intelligence to pass the LSAT.  You, apparently, cannot even spell it, and sleep with a picture of Antonin under your pillow.  Be a good boy, and let the adults talk. Everyone is sick and tired of your grandstanding and false facts.   Maybe you could get out of the basement and ask your mommy if you could go and play with your friends.
> 
> No one but you has claimed Sharia is a religion but you yourself, foolish one.  It is the sum total of the Sunna and Qur'an, fool, and is the religious LAW of Muslims.  The fact you are so ignorant that you claim Muslims hack off hands or stone to death clearly outlines your stupidity.  Sharia is deeply intertwined with Islam, and courts have ruled NUMEROUS (hint, that means many) TIMES based on Sharia Law in American courts.  Call the Attorney who's name I mentioned, and ask him to explain it to you in monosyllabic terms, because it's quite apparent you lack even a modicum of intelligence when it comes to the law.  Sharia is used in tandem with US law, fool, and not an intrusion.  Examples given, you failed to understand, as usual. Be a good boy, and be gone. We grow weary of your continued bloviating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post makes no sense, is devoid of an argument to my post, and demonstrates your are over your depth. That is par for someone trying to convince everyone on the Internet that they are an attorney.
> 
> You are definitely some random internet troll, boring, and a waste of time. Your only goal is to distrupt threads and insult. Those déclassé characteristics are a dime a dozen on the Internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, Troll, I get paid to teach Law at a prominent school.  We already knew that your déclassé characteristics are a dime a dozen - on the net, AND in real life.  Troll away, little boy - you are so far out of your depth it's not funny.
Click to expand...


I am certain you do not have a law degree, and I am 110% certain you do not teach law.


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.
> 
> Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.
> 
> Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again, EXCELLENT demonstration of lying.   I'm quoting directly from established CASE LAW.  The courts, on more than one occasion, have made sure that the US decision didn't violate said law.  You are an internet troll and buffoon.  I can see you've repeatedly threatened and attacked and refused direct questions for verification and references.  Sorry, you can't bully me, Tenny.  You bore me. But I'm always happy to point out your stupidity.  I used to think you were just ignorant of a few facts, but you have proven that you are either completely stupid, or doing nothing but trolling to try and "win" these threads. There is no win or lose - but in your case, it's compounding one ignorant lie after another.
Click to expand...


You cannot provide any Article or clause in the Construction to support your claim; that is why you have not. You cannot provide one iota of evidence that this was the intent; that is why you have not. The last bastion of one not educated regarding the Constitution and history is to cry about case law because they do not have an argument and cannot back up their statements with any historical evidence.


----------



## Tennyson

emilynghiem said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW I think Statist is a,much better term for this belief on depending on federal govt. Shariah Democrats might work if ir werent such an insult to Muslims who don't use the word that way. But neither do people use govt the same way obviously!
> 
> 
> 
> Sharia is laws according to the Sunna and Qur'an, it has nothing to do with Democrats.  In fact, there are thousands of Republican Muslims.   Your comments, in fact, are rude and insulting.  No Muslim uses that phrase, because it's a rude and insulting term - wouldn't you be offended if someone said all Republicans are all Talibani Christofacist Republicans?  To me, that would be a gross misuse as well, and just as offensive.
> 
> How do people not use government the same way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> My point exactly!
> 
> The Radical Liberals after Rousseau use Govt to establish the collective will of the people
> where the whole compels the individual to comply.
> 
> The Classic Liberals after Locke, today's conservatives, believe in Limited Govt
> where the Constitution is a "social contract" between the people and govt
> on what duties to authorize govt to fulfill and no more.
> Agreement between the people, or consent of the governed, is the basis of law and
> social contracts, and what compels and gives authority to the govt, not vice versa.
> 
> So one model uses govt to mandate or impose laws,
> the other empowers people to have natural rights and the govt and laws reflect the
> consent and authority of the people.
> 
> Liberals and Democrats also believe "the people are the govt"
> but somehow separate people "on the right" as "imposing their beliefs through govt"
> while not recognizing they are doing the same with their "beliefs"
> (which aren't recognized as religious since they are expressed in secular form).
> 
> Both sides are guilty of abusing govt to Compete or Bully between
> these political beliefs, because
> A. the beliefs on the left are NOT recognized as creeds but are allowed to be pushed through govt
> B. the people on the right do not believe or trust that liberals can be reasoned with
> to RECOGNIZE they are pushing secular beliefs similar to religious beliefs,
> and thus they end up giving in to this same game of abusing majority rule to impose one belief on the other.
> 
> I've been trying to find people on BOTH sides who can recognize
> that the beliefs on the left are that, and not merely "ignorance of history or law"
> but TRULY what they believe.  If someone believes in God or Nature as the default source of rights,
> or someone believe in GOVERNMENT as the source of recognizing rights,
> those beliefs cannot be changed by force of law.
> 
> Since they can't be changed, people go to political war trying to impose on the other side's ways.
> 
> What I think we really need is a
> TRUCE a formal public recognition and resolution between parties
> Recognizing that parties are pushing political religions beliefs or creeds
> and to EMBRACE and RESPECT the fact that people BELIEVE in what they are defending.
> 
> once we get over that, and quit trying to compete to outshout or override or overrule
> each other's beliefs,
> maybe we can map out
> how the heck we can ACCOMMODATE all these beliefs
> that clash when we are trying to formulate and enforce public policies.
> 
> What do we keep public, and what do we revert to private
> so the funding and resources can be where we agree to apply them collectively,
> but where we disagree, we can organize separate means of
> investing and managing our resources so we DON'T fight over terms and conditions in conflict.
> 
> That's where I think this conversation
> and this country
> are heading.  We need to have THAT discussion, openly and transparently,
> instead of tiptoeing around the huge Elephant (and Donkey) in the room.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even though Morris had to re-model the preamble because of New Jersey and he used a hint of Rousseau's social contract, the Constitution is a compact between the states. This is evidenced by the language in the preamble, the statements by the founders, and Article VII.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure Tennyson I'm okay with that.
> And the 10th Amendment on the rights reserved to people and states
> leaves it open for people to agree to social contracts among them that the State law then reflects.
> 
> So the people to state relationship mirrors the state to federal relationship.
> 
> I have no problem with that.
> 
> Question: Do you believe the balances of power was thrown off by
> * Senators getting elected by people instead of appointed by the State to balance the House Reps?
> * the Pres and VP coming from the same ticket/part instead of first and second place winner of votes?
Click to expand...



The Seventeenth Amendment and its ramifications can be compared to the fall of the Roman Republic and one of the causes of the Roman Empire.

The Twelfth Amendment was necessary as was the Twenty-Second Amendment. I do not think it has had a negative impact and has prevented infighting at the executive branch as we have become more polarized.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Tennyson, perhaps if you graduate high school, and college, take your LSAT, and move to where I teach, you'll get your answers.   I don't answer questions from people like yourself, who simply troll and attack.    Plessy was decided based on "Separate but Equal"  Begone, gnat.
> 
> FYI - I'm not condescending.  Emily can ask in 10,000 words what can be asked in 100 or 1000.   She asks very interesting questions at times, but doesn't like the answers she receives on several, and refuses to admit when she is wrong on a particular issue.
> 
> Any more insults you wish to troll, Tenny?   I assure you (as will my students) that my ego is fine.  You have repeatedly been caught in lies, and refuse to quote case law or sources. It is you that has no knowledge of law, continue to make false allegations regarding the law, and have an ego comparable to none and grossly overblown.
> I'm not on shaky ground, and neither is my ego - and the phrase has no meaning.  Perhaps, Tenny, you meant to use my pride, or my confidence?  Those words can be used and make sense, as opposed to your phrase.  I apologize if English isn't your first language, and your translation software erroneously used the word.  Don't waste our time, Tenny. Leave us alone until you have some knowledge in the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> I see that we have different modes and means of communicating.
> When I am "brainstorming" around, trying to find what angle to take with someone
> where we can actually anchor in and gets somewhere,
> yes, of course I ramble around trying to pick brains and do "process of elimination"
> with the haystack of possibilities until we find the needle to work with!
> 
> In this case, I think we struck a chord with the "Shariah Law" issues.
> My friend Mustafaa Carroll of Houston's CAIR is an award winning civic leader and volunteer with the local Peace and Justice community. He made it very clear to me that in traditional (not politicized) Muslim teachings, "Jihad and Shariah" DO NOT MEAN the political warfare and oppression that the militant groups use these for.
> Mustafaa studies the Bible, has traditional Christian pastors in his own family, works with both the Christian and other leaders of faith on unity against war and promotion of nonviolent dialogue to foster stronger peaceful relations locally if we're going to do the same globally.  He meets with any people who invite dialogue, he's met with Christian leaders who at least talked with him face to face.
> If you have trouble understanding this, please also know he didn't know that believing and teaching natural laws as given by God was part of "Constitutionalism" and hadn't heard of that label either. So he did not know there is a name for what he goes around teaching about the Bill of Rights and Constitutional laws as a citizen and civic leader. He just does that naturally, and takes the history of natural laws from where Mohammad issued decrees and spread teachings on "no compulsion in religion" (the equivalent of religious freedom).
> 
> With both of you talking about Shariah Law used to mean the indoctrinated forced type of authority as in CULTS, I would THINK the more general laws to prevent such abuses would be focused against
> * religious abuse
> * cult abuse
> and don't have to specifically be about Islamic imposition of "Shariah Law" on people or members of the community or family.
> 
> so this is a VERY good example for comparing the different between specifically targeting "Shariah Law"
> and address *ALL religious or cult abuse* (or domestic and relationship abuse)
> where ALL cases are covered, instead of just targeting abuses related to "Muslim" or "Shariah Law"
> 
> So with the case of the husband and wife in conflict and the husband is trying to cite religious freedom
> for his beliefs that his authority or authority of Islam comes before her rights and consent,
> then we can cite the 9th Amendment that religious freedom in the 1st Amendment cannot be
> construed to violate the other rights the wife has including due process of law to defend liberty from deprivation,
> protection from excessive punishment, "involuntary servitude unless as penalty for commission of a crime" etc. etc.
> 
> What I would propose IN GENERAL to cover ALL cases is to hold States
> responsible for addressing complaints of ANY collective organization (any corporation or religious organization, nonprofit business  educational, POLITICAL such as PACs or Parties, or MEDIA companies but not the content itself by the MANAGEMENT which is a business) for violating the same rights of citizens and individuals
> that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect from collective abuse of authority influence or resources.
> 
> There should be a grievance process in place, similar to OSHA that has a code and a process for issuing citations and resolving penalties by correction or fines, or hearing/trial if necessary),
> that is ACCESSIBLE to the public so that conflicts can be mediated or arbitrated to avoid
> legal actions or costs in a court system that ISN'T affordable or accessible in part because it's so backlogged.
> 
> Sneekin by having a systematic way of addressing Religious Abuses, corporate or political abuses,
> then the cases of gay/marriage/transgender issues and harassment/exclusion because of religious
> conflicts can be included and addressed this way, targeting the Behavior of the Abuser, the Bullying
> or Oppression of rights, instead of arguing over who believes what about homosexuality or marriage or
> the content of the beliefs in conflict.
> 
> Trying to abuse parties or media to pass a law that others object to by religious beliefs or political creed,
> causes disruptions and violations either way.
> 
> So it's that BEHAVIOR -- the bullying by coercion, imposition, exclusion or discrimination --
> that can be focused on as wrongful and in violation of equal protections under law.
> 
> Political bullying, judicial and legal abuse should be addressed REGARDLESS
> of the "content" of the sides and beliefs involved in the dispute.
> 
> So that is my proposal how to address this more generally, instead of
> insulting attacking and harassing people for which side or belief they favor.
> 
> That's part of the problem, and taking one side over the other is never going to solve it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Emily, I agree with 100 percent of what the gentleman from CAIR said - it's exactly what I gleaned from my studies of Islam, and in conversations with friends that are Muslims, and a couple of the area Imams.
> 
> The case that I quoted, regarding divorce, involved a non-muslim woman from the US divorcing her Muslim husband.   The judge ruled, using both US law and Shariah law, using the same language that your friend used - that it's not a religion of violence, that women should not be abused, etc, etc.This is but one court case that was ruled upon in the US using the tenets from the US laws, but incorporating Shariah law, to assure that dowries were returned, IAW Islamic law,  In S.D. v. M.J.R (New Jersey), a woman filed to get a restraining order against her husband. His excuse was that under Islamic (Sharia) Law, a wife must submit whenever her husband acts.  The Judge didn't issue the restraining order. She appealed, The appellate ruling is consistent with Islamic law, which prohibits spousal abuse, including nonconsensual sexual relations. The summary that follows is pulled directly from LexisNexis:
> 
> "In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminal sexual contact and thus violated the PDVA. We also found that the judge was mistaken in failing to enter a final restraining order in the matter."
> 
> Again, speaking only for myself, I hold to the true meanings of Shariah Law, and not the Cult definitions (which are offensive), and those that profess those disgusting beliefs are just pathetic and ignorant people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Sneekin I don't really endorse the last part you added, having to disparage people if they are
> ignorant of what Shariah means in different contexts.  But the content of what you said, sure I agree with.
> 
> I don't agree with secular courts "incorporating Shariah Law" or having to use principles in Islam to check itself which is getting into the religion.
> Govt is not supposed to be regulating religion, but enforcing civil and criminal laws for all citizens publicly.
> The courts can use secular laws on abuse and show these are violations of civil law.
> 
> In private, sure, the local Imam or counselors could use the principles
> they are committed to in order to rebuke and correct the wrongs.
> 
> I hoped you were just commenting on the side how this is consistent with Islamic principles
> and not that the court really had to spell anything out using Islamic law. If the woman in her
> defense explained it, that's her beliefs, but I don't think the court needed to incorporate that,
> and just citing secular laws was better so they are policing those laws and not intervening and policing religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, you are incorrect -
> 
> U.S. courts are required to regularly interpret and apply foreign law — including Islamic law — to everything from the recognition of foreign divorces and custody decrees to the validity of marriages, the enforcement of money judgments, probating an Islamic will and the damages element in a commercial dispute. Sharia is relevant in a U.S. court either as a foreign law or as a source of information to understand the expectations of the parties in a dispute.  Again, established case law.  It's an actual requirement of the judicial system to incorporate it, in certain situations.  And when it is applied, it must be applied correctly (ie, the original judge erroneously denied a restraining order because the husband believed something that was not a part of Shariah law, the Appellate court granted it, which is the correct way to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So this was an international case regarding foreign law?
> In that case it is not "religious law" as in "free exercise of religion" which is private.
> 
> If you are using "Shariah" to mean the foreign law of a nation that mixes it with religion,
> the mixture with religion is on their part. The tenets and principles are the "law of that nation,"
> and not the global or personal "religion" which the govt does not govern.
> 
> Sorry I thought you were citing a local law involving a couple where the husband was citing
> his "religious beliefs" so that's why I was WONDERING why would the US court make
> ruling citing his personal religion instead of just citing secular laws that say the same thing.
> 
> Sorry and thanks for the clarification.
> 
> I'm not trying to insist on "something wrong" I am trying to find out what is "right"
Click to expand...

No, not using Sharia to mean international law, but as religious law (similar occurrences may occur with Judaic or obscure Christian sects, as well.   It's definitely not the foreign law of a nation.   The tenets are the laws of the religion, and require an interpretation.  Both cases are local, one being a divorce, the other being an application for a restraining order.  I suggest you read both cases in their entirety (fairly short, excellent summaries as well) and it will more than likely answer any and all questions you may have.  You need to remember, that religion can trump government law - that is, they cannot require you to have a blood transfusion, if it's against your religion.   They can draft you in time of war, but they cannot put a gun in your hand and make you fight, if it's a valid religious objection (reference the Quakers).   So, a judge at times may have to be aware of Sharia law such as in both cases I referenced.   In both cases, the husband did cite his religious beliefs.  In the case of the restraining order, he was wrong in his beliefs (you validated that with your CAIR friend).  In the divorce case, there were other applicable issues that needed to be taken into account, that are normally not an issue.


----------



## Sneekin

Tennyson said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS Sneekin when Atheists have sued to remove crosses from public property,
> It was NOT because they were being forced to join or change their faith!
> 
> They argue on principle that references to beliefs not all people share should not be endorsed or adopted as public policy such as in schools or on bldg s
> 
> These should be Removed or kept in private
> 
> And same should be respected for Christians asking to remove references to beliefs not everyone shares
> 
> It does not have to be forced on someone or force someone to join
> In order to be removed on principle alone that not all people believe in it
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Emily, but you are wrong.  When Atheists sue to remove Crosses (as well as Menorahs. Ten Commandments, Creche,  and other religious objects), they are suing because it violates their freedom FROM religion under the first amendment.  To allow Crosses, the Ten Commandments, etc on public property gives the appearance of having or endorsing a state religion.  Many Christians erroneously think that it violates their religious freedom, but the courts have decided several times that that is simply not true.  In our city, the former mayor thought he had a work around, and for a few years, it worked - a cross/Creche would be allowed at Christmas time, as long as every other religion was represented if asked.  A menorah came in one year, some pagans brought in something to celebrate the winter solstice.  The last year, Satanists demanded that they have a goat head on display.  He pitched a fit and told them they couldn't, they filed suit, and upon receipt, all persons were called and told to remove items from the city center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom from religion is not a constitutional concept. That is a twentieth century activist court's creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Tennyson's there are many ways to paraphrase the
> concept of govt/Congress "neither
> Establishing nor Prohibiting" the free exercise of religion
> 
> freedom of religion is the free exercise clause
> freedom from religion is the paraphrasing of the "not establishing" clause
> 
> For Anarchists to be included in this, I would paraphrase as "free will" or "informed consent"
> "free choice" or "civil liberty" as other ways to say "freedom to exercise" one's beliefs that can be about anything
> 
> If we only used "freedom of religion' to mean "large organized world religions"
> that would be discrimination by creed based on what affiliation a person has or not.
> 
> So to treat all people fairly I go with the more universal interpretation
> of free will, which is still subject to the rest of the First Amendment and Bill of Rights.
> 
> Free speech and Free will/exercise cannot be "taken out of context"
> so as to violate the freedom or peace or security of others (ie right to assemble peaceably and securely)
> or their due process or equal protections of law from deprivation of liberty or discrimination by creed
> WITHOUT VIOLATING the same laws being invoked.
> 
> That's probably the most liberal interpretation, but I use that so even
> atheists or anarchists who don't claim any religion can be included and protected equally.
> They just can't impose their beliefs on others if they don't want others imposing their beliefs on them,
> by these same laws.
> 
> =============
> 
> *Chants violated First Amendment right*
> *In response to the letter from Bolie Williams IV (Thresher, Sept. 1),*
> *if Rice University claims not to discriminate on the basis of religion,*
> *then students who believe in free speech should be accommodated equally*
> *as those, like Williams, who may not consider it an inalienable human right.*
> 
> *However, one might expect advocates of First Amendment rights and freedoms*
> *to show the same respect for "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"*
> *by refraining from speech or actions that would deliberately cause a breach*
> *of the peace and disrupt a public assembly.*
> 
> *The example quoted was "yelling fire in a crowded theater." In this case,*
> *it could be argued that the chanting and other jacks during matriculation*
> *temporarily abridged other people's freedom of speech and right to assemble peaceably.*
> 
> *Unlike Williams, I believe that the First Amendment can be quite effective*
> *when interpreted in a way that checks itself, which I recommend here.*
> 
> -- September 8, 1995
> http://houstonprogressive.org/letters.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> I am not sure how to answer this. There are not any ways to paraphrase “neither Establishing or Prohibiting” the free exercise of religion. They are two separate phrases with two separate meanings, intent, and backgrounds. The establishment clause was created only as a prohibition on the federal government; this precludes any mention of state. The dual purpose was to avoid another Church of England, and to no give one Protestant religion an advantage over other Protestant religions. This was started at the convention between Madison and Ames in what is referred to as the Gentlemen’s Agreement.  The free exercise clause came from Madison’s personal experience of how Baptists were treated in Virginia when he was younger. It only applied to the federal government as does the entire Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...



G, Tenny, you are now claiming that the constitution only applies to the federal government, and doesn't cover what's not in the constitutions of all 50 states?  Once again, not true.    

As to your other blather, you just laid claim that the United States can have a Federal Religion, as long as it's Catholic, Coptic, Muslim (Sunni/Shia), any of the various forms of Judaism, Buddhist, Sikh, or any of the other THOUSANDS of religion - provided they aren't Protestant.  That is pure blather, and not true.  Which is why the establishment clause is as follows:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - you will note, that Protestant no longer exists, didn't when the Constitution was finalized. Sorry, bud, epic fail. As to your constant false claims that states can establish a religion, that too is not true.   The Supreme Court made clear in a landmark ruling in 1947 that the Establishment Clause does apply to states. You are simply parroting a far right pipe dream.


----------



## Sneekin

Tennyson said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.
> 
> Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.
> 
> Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again, EXCELLENT demonstration of lying.   I'm quoting directly from established CASE LAW.  The courts, on more than one occasion, have made sure that the US decision didn't violate said law.  You are an internet troll and buffoon.  I can see you've repeatedly threatened and attacked and refused direct questions for verification and references.  Sorry, you can't bully me, Tenny.  You bore me. But I'm always happy to point out your stupidity.  I used to think you were just ignorant of a few facts, but you have proven that you are either completely stupid, or doing nothing but trolling to try and "win" these threads. There is no win or lose - but in your case, it's compounding one ignorant lie after another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot provide any Article or clause in the Construction to support your claim; that is why you have not. You cannot provide one iota of evidence that this was the intent; that is why you have not. The last bastion of one not educated regarding the Constitution and history is to cry about case law because they do not have an argument and cannot back up their statements with any historical evidence.
Click to expand...

At least show a modicum of courtesy, Tenny, and address who you are speaking at.   Everyone has provided you with answers, until such time as you failed to answer questions - and at which time, most people just tend to ignore you.  I'm sure it's a foreign concept, but try some courtesy.  And don't be such a fool, and stop talking down to people.  Judges MUST follow applicable law.   There are exceptions to most laws.  And until you read the Sunna and Qur'an, I suggest you once again shut up and quit embarrassing yourself.  Surely you have enough intelligence to understand that no one files suit for violation of Sharia law.  I see you didn't bother reading referenced case law. Typical of you.  It was clearly stated that he justified the sexual assault of his wife by misquoting Sharia Law.  The original judge, by NOT reading the appropriate information failed to issue a restraining order. The Appellate Court read the applicable text (consisting of literally just a few words), and overturned the lower court.  Restraining order was subsequently issued.


----------



## Sneekin

Tennyson said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm Emily, you are calling for separate but equal, which has been deemed unconstitutional how many times?  What if I don't like the term Civil Unions?   Can I call it Fried Cauliflower?   Just like we can't have separate lines for drinking fountains, or forced segregation, we can't call marriage civil unions for one part of the population, and marriage for the other.   Religious marriage is Holy Matrimony.   Civil Marriage is Marriage, and is completely different.   If you have a Holy Matrimony and your priest/rabbi/Imam/minister fails to sign the state document signifying you are married,  you aren't legally married.  So, the fact is, marriage is a secular contract between two persons (who can sign a contract and give consent).  I'm not sure where you obtain your legal answers from (on-line or mail-order, perhaps?), but according to attorneys and judges on both sides of the issue, we don't vote on the rights of the individual or group.  Check the Loving case and educate yourself.  You'll never have 100 percent turn out, and you have no clue as to the millions if not billions of dollars it would take to modify or create new laws granting civil unions the same rights as marriage (putting aside the fact that it's not constitutional).  Are you willing to personally fund this?  Your blather about it being unconstitutional and one is forcing gay marriage onto Christians is laughable, since the Supreme Court ruling, not even one Christian has been forced to be gay married, and I challenge you to prove differently.  Also, no church has been forced to gay marry anyone, which would violate their first amendment rights.  You are out of gas, and just like to hear yourself talk.  We don't get to vote on the meaning of words, you are foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have a penchant for making condescending replies to Elmily, who asks legitimate questions out of curiosity, and treats everyone with respect. You seem to have an unchecked ego. Based on your posts regarding the law, your ego is on shaky ground.
> 
> Why don't you give me the reason why Plessy was wrongly decided and why Brown was rightly decided with the constitutional basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Tennyson, perhaps if you graduate high school, and college, take your LSAT, and move to where I teach, you'll get your answers.   I don't answer questions from people like yourself, who simply troll and attack.    Plessy was decided based on "Separate but Equal"  Begone, gnat.
> 
> FYI - I'm not condescending.  Emily can ask in 10,000 words what can be asked in 100 or 1000.   She asks very interesting questions at times, but doesn't like the answers she receives on several, and refuses to admit when she is wrong on a particular issue.
> 
> Any more insults you wish to troll, Tenny?   I assure you (as will my students) that my ego is fine.  You have repeatedly been caught in lies, and refuse to quote case law or sources. It is you that has no knowledge of law, continue to make false allegations regarding the law, and have an ego comparable to none and grossly overblown.
> I'm not on shaky ground, and neither is my ego - and the phrase has no meaning.  Perhaps, Tenny, you meant to use my pride, or my confidence?  Those words can be used and make sense, as opposed to your phrase.  I apologize if English isn't your first language, and your translation software erroneously used the word.  Don't waste our time, Tenny. Leave us alone until you have some knowledge in the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> I see that we have different modes and means of communicating.
> When I am "brainstorming" around, trying to find what angle to take with someone
> where we can actually anchor in and gets somewhere,
> yes, of course I ramble around trying to pick brains and do "process of elimination"
> with the haystack of possibilities until we find the needle to work with!
> 
> In this case, I think we struck a chord with the "Shariah Law" issues.
> My friend Mustafaa Carroll of Houston's CAIR is an award winning civic leader and volunteer with the local Peace and Justice community. He made it very clear to me that in traditional (not politicized) Muslim teachings, "Jihad and Shariah" DO NOT MEAN the political warfare and oppression that the militant groups use these for.
> Mustafaa studies the Bible, has traditional Christian pastors in his own family, works with both the Christian and other leaders of faith on unity against war and promotion of nonviolent dialogue to foster stronger peaceful relations locally if we're going to do the same globally.  He meets with any people who invite dialogue, he's met with Christian leaders who at least talked with him face to face.
> If you have trouble understanding this, please also know he didn't know that believing and teaching natural laws as given by God was part of "Constitutionalism" and hadn't heard of that label either. So he did not know there is a name for what he goes around teaching about the Bill of Rights and Constitutional laws as a citizen and civic leader. He just does that naturally, and takes the history of natural laws from where Mohammad issued decrees and spread teachings on "no compulsion in religion" (the equivalent of religious freedom).
> 
> With both of you talking about Shariah Law used to mean the indoctrinated forced type of authority as in CULTS, I would THINK the more general laws to prevent such abuses would be focused against
> * religious abuse
> * cult abuse
> and don't have to specifically be about Islamic imposition of "Shariah Law" on people or members of the community or family.
> 
> so this is a VERY good example for comparing the different between specifically targeting "Shariah Law"
> and address *ALL religious or cult abuse* (or domestic and relationship abuse)
> where ALL cases are covered, instead of just targeting abuses related to "Muslim" or "Shariah Law"
> 
> So with the case of the husband and wife in conflict and the husband is trying to cite religious freedom
> for his beliefs that his authority or authority of Islam comes before her rights and consent,
> then we can cite the 9th Amendment that religious freedom in the 1st Amendment cannot be
> construed to violate the other rights the wife has including due process of law to defend liberty from deprivation,
> protection from excessive punishment, "involuntary servitude unless as penalty for commission of a crime" etc. etc.
> 
> What I would propose IN GENERAL to cover ALL cases is to hold States
> responsible for addressing complaints of ANY collective organization (any corporation or religious organization, nonprofit business  educational, POLITICAL such as PACs or Parties, or MEDIA companies but not the content itself by the MANAGEMENT which is a business) for violating the same rights of citizens and individuals
> that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect from collective abuse of authority influence or resources.
> 
> There should be a grievance process in place, similar to OSHA that has a code and a process for issuing citations and resolving penalties by correction or fines, or hearing/trial if necessary),
> that is ACCESSIBLE to the public so that conflicts can be mediated or arbitrated to avoid
> legal actions or costs in a court system that ISN'T affordable or accessible in part because it's so backlogged.
> 
> Sneekin by having a systematic way of addressing Religious Abuses, corporate or political abuses,
> then the cases of gay/marriage/transgender issues and harassment/exclusion because of religious
> conflicts can be included and addressed this way, targeting the Behavior of the Abuser, the Bullying
> or Oppression of rights, instead of arguing over who believes what about homosexuality or marriage or
> the content of the beliefs in conflict.
> 
> Trying to abuse parties or media to pass a law that others object to by religious beliefs or political creed,
> causes disruptions and violations either way.
> 
> So it's that BEHAVIOR -- the bullying by coercion, imposition, exclusion or discrimination --
> that can be focused on as wrongful and in violation of equal protections under law.
> 
> Political bullying, judicial and legal abuse should be addressed REGARDLESS
> of the "content" of the sides and beliefs involved in the dispute.
> 
> So that is my proposal how to address this more generally, instead of
> insulting attacking and harassing people for which side or belief they favor.
> 
> That's part of the problem, and taking one side over the other is never going to solve it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Emily, I agree with 100 percent of what the gentleman from CAIR said - it's exactly what I gleaned from my studies of Islam, and in conversations with friends that are Muslims, and a couple of the area Imams.
> 
> The case that I quoted, regarding divorce, involved a non-muslim woman from the US divorcing her Muslim husband.   The judge ruled, using both US law and Shariah law, using the same language that your friend used - that it's not a religion of violence, that women should not be abused, etc, etc.This is but one court case that was ruled upon in the US using the tenets from the US laws, but incorporating Shariah law, to assure that dowries were returned, IAW Islamic law,  In S.D. v. M.J.R (New Jersey), a woman filed to get a restraining order against her husband. His excuse was that under Islamic (Sharia) Law, a wife must submit whenever her husband acts.  The Judge didn't issue the restraining order. She appealed, The appellate ruling is consistent with Islamic law, which prohibits spousal abuse, including nonconsensual sexual relations. The summary that follows is pulled directly from LexisNexis:
> 
> "In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminal sexual contact and thus violated the PDVA. We also found that the judge was mistaken in failing to enter a final restraining order in the matter."
> 
> Again, speaking only for myself, I hold to the true meanings of Shariah Law, and not the Cult definitions (which are offensive), and those that profess those disgusting beliefs are just pathetic and ignorant people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what the case was about, that is not part of the case, and a first year law student would know to cite the case rather than some random opinion about the case found on the internet rather than their own opinion regarding the case or citing passages from the ruling.
> 
> The case is _S.D. v. M.J.R_. of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division from 2010.
Click to expand...

Odd, Tenny, since I literally copied and pasted sections from court documents.  Caught you in yet another lie.  There are TWO (count them, TWO) cases I'm referring to not one.  

S.D. v. M.J.R (New Jersey), as I directly quoted before, was summarized (copy/pasted from court documents) states as follows:

"In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminal sexual contact and thus violated the PDVA. We also found that the judge was mistaken in failing to enter a final restraining order in the matter."

The husband referenced his ability to sexually assault his wife based solely on his misinterpretation of Sharia law (again, clearly stated).  

Reread Point two in the decision:

"THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FINDING THAT DEFENDANT LACKED THE REQUISITE INTENT TO COMMIT SEXUAL ASSAULT AND CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONTACT BASED UPON HIS RELIGION.THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FINDING THAT DEFENDANT LACKED THE REQUISITE INTENT TO COMMIT SEXUAL ASSAULT AND CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONTACT BASED UPON HIS RELIGION."

Good demonstration of your ignorance, care to share with us the definition of Sharia (religious) law?  There's no country called Sharia, fool.  Sharia law is the same as biblical law for Christians.  Maybe some day you'll be a first year law student, but right now, you lack the skills, both intellectually, verbally and socially.  I didn't pull anything from the internet, I pulled it from LexisNexis.  Finally, if you'd read this in LexisNexis, all 23 pages, you would have gleaned that the summary appearing at the beginning does a good job of summarizing.


----------



## westwall

IndependantAce said:


> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.







Hmmmm, I'll go with Thomas Jefferson who wrote in the Declaration of Independence that  *"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."*  See that "pursuit of happiness" bit?  Yeah, right there.  That covers gay marriage.


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS Sneekin when Atheists have sued to remove crosses from public property,
> It was NOT because they were being forced to join or change their faith!
> 
> They argue on principle that references to beliefs not all people share should not be endorsed or adopted as public policy such as in schools or on bldg s
> 
> These should be Removed or kept in private
> 
> And same should be respected for Christians asking to remove references to beliefs not everyone shares
> 
> It does not have to be forced on someone or force someone to join
> In order to be removed on principle alone that not all people believe in it
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Emily, but you are wrong.  When Atheists sue to remove Crosses (as well as Menorahs. Ten Commandments, Creche,  and other religious objects), they are suing because it violates their freedom FROM religion under the first amendment.  To allow Crosses, the Ten Commandments, etc on public property gives the appearance of having or endorsing a state religion.  Many Christians erroneously think that it violates their religious freedom, but the courts have decided several times that that is simply not true.  In our city, the former mayor thought he had a work around, and for a few years, it worked - a cross/Creche would be allowed at Christmas time, as long as every other religion was represented if asked.  A menorah came in one year, some pagans brought in something to celebrate the winter solstice.  The last year, Satanists demanded that they have a goat head on display.  He pitched a fit and told them they couldn't, they filed suit, and upon receipt, all persons were called and told to remove items from the city center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom from religion is not a constitutional concept. That is a twentieth century activist court's creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Tennyson's there are many ways to paraphrase the
> concept of govt/Congress "neither
> Establishing nor Prohibiting" the free exercise of religion
> 
> freedom of religion is the free exercise clause
> freedom from religion is the paraphrasing of the "not establishing" clause
> 
> For Anarchists to be included in this, I would paraphrase as "free will" or "informed consent"
> "free choice" or "civil liberty" as other ways to say "freedom to exercise" one's beliefs that can be about anything
> 
> If we only used "freedom of religion' to mean "large organized world religions"
> that would be discrimination by creed based on what affiliation a person has or not.
> 
> So to treat all people fairly I go with the more universal interpretation
> of free will, which is still subject to the rest of the First Amendment and Bill of Rights.
> 
> Free speech and Free will/exercise cannot be "taken out of context"
> so as to violate the freedom or peace or security of others (ie right to assemble peaceably and securely)
> or their due process or equal protections of law from deprivation of liberty or discrimination by creed
> WITHOUT VIOLATING the same laws being invoked.
> 
> That's probably the most liberal interpretation, but I use that so even
> atheists or anarchists who don't claim any religion can be included and protected equally.
> They just can't impose their beliefs on others if they don't want others imposing their beliefs on them,
> by these same laws.
> 
> =============
> 
> *Chants violated First Amendment right*
> *In response to the letter from Bolie Williams IV (Thresher, Sept. 1),*
> *if Rice University claims not to discriminate on the basis of religion,*
> *then students who believe in free speech should be accommodated equally*
> *as those, like Williams, who may not consider it an inalienable human right.*
> 
> *However, one might expect advocates of First Amendment rights and freedoms*
> *to show the same respect for "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"*
> *by refraining from speech or actions that would deliberately cause a breach*
> *of the peace and disrupt a public assembly.*
> 
> *The example quoted was "yelling fire in a crowded theater." In this case,*
> *it could be argued that the chanting and other jacks during matriculation*
> *temporarily abridged other people's freedom of speech and right to assemble peaceably.*
> 
> *Unlike Williams, I believe that the First Amendment can be quite effective*
> *when interpreted in a way that checks itself, which I recommend here.*
> 
> -- September 8, 1995
> http://houstonprogressive.org/letters.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> I am not sure how to answer this. There are not any ways to paraphrase “neither Establishing or Prohibiting” the free exercise of religion. They are two separate phrases with two separate meanings, intent, and backgrounds. The establishment clause was created only as a prohibition on the federal government; this precludes any mention of state. The dual purpose was to avoid another Church of England, and to no give one Protestant religion an advantage over other Protestant religions. This was started at the convention between Madison and Ames in what is referred to as the Gentlemen’s Agreement.  The free exercise clause came from Madison’s personal experience of how Baptists were treated in Virginia when he was younger. It only applied to the federal government as does the entire Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> G, Tenny, you are now claiming that the constitution only applies to the federal government, and doesn't cover what's not in the constitutions of all 50 states?  Once again, not true.
> 
> As to your other blather, you just laid claim that the United States can have a Federal Religion, as long as it's Catholic, Coptic, Muslim (Sunni/Shia), any of the various forms of Judaism, Buddhist, Sikh, or any of the other THOUSANDS of religion - provided they aren't Protestant.  That is pure blather, and not true.  Which is why the establishment clause is as follows:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - you will note, that Protestant no longer exists, didn't when the Constitution was finalized. Sorry, bud, epic fail. As to your constant false claims that states can establish a religion, that too is not true.   The Supreme Court made clear in a landmark ruling in 1947 that the Establishment Clause does apply to states. You are simply parroting a far right pipe dream.
Click to expand...


The topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.

I did not claim that the US could have a national religion. 

The states has state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution. 

This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.
> 
> Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.
> 
> Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again, EXCELLENT demonstration of lying.   I'm quoting directly from established CASE LAW.  The courts, on more than one occasion, have made sure that the US decision didn't violate said law.  You are an internet troll and buffoon.  I can see you've repeatedly threatened and attacked and refused direct questions for verification and references.  Sorry, you can't bully me, Tenny.  You bore me. But I'm always happy to point out your stupidity.  I used to think you were just ignorant of a few facts, but you have proven that you are either completely stupid, or doing nothing but trolling to try and "win" these threads. There is no win or lose - but in your case, it's compounding one ignorant lie after another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot provide any Article or clause in the Construction to support your claim; that is why you have not. You cannot provide one iota of evidence that this was the intent; that is why you have not. The last bastion of one not educated regarding the Constitution and history is to cry about case law because they do not have an argument and cannot back up their statements with any historical evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At least show a modicum of courtesy, Tenny, and address who you are speaking at.   Everyone has provided you with answers, until such time as you failed to answer questions - and at which time, most people just tend to ignore you.  I'm sure it's a foreign concept, but try some courtesy.  And don't be such a fool, and stop talking down to people.  Judges MUST follow applicable law.   There are exceptions to most laws.  And until you read the Sunna and Qur'an, I suggest you once again shut up and quit embarrassing yourself.  Surely you have enough intelligence to understand that no one files suit for violation of Sharia law.  I see you didn't bother reading referenced case law. Typical of you.  It was clearly stated that he justified the sexual assault of his wife by misquoting Sharia Law.  The original judge, by NOT reading the appropriate information failed to issue a restraining order. The Appellate Court read the applicable text (consisting of literally just a few words), and overturned the lower court.  Restraining order was subsequently issued.
Click to expand...


You will get the respect you give. 

No one has provided an answer. Again:

You cannot provide any Article or clause in the Constitution to support your claim; that is why you have not. You cannot provide one iota of evidence that this was the intent; that is why you have not.


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have a penchant for making condescending replies to Elmily, who asks legitimate questions out of curiosity, and treats everyone with respect. You seem to have an unchecked ego. Based on your posts regarding the law, your ego is on shaky ground.
> 
> Why don't you give me the reason why Plessy was wrongly decided and why Brown was rightly decided with the constitutional basis.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Tennyson, perhaps if you graduate high school, and college, take your LSAT, and move to where I teach, you'll get your answers.   I don't answer questions from people like yourself, who simply troll and attack.    Plessy was decided based on "Separate but Equal"  Begone, gnat.
> 
> FYI - I'm not condescending.  Emily can ask in 10,000 words what can be asked in 100 or 1000.   She asks very interesting questions at times, but doesn't like the answers she receives on several, and refuses to admit when she is wrong on a particular issue.
> 
> Any more insults you wish to troll, Tenny?   I assure you (as will my students) that my ego is fine.  You have repeatedly been caught in lies, and refuse to quote case law or sources. It is you that has no knowledge of law, continue to make false allegations regarding the law, and have an ego comparable to none and grossly overblown.
> I'm not on shaky ground, and neither is my ego - and the phrase has no meaning.  Perhaps, Tenny, you meant to use my pride, or my confidence?  Those words can be used and make sense, as opposed to your phrase.  I apologize if English isn't your first language, and your translation software erroneously used the word.  Don't waste our time, Tenny. Leave us alone until you have some knowledge in the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> I see that we have different modes and means of communicating.
> When I am "brainstorming" around, trying to find what angle to take with someone
> where we can actually anchor in and gets somewhere,
> yes, of course I ramble around trying to pick brains and do "process of elimination"
> with the haystack of possibilities until we find the needle to work with!
> 
> In this case, I think we struck a chord with the "Shariah Law" issues.
> My friend Mustafaa Carroll of Houston's CAIR is an award winning civic leader and volunteer with the local Peace and Justice community. He made it very clear to me that in traditional (not politicized) Muslim teachings, "Jihad and Shariah" DO NOT MEAN the political warfare and oppression that the militant groups use these for.
> Mustafaa studies the Bible, has traditional Christian pastors in his own family, works with both the Christian and other leaders of faith on unity against war and promotion of nonviolent dialogue to foster stronger peaceful relations locally if we're going to do the same globally.  He meets with any people who invite dialogue, he's met with Christian leaders who at least talked with him face to face.
> If you have trouble understanding this, please also know he didn't know that believing and teaching natural laws as given by God was part of "Constitutionalism" and hadn't heard of that label either. So he did not know there is a name for what he goes around teaching about the Bill of Rights and Constitutional laws as a citizen and civic leader. He just does that naturally, and takes the history of natural laws from where Mohammad issued decrees and spread teachings on "no compulsion in religion" (the equivalent of religious freedom).
> 
> With both of you talking about Shariah Law used to mean the indoctrinated forced type of authority as in CULTS, I would THINK the more general laws to prevent such abuses would be focused against
> * religious abuse
> * cult abuse
> and don't have to specifically be about Islamic imposition of "Shariah Law" on people or members of the community or family.
> 
> so this is a VERY good example for comparing the different between specifically targeting "Shariah Law"
> and address *ALL religious or cult abuse* (or domestic and relationship abuse)
> where ALL cases are covered, instead of just targeting abuses related to "Muslim" or "Shariah Law"
> 
> So with the case of the husband and wife in conflict and the husband is trying to cite religious freedom
> for his beliefs that his authority or authority of Islam comes before her rights and consent,
> then we can cite the 9th Amendment that religious freedom in the 1st Amendment cannot be
> construed to violate the other rights the wife has including due process of law to defend liberty from deprivation,
> protection from excessive punishment, "involuntary servitude unless as penalty for commission of a crime" etc. etc.
> 
> What I would propose IN GENERAL to cover ALL cases is to hold States
> responsible for addressing complaints of ANY collective organization (any corporation or religious organization, nonprofit business  educational, POLITICAL such as PACs or Parties, or MEDIA companies but not the content itself by the MANAGEMENT which is a business) for violating the same rights of citizens and individuals
> that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect from collective abuse of authority influence or resources.
> 
> There should be a grievance process in place, similar to OSHA that has a code and a process for issuing citations and resolving penalties by correction or fines, or hearing/trial if necessary),
> that is ACCESSIBLE to the public so that conflicts can be mediated or arbitrated to avoid
> legal actions or costs in a court system that ISN'T affordable or accessible in part because it's so backlogged.
> 
> Sneekin by having a systematic way of addressing Religious Abuses, corporate or political abuses,
> then the cases of gay/marriage/transgender issues and harassment/exclusion because of religious
> conflicts can be included and addressed this way, targeting the Behavior of the Abuser, the Bullying
> or Oppression of rights, instead of arguing over who believes what about homosexuality or marriage or
> the content of the beliefs in conflict.
> 
> Trying to abuse parties or media to pass a law that others object to by religious beliefs or political creed,
> causes disruptions and violations either way.
> 
> So it's that BEHAVIOR -- the bullying by coercion, imposition, exclusion or discrimination --
> that can be focused on as wrongful and in violation of equal protections under law.
> 
> Political bullying, judicial and legal abuse should be addressed REGARDLESS
> of the "content" of the sides and beliefs involved in the dispute.
> 
> So that is my proposal how to address this more generally, instead of
> insulting attacking and harassing people for which side or belief they favor.
> 
> That's part of the problem, and taking one side over the other is never going to solve it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Emily, I agree with 100 percent of what the gentleman from CAIR said - it's exactly what I gleaned from my studies of Islam, and in conversations with friends that are Muslims, and a couple of the area Imams.
> 
> The case that I quoted, regarding divorce, involved a non-muslim woman from the US divorcing her Muslim husband.   The judge ruled, using both US law and Shariah law, using the same language that your friend used - that it's not a religion of violence, that women should not be abused, etc, etc.This is but one court case that was ruled upon in the US using the tenets from the US laws, but incorporating Shariah law, to assure that dowries were returned, IAW Islamic law,  In S.D. v. M.J.R (New Jersey), a woman filed to get a restraining order against her husband. His excuse was that under Islamic (Sharia) Law, a wife must submit whenever her husband acts.  The Judge didn't issue the restraining order. She appealed, The appellate ruling is consistent with Islamic law, which prohibits spousal abuse, including nonconsensual sexual relations. The summary that follows is pulled directly from LexisNexis:
> 
> "In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminal sexual contact and thus violated the PDVA. We also found that the judge was mistaken in failing to enter a final restraining order in the matter."
> 
> Again, speaking only for myself, I hold to the true meanings of Shariah Law, and not the Cult definitions (which are offensive), and those that profess those disgusting beliefs are just pathetic and ignorant people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what the case was about, that is not part of the case, and a first year law student would know to cite the case rather than some random opinion about the case found on the internet rather than their own opinion regarding the case or citing passages from the ruling.
> 
> The case is _S.D. v. M.J.R_. of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division from 2010.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd, Tenny, since I literally copied and pasted sections from court documents.  Caught you in yet another lie.  There are TWO (count them, TWO) cases I'm referring to not one.
> 
> S.D. v. M.J.R (New Jersey), as I directly quoted before, was summarized (copy/pasted from court documents) states as follows:
> 
> "In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminal sexual contact and thus violated the PDVA. We also found that the judge was mistaken in failing to enter a final restraining order in the matter."
> 
> The husband referenced his ability to sexually assault his wife based solely on his misinterpretation of Sharia law (again, clearly stated).
> 
> Reread Point two in the decision:
> 
> "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FINDING THAT DEFENDANT LACKED THE REQUISITE INTENT TO COMMIT SEXUAL ASSAULT AND CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONTACT BASED UPON HIS RELIGION.THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FINDING THAT DEFENDANT LACKED THE REQUISITE INTENT TO COMMIT SEXUAL ASSAULT AND CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONTACT BASED UPON HIS RELIGION."
> 
> Good demonstration of your ignorance, care to share with us the definition of Sharia (religious) law?  There's no country called Sharia, fool.  Sharia law is the same as biblical law for Christians.  Maybe some day you'll be a first year law student, but right now, you lack the skills, both intellectually, verbally and socially.  I didn't pull anything from the internet, I pulled it from LexisNexis.  Finally, if you'd read this in LexisNexis, all 23 pages, you would have gleaned that the summary appearing at the beginning does a good job of summarizing.
Click to expand...


It is actually not odd. I read the cases before responding and you did not. I cited the case and you did not. Here is what you posted, but you left out the disclaimer:



> The following summary does not reflect the opinion of the court. Please note that, in the interest of brevity, some portions of the case may not have been summarized.
> 
> In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he
> committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminalsexual contact and thus violated the PDVA. We also found that
> the judge was mistaken in failing to enter a final restrainingorder in the matter.
> 
> The full text of the case follows.


----------



## Sneekin

Tennyson said:


> I am certain you do not have a law degree, and I am 110% certain you do not teach law.



Really, troll? Prove it.   Now you show us you are an under endowed, overcompensating male grunt, concerned about his manhood (double major, also have degrees in Psychology, including ABNORMAL Psych).  You've just confirmed our beliefs, Troll.  110%?  Grow a pair.  Thank goodness we know at this point, you can't reproduce.  Begone gnat, and if you don't like what I write, ignore.   You've been corrected.  Perhaps if you focused on obtaining your GED, and turned off Judge Judy and Divorce Court, you'd have a clue.


----------



## Sneekin

Tennyson said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.
> 
> Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.
> 
> Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again, EXCELLENT demonstration of lying.   I'm quoting directly from established CASE LAW.  The courts, on more than one occasion, have made sure that the US decision didn't violate said law.  You are an internet troll and buffoon.  I can see you've repeatedly threatened and attacked and refused direct questions for verification and references.  Sorry, you can't bully me, Tenny.  You bore me. But I'm always happy to point out your stupidity.  I used to think you were just ignorant of a few facts, but you have proven that you are either completely stupid, or doing nothing but trolling to try and "win" these threads. There is no win or lose - but in your case, it's compounding one ignorant lie after another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot provide any Article or clause in the Construction to support your claim; that is why you have not. You cannot provide one iota of evidence that this was the intent; that is why you have not. The last bastion of one not educated regarding the Constitution and history is to cry about case law because they do not have an argument and cannot back up their statements with any historical evidence.
Click to expand...

Yet, Troll, 4 people have already provided proof. Begone, trolling gnat. How many times before you understand you have been proven wrong? Again, CHILD, address posts to the person you are speaking to.  We don't want to read the blather prior to your inane rants. Otherwise, you'll be talking to yourself and ignored by the intelligent people.  buh-bye....


----------



## Sneekin

Tennyson said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Tennyson, perhaps if you graduate high school, and college, take your LSAT, and move to where I teach, you'll get your answers.   I don't answer questions from people like yourself, who simply troll and attack.    Plessy was decided based on "Separate but Equal"  Begone, gnat.
> 
> FYI - I'm not condescending.  Emily can ask in 10,000 words what can be asked in 100 or 1000.   She asks very interesting questions at times, but doesn't like the answers she receives on several, and refuses to admit when she is wrong on a particular issue.
> 
> Any more insults you wish to troll, Tenny?   I assure you (as will my students) that my ego is fine.  You have repeatedly been caught in lies, and refuse to quote case law or sources. It is you that has no knowledge of law, continue to make false allegations regarding the law, and have an ego comparable to none and grossly overblown.
> I'm not on shaky ground, and neither is my ego - and the phrase has no meaning.  Perhaps, Tenny, you meant to use my pride, or my confidence?  Those words can be used and make sense, as opposed to your phrase.  I apologize if English isn't your first language, and your translation software erroneously used the word.  Don't waste our time, Tenny. Leave us alone until you have some knowledge in the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> I see that we have different modes and means of communicating.
> When I am "brainstorming" around, trying to find what angle to take with someone
> where we can actually anchor in and gets somewhere,
> yes, of course I ramble around trying to pick brains and do "process of elimination"
> with the haystack of possibilities until we find the needle to work with!
> 
> In this case, I think we struck a chord with the "Shariah Law" issues.
> My friend Mustafaa Carroll of Houston's CAIR is an award winning civic leader and volunteer with the local Peace and Justice community. He made it very clear to me that in traditional (not politicized) Muslim teachings, "Jihad and Shariah" DO NOT MEAN the political warfare and oppression that the militant groups use these for.
> Mustafaa studies the Bible, has traditional Christian pastors in his own family, works with both the Christian and other leaders of faith on unity against war and promotion of nonviolent dialogue to foster stronger peaceful relations locally if we're going to do the same globally.  He meets with any people who invite dialogue, he's met with Christian leaders who at least talked with him face to face.
> If you have trouble understanding this, please also know he didn't know that believing and teaching natural laws as given by God was part of "Constitutionalism" and hadn't heard of that label either. So he did not know there is a name for what he goes around teaching about the Bill of Rights and Constitutional laws as a citizen and civic leader. He just does that naturally, and takes the history of natural laws from where Mohammad issued decrees and spread teachings on "no compulsion in religion" (the equivalent of religious freedom).
> 
> With both of you talking about Shariah Law used to mean the indoctrinated forced type of authority as in CULTS, I would THINK the more general laws to prevent such abuses would be focused against
> * religious abuse
> * cult abuse
> and don't have to specifically be about Islamic imposition of "Shariah Law" on people or members of the community or family.
> 
> so this is a VERY good example for comparing the different between specifically targeting "Shariah Law"
> and address *ALL religious or cult abuse* (or domestic and relationship abuse)
> where ALL cases are covered, instead of just targeting abuses related to "Muslim" or "Shariah Law"
> 
> So with the case of the husband and wife in conflict and the husband is trying to cite religious freedom
> for his beliefs that his authority or authority of Islam comes before her rights and consent,
> then we can cite the 9th Amendment that religious freedom in the 1st Amendment cannot be
> construed to violate the other rights the wife has including due process of law to defend liberty from deprivation,
> protection from excessive punishment, "involuntary servitude unless as penalty for commission of a crime" etc. etc.
> 
> What I would propose IN GENERAL to cover ALL cases is to hold States
> responsible for addressing complaints of ANY collective organization (any corporation or religious organization, nonprofit business  educational, POLITICAL such as PACs or Parties, or MEDIA companies but not the content itself by the MANAGEMENT which is a business) for violating the same rights of citizens and individuals
> that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect from collective abuse of authority influence or resources.
> 
> There should be a grievance process in place, similar to OSHA that has a code and a process for issuing citations and resolving penalties by correction or fines, or hearing/trial if necessary),
> that is ACCESSIBLE to the public so that conflicts can be mediated or arbitrated to avoid
> legal actions or costs in a court system that ISN'T affordable or accessible in part because it's so backlogged.
> 
> Sneekin by having a systematic way of addressing Religious Abuses, corporate or political abuses,
> then the cases of gay/marriage/transgender issues and harassment/exclusion because of religious
> conflicts can be included and addressed this way, targeting the Behavior of the Abuser, the Bullying
> or Oppression of rights, instead of arguing over who believes what about homosexuality or marriage or
> the content of the beliefs in conflict.
> 
> Trying to abuse parties or media to pass a law that others object to by religious beliefs or political creed,
> causes disruptions and violations either way.
> 
> So it's that BEHAVIOR -- the bullying by coercion, imposition, exclusion or discrimination --
> that can be focused on as wrongful and in violation of equal protections under law.
> 
> Political bullying, judicial and legal abuse should be addressed REGARDLESS
> of the "content" of the sides and beliefs involved in the dispute.
> 
> So that is my proposal how to address this more generally, instead of
> insulting attacking and harassing people for which side or belief they favor.
> 
> That's part of the problem, and taking one side over the other is never going to solve it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Emily, I agree with 100 percent of what the gentleman from CAIR said - it's exactly what I gleaned from my studies of Islam, and in conversations with friends that are Muslims, and a couple of the area Imams.
> 
> The case that I quoted, regarding divorce, involved a non-muslim woman from the US divorcing her Muslim husband.   The judge ruled, using both US law and Shariah law, using the same language that your friend used - that it's not a religion of violence, that women should not be abused, etc, etc.This is but one court case that was ruled upon in the US using the tenets from the US laws, but incorporating Shariah law, to assure that dowries were returned, IAW Islamic law,  In S.D. v. M.J.R (New Jersey), a woman filed to get a restraining order against her husband. His excuse was that under Islamic (Sharia) Law, a wife must submit whenever her husband acts.  The Judge didn't issue the restraining order. She appealed, The appellate ruling is consistent with Islamic law, which prohibits spousal abuse, including nonconsensual sexual relations. The summary that follows is pulled directly from LexisNexis:
> 
> "In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminal sexual contact and thus violated the PDVA. We also found that the judge was mistaken in failing to enter a final restraining order in the matter."
> 
> Again, speaking only for myself, I hold to the true meanings of Shariah Law, and not the Cult definitions (which are offensive), and those that profess those disgusting beliefs are just pathetic and ignorant people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what the case was about, that is not part of the case, and a first year law student would know to cite the case rather than some random opinion about the case found on the internet rather than their own opinion regarding the case or citing passages from the ruling.
> 
> The case is _S.D. v. M.J.R_. of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division from 2010.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd, Tenny, since I literally copied and pasted sections from court documents.  Caught you in yet another lie.  There are TWO (count them, TWO) cases I'm referring to not one.
> 
> S.D. v. M.J.R (New Jersey), as I directly quoted before, was summarized (copy/pasted from court documents) states as follows:
> 
> "In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminal sexual contact and thus violated the PDVA. We also found that the judge was mistaken in failing to enter a final restraining order in the matter."
> 
> The husband referenced his ability to sexually assault his wife based solely on his misinterpretation of Sharia law (again, clearly stated).
> 
> Reread Point two in the decision:
> 
> "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FINDING THAT DEFENDANT LACKED THE REQUISITE INTENT TO COMMIT SEXUAL ASSAULT AND CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONTACT BASED UPON HIS RELIGION.THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FINDING THAT DEFENDANT LACKED THE REQUISITE INTENT TO COMMIT SEXUAL ASSAULT AND CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONTACT BASED UPON HIS RELIGION."
> 
> Good demonstration of your ignorance, care to share with us the definition of Sharia (religious) law?  There's no country called Sharia, fool.  Sharia law is the same as biblical law for Christians.  Maybe some day you'll be a first year law student, but right now, you lack the skills, both intellectually, verbally and socially.  I didn't pull anything from the internet, I pulled it from LexisNexis.  Finally, if you'd read this in LexisNexis, all 23 pages, you would have gleaned that the summary appearing at the beginning does a good job of summarizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is actually not odd. I read the cases before responding and you did not. I cited the case and you did not. Here is what you posted, but you left out the disclaimer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following summary does not reflect the opinion of the court. Please note that, in the interest of brevity, some portions of the case may not have been summarized.
> 
> In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he
> committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminalsexual contact and thus violated the PDVA. We also found that
> the judge was mistaken in failing to enter a final restrainingorder in the matter.
> 
> The full text of the case follows.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Troll, go back and search.  I most certainly DID quote the case first.  I also read the cases before responding.  You still haven't read the divorce case; otherwise, you would be apologizing. Pathetic little boy.  Tell your mommy it's a nice day and you want to play outside, so the adults can talk.


----------



## Sneekin

Tennyson said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Emily, but you are wrong.  When Atheists sue to remove Crosses (as well as Menorahs. Ten Commandments, Creche,  and other religious objects), they are suing because it violates their freedom FROM religion under the first amendment.  To allow Crosses, the Ten Commandments, etc on public property gives the appearance of having or endorsing a state religion.  Many Christians erroneously think that it violates their religious freedom, but the courts have decided several times that that is simply not true.  In our city, the former mayor thought he had a work around, and for a few years, it worked - a cross/Creche would be allowed at Christmas time, as long as every other religion was represented if asked.  A menorah came in one year, some pagans brought in something to celebrate the winter solstice.  The last year, Satanists demanded that they have a goat head on display.  He pitched a fit and told them they couldn't, they filed suit, and upon receipt, all persons were called and told to remove items from the city center.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom from religion is not a constitutional concept. That is a twentieth century activist court's creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Tennyson's there are many ways to paraphrase the
> concept of govt/Congress "neither
> Establishing nor Prohibiting" the free exercise of religion
> 
> freedom of religion is the free exercise clause
> freedom from religion is the paraphrasing of the "not establishing" clause
> 
> For Anarchists to be included in this, I would paraphrase as "free will" or "informed consent"
> "free choice" or "civil liberty" as other ways to say "freedom to exercise" one's beliefs that can be about anything
> 
> If we only used "freedom of religion' to mean "large organized world religions"
> that would be discrimination by creed based on what affiliation a person has or not.
> 
> So to treat all people fairly I go with the more universal interpretation
> of free will, which is still subject to the rest of the First Amendment and Bill of Rights.
> 
> Free speech and Free will/exercise cannot be "taken out of context"
> so as to violate the freedom or peace or security of others (ie right to assemble peaceably and securely)
> or their due process or equal protections of law from deprivation of liberty or discrimination by creed
> WITHOUT VIOLATING the same laws being invoked.
> 
> That's probably the most liberal interpretation, but I use that so even
> atheists or anarchists who don't claim any religion can be included and protected equally.
> They just can't impose their beliefs on others if they don't want others imposing their beliefs on them,
> by these same laws.
> 
> =============
> 
> *Chants violated First Amendment right*
> *In response to the letter from Bolie Williams IV (Thresher, Sept. 1),*
> *if Rice University claims not to discriminate on the basis of religion,*
> *then students who believe in free speech should be accommodated equally*
> *as those, like Williams, who may not consider it an inalienable human right.*
> 
> *However, one might expect advocates of First Amendment rights and freedoms*
> *to show the same respect for "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"*
> *by refraining from speech or actions that would deliberately cause a breach*
> *of the peace and disrupt a public assembly.*
> 
> *The example quoted was "yelling fire in a crowded theater." In this case,*
> *it could be argued that the chanting and other jacks during matriculation*
> *temporarily abridged other people's freedom of speech and right to assemble peaceably.*
> 
> *Unlike Williams, I believe that the First Amendment can be quite effective*
> *when interpreted in a way that checks itself, which I recommend here.*
> 
> -- September 8, 1995
> http://houstonprogressive.org/letters.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> I am not sure how to answer this. There are not any ways to paraphrase “neither Establishing or Prohibiting” the free exercise of religion. They are two separate phrases with two separate meanings, intent, and backgrounds. The establishment clause was created only as a prohibition on the federal government; this precludes any mention of state. The dual purpose was to avoid another Church of England, and to no give one Protestant religion an advantage over other Protestant religions. This was started at the convention between Madison and Ames in what is referred to as the Gentlemen’s Agreement.  The free exercise clause came from Madison’s personal experience of how Baptists were treated in Virginia when he was younger. It only applied to the federal government as does the entire Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> G, Tenny, you are now claiming that the constitution only applies to the federal government, and doesn't cover what's not in the constitutions of all 50 states?  Once again, not true.
> 
> As to your other blather, you just laid claim that the United States can have a Federal Religion, as long as it's Catholic, Coptic, Muslim (Sunni/Shia), any of the various forms of Judaism, Buddhist, Sikh, or any of the other THOUSANDS of religion - provided they aren't Protestant.  That is pure blather, and not true.  Which is why the establishment clause is as follows:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - you will note, that Protestant no longer exists, didn't when the Constitution was finalized. Sorry, bud, epic fail. As to your constant false claims that states can establish a religion, that too is not true.   The Supreme Court made clear in a landmark ruling in 1947 that the Establishment Clause does apply to states. You are simply parroting a far right pipe dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.
> 
> I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.
> 
> The states has state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.
> 
> This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.
Click to expand...

Yes you did, TROLL.  You claimed it only applied to Protestant religions.  For goodness sake, if you expand this response, you'll see where you were QUOTED saying it prohibited Protestants.  Why don't you stop.  The topic is Gay Marriage is not a constitutional right, not the entire constitution and the entire bill of rights.  And stop boring us with your "random twentieth century activist court rulings".   The only time you have used this phrase is when the SCOTUS ruling is something you disagree with.  Does that mean you are in full agreement, and as a strict constructionist (to explain to someone as illiterate as yourself) that you refer to a particular legal philosopy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation.  Then literally, you are, under the second amendment, bound to use weapons of those days only, so turn in everything but your one-shot weapons and cannons. Antonin and Thomas both changed from strict constructionist to "20th century activist judges" when it comes to one of their pet projects, the same as you.


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.
> 
> Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.
> 
> Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.
Click to expand...


Certainly there isn't if you ignore the First Amendment to the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.


----------



## ErikViking

Stop focusing on gay people now. Next president like to grab women by their pussy and most likely, being a businessman, he won't hesitate to grab someone by the balls too.


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am certain you do not have a law degree, and I am 110% certain you do not teach law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, troll? Prove it.   Now you show us you are an under endowed, overcompensating male grunt, concerned about his manhood (double major, also have degrees in Psychology, including ABNORMAL Psych).  You've just confirmed our beliefs, Troll.  110%?  Grow a pair.  Thank goodness we know at this point, you can't reproduce.  Begone gnat, and if you don't like what I write, ignore.   You've been corrected.  Perhaps if you focused on obtaining your GED, and turned off Judge Judy and Divorce Court, you'd have a clue.
Click to expand...



You just confirmed my point again.


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.
> 
> Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.
> 
> Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again, EXCELLENT demonstration of lying.   I'm quoting directly from established CASE LAW.  The courts, on more than one occasion, have made sure that the US decision didn't violate said law.  You are an internet troll and buffoon.  I can see you've repeatedly threatened and attacked and refused direct questions for verification and references.  Sorry, you can't bully me, Tenny.  You bore me. But I'm always happy to point out your stupidity.  I used to think you were just ignorant of a few facts, but you have proven that you are either completely stupid, or doing nothing but trolling to try and "win" these threads. There is no win or lose - but in your case, it's compounding one ignorant lie after another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot provide any Article or clause in the Construction to support your claim; that is why you have not. You cannot provide one iota of evidence that this was the intent; that is why you have not. The last bastion of one not educated regarding the Constitution and history is to cry about case law because they do not have an argument and cannot back up their statements with any historical evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, Troll, 4 people have already provided proof. Begone, trolling gnat. How many times before you understand you have been proven wrong? Again, CHILD, address posts to the person you are speaking to.  We don't want to read the blather prior to your inane rants. Otherwise, you'll be talking to yourself and ignored by the intelligent people.  buh-bye....
Click to expand...


You have yet to provide any article or clause to support your claim. You have not provided any evidence that your views are substantiated by the ;language or intent of the Constitution or Bill of Rights. You can dodge all you want; it only reflects poorly on you, not me.


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> I see that we have different modes and means of communicating.
> When I am "brainstorming" around, trying to find what angle to take with someone
> where we can actually anchor in and gets somewhere,
> yes, of course I ramble around trying to pick brains and do "process of elimination"
> with the haystack of possibilities until we find the needle to work with!
> 
> In this case, I think we struck a chord with the "Shariah Law" issues.
> My friend Mustafaa Carroll of Houston's CAIR is an award winning civic leader and volunteer with the local Peace and Justice community. He made it very clear to me that in traditional (not politicized) Muslim teachings, "Jihad and Shariah" DO NOT MEAN the political warfare and oppression that the militant groups use these for.
> Mustafaa studies the Bible, has traditional Christian pastors in his own family, works with both the Christian and other leaders of faith on unity against war and promotion of nonviolent dialogue to foster stronger peaceful relations locally if we're going to do the same globally.  He meets with any people who invite dialogue, he's met with Christian leaders who at least talked with him face to face.
> If you have trouble understanding this, please also know he didn't know that believing and teaching natural laws as given by God was part of "Constitutionalism" and hadn't heard of that label either. So he did not know there is a name for what he goes around teaching about the Bill of Rights and Constitutional laws as a citizen and civic leader. He just does that naturally, and takes the history of natural laws from where Mohammad issued decrees and spread teachings on "no compulsion in religion" (the equivalent of religious freedom).
> 
> With both of you talking about Shariah Law used to mean the indoctrinated forced type of authority as in CULTS, I would THINK the more general laws to prevent such abuses would be focused against
> * religious abuse
> * cult abuse
> and don't have to specifically be about Islamic imposition of "Shariah Law" on people or members of the community or family.
> 
> so this is a VERY good example for comparing the different between specifically targeting "Shariah Law"
> and address *ALL religious or cult abuse* (or domestic and relationship abuse)
> where ALL cases are covered, instead of just targeting abuses related to "Muslim" or "Shariah Law"
> 
> So with the case of the husband and wife in conflict and the husband is trying to cite religious freedom
> for his beliefs that his authority or authority of Islam comes before her rights and consent,
> then we can cite the 9th Amendment that religious freedom in the 1st Amendment cannot be
> construed to violate the other rights the wife has including due process of law to defend liberty from deprivation,
> protection from excessive punishment, "involuntary servitude unless as penalty for commission of a crime" etc. etc.
> 
> What I would propose IN GENERAL to cover ALL cases is to hold States
> responsible for addressing complaints of ANY collective organization (any corporation or religious organization, nonprofit business  educational, POLITICAL such as PACs or Parties, or MEDIA companies but not the content itself by the MANAGEMENT which is a business) for violating the same rights of citizens and individuals
> that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect from collective abuse of authority influence or resources.
> 
> There should be a grievance process in place, similar to OSHA that has a code and a process for issuing citations and resolving penalties by correction or fines, or hearing/trial if necessary),
> that is ACCESSIBLE to the public so that conflicts can be mediated or arbitrated to avoid
> legal actions or costs in a court system that ISN'T affordable or accessible in part because it's so backlogged.
> 
> Sneekin by having a systematic way of addressing Religious Abuses, corporate or political abuses,
> then the cases of gay/marriage/transgender issues and harassment/exclusion because of religious
> conflicts can be included and addressed this way, targeting the Behavior of the Abuser, the Bullying
> or Oppression of rights, instead of arguing over who believes what about homosexuality or marriage or
> the content of the beliefs in conflict.
> 
> Trying to abuse parties or media to pass a law that others object to by religious beliefs or political creed,
> causes disruptions and violations either way.
> 
> So it's that BEHAVIOR -- the bullying by coercion, imposition, exclusion or discrimination --
> that can be focused on as wrongful and in violation of equal protections under law.
> 
> Political bullying, judicial and legal abuse should be addressed REGARDLESS
> of the "content" of the sides and beliefs involved in the dispute.
> 
> So that is my proposal how to address this more generally, instead of
> insulting attacking and harassing people for which side or belief they favor.
> 
> That's part of the problem, and taking one side over the other is never going to solve it.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Emily, I agree with 100 percent of what the gentleman from CAIR said - it's exactly what I gleaned from my studies of Islam, and in conversations with friends that are Muslims, and a couple of the area Imams.
> 
> The case that I quoted, regarding divorce, involved a non-muslim woman from the US divorcing her Muslim husband.   The judge ruled, using both US law and Shariah law, using the same language that your friend used - that it's not a religion of violence, that women should not be abused, etc, etc.This is but one court case that was ruled upon in the US using the tenets from the US laws, but incorporating Shariah law, to assure that dowries were returned, IAW Islamic law,  In S.D. v. M.J.R (New Jersey), a woman filed to get a restraining order against her husband. His excuse was that under Islamic (Sharia) Law, a wife must submit whenever her husband acts.  The Judge didn't issue the restraining order. She appealed, The appellate ruling is consistent with Islamic law, which prohibits spousal abuse, including nonconsensual sexual relations. The summary that follows is pulled directly from LexisNexis:
> 
> "In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminal sexual contact and thus violated the PDVA. We also found that the judge was mistaken in failing to enter a final restraining order in the matter."
> 
> Again, speaking only for myself, I hold to the true meanings of Shariah Law, and not the Cult definitions (which are offensive), and those that profess those disgusting beliefs are just pathetic and ignorant people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what the case was about, that is not part of the case, and a first year law student would know to cite the case rather than some random opinion about the case found on the internet rather than their own opinion regarding the case or citing passages from the ruling.
> 
> The case is _S.D. v. M.J.R_. of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division from 2010.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd, Tenny, since I literally copied and pasted sections from court documents.  Caught you in yet another lie.  There are TWO (count them, TWO) cases I'm referring to not one.
> 
> S.D. v. M.J.R (New Jersey), as I directly quoted before, was summarized (copy/pasted from court documents) states as follows:
> 
> "In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminal sexual contact and thus violated the PDVA. We also found that the judge was mistaken in failing to enter a final restraining order in the matter."
> 
> The husband referenced his ability to sexually assault his wife based solely on his misinterpretation of Sharia law (again, clearly stated).
> 
> Reread Point two in the decision:
> 
> "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FINDING THAT DEFENDANT LACKED THE REQUISITE INTENT TO COMMIT SEXUAL ASSAULT AND CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONTACT BASED UPON HIS RELIGION.THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FINDING THAT DEFENDANT LACKED THE REQUISITE INTENT TO COMMIT SEXUAL ASSAULT AND CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONTACT BASED UPON HIS RELIGION."
> 
> Good demonstration of your ignorance, care to share with us the definition of Sharia (religious) law?  There's no country called Sharia, fool.  Sharia law is the same as biblical law for Christians.  Maybe some day you'll be a first year law student, but right now, you lack the skills, both intellectually, verbally and socially.  I didn't pull anything from the internet, I pulled it from LexisNexis.  Finally, if you'd read this in LexisNexis, all 23 pages, you would have gleaned that the summary appearing at the beginning does a good job of summarizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is actually not odd. I read the cases before responding and you did not. I cited the case and you did not. Here is what you posted, but you left out the disclaimer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following summary does not reflect the opinion of the court. Please note that, in the interest of brevity, some portions of the case may not have been summarized.
> 
> In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he
> committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminalsexual contact and thus violated the PDVA. We also found that
> the judge was mistaken in failing to enter a final restrainingorder in the matter.
> 
> The full text of the case follows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Troll, go back and search.  I most certainly DID quote the case first.  I also read the cases before responding.  You still haven't read the divorce case; otherwise, you would be apologizing. Pathetic little boy.  Tell your mommy it's a nice day and you want to play outside, so the adults can talk.
Click to expand...


Actually, all you provided was someone else’s opinion regarding the case with no citing of the case or any part of the ruling.


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom from religion is not a constitutional concept. That is a twentieth century activist court's creation.
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Tennyson's there are many ways to paraphrase the
> concept of govt/Congress "neither
> Establishing nor Prohibiting" the free exercise of religion
> 
> freedom of religion is the free exercise clause
> freedom from religion is the paraphrasing of the "not establishing" clause
> 
> For Anarchists to be included in this, I would paraphrase as "free will" or "informed consent"
> "free choice" or "civil liberty" as other ways to say "freedom to exercise" one's beliefs that can be about anything
> 
> If we only used "freedom of religion' to mean "large organized world religions"
> that would be discrimination by creed based on what affiliation a person has or not.
> 
> So to treat all people fairly I go with the more universal interpretation
> of free will, which is still subject to the rest of the First Amendment and Bill of Rights.
> 
> Free speech and Free will/exercise cannot be "taken out of context"
> so as to violate the freedom or peace or security of others (ie right to assemble peaceably and securely)
> or their due process or equal protections of law from deprivation of liberty or discrimination by creed
> WITHOUT VIOLATING the same laws being invoked.
> 
> That's probably the most liberal interpretation, but I use that so even
> atheists or anarchists who don't claim any religion can be included and protected equally.
> They just can't impose their beliefs on others if they don't want others imposing their beliefs on them,
> by these same laws.
> 
> =============
> 
> *Chants violated First Amendment right*
> *In response to the letter from Bolie Williams IV (Thresher, Sept. 1),*
> *if Rice University claims not to discriminate on the basis of religion,*
> *then students who believe in free speech should be accommodated equally*
> *as those, like Williams, who may not consider it an inalienable human right.*
> 
> *However, one might expect advocates of First Amendment rights and freedoms*
> *to show the same respect for "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"*
> *by refraining from speech or actions that would deliberately cause a breach*
> *of the peace and disrupt a public assembly.*
> 
> *The example quoted was "yelling fire in a crowded theater." In this case,*
> *it could be argued that the chanting and other jacks during matriculation*
> *temporarily abridged other people's freedom of speech and right to assemble peaceably.*
> 
> *Unlike Williams, I believe that the First Amendment can be quite effective*
> *when interpreted in a way that checks itself, which I recommend here.*
> 
> -- September 8, 1995
> http://houstonprogressive.org/letters.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> I am not sure how to answer this. There are not any ways to paraphrase “neither Establishing or Prohibiting” the free exercise of religion. They are two separate phrases with two separate meanings, intent, and backgrounds. The establishment clause was created only as a prohibition on the federal government; this precludes any mention of state. The dual purpose was to avoid another Church of England, and to no give one Protestant religion an advantage over other Protestant religions. This was started at the convention between Madison and Ames in what is referred to as the Gentlemen’s Agreement.  The free exercise clause came from Madison’s personal experience of how Baptists were treated in Virginia when he was younger. It only applied to the federal government as does the entire Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> G, Tenny, you are now claiming that the constitution only applies to the federal government, and doesn't cover what's not in the constitutions of all 50 states?  Once again, not true.
> 
> As to your other blather, you just laid claim that the United States can have a Federal Religion, as long as it's Catholic, Coptic, Muslim (Sunni/Shia), any of the various forms of Judaism, Buddhist, Sikh, or any of the other THOUSANDS of religion - provided they aren't Protestant.  That is pure blather, and not true.  Which is why the establishment clause is as follows:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - you will note, that Protestant no longer exists, didn't when the Constitution was finalized. Sorry, bud, epic fail. As to your constant false claims that states can establish a religion, that too is not true.   The Supreme Court made clear in a landmark ruling in 1947 that the Establishment Clause does apply to states. You are simply parroting a far right pipe dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.
> 
> I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.
> 
> The states has state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.
> 
> This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes you did, TROLL.  You claimed it only applied to Protestant religions.  For goodness sake, if you expand this response, you'll see where you were QUOTED saying it prohibited Protestants.  Why don't you stop.  The topic is Gay Marriage is not a constitutional right, not the entire constitution and the entire bill of rights.  And stop boring us with your "random twentieth century activist court rulings".   The only time you have used this phrase is when the SCOTUS ruling is something you disagree with.  Does that mean you are in full agreement, and as a strict constructionist (to explain to someone as illiterate as yourself) that you refer to a particular legal philosopy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation.  Then literally, you are, under the second amendment, bound to use weapons of those days only, so turn in everything but your one-shot weapons and cannons. Antonin and Thomas both changed from strict constructionist to "20th century activist judges" when it comes to one of their pet projects, the same as you.
Click to expand...


Again, the topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.

I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.

The states had state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.

This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.

All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Your attempt to paint me in a corner regarding the Second Amendment is impotent. I never made that statement nor did I allude to that statement.


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.
> 
> Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.
> 
> Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly there isn't if you ignore the First Amendment to the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...


Provide your evidence regarding the First Amendment’s language and intent. The same goes with the Fourteenth Amendment. I am confident you will not.


----------



## Sneekin

Tennyson said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am certain you do not have a law degree, and I am 110% certain you do not teach law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, troll? Prove it.   Now you show us you are an under endowed, overcompensating male grunt, concerned about his manhood (double major, also have degrees in Psychology, including ABNORMAL Psych).  You've just confirmed our beliefs, Troll.  110%?  Grow a pair.  Thank goodness we know at this point, you can't reproduce.  Begone gnat, and if you don't like what I write, ignore.   You've been corrected.  Perhaps if you focused on obtaining your GED, and turned off Judge Judy and Divorce Court, you'd have a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just confirmed my point again.
Click to expand...

Sorry, boy, wrong again. I realize I'm using multiple syllables, sorry. Ask your mommy to read them to you, or sound them out and use a dictionary.   I confirmed nothing, TROLL.


----------



## Sneekin

Tennyson said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.
> 
> Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.
> 
> Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again, EXCELLENT demonstration of lying.   I'm quoting directly from established CASE LAW.  The courts, on more than one occasion, have made sure that the US decision didn't violate said law.  You are an internet troll and buffoon.  I can see you've repeatedly threatened and attacked and refused direct questions for verification and references.  Sorry, you can't bully me, Tenny.  You bore me. But I'm always happy to point out your stupidity.  I used to think you were just ignorant of a few facts, but you have proven that you are either completely stupid, or doing nothing but trolling to try and "win" these threads. There is no win or lose - but in your case, it's compounding one ignorant lie after another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot provide any Article or clause in the Construction to support your claim; that is why you have not. You cannot provide one iota of evidence that this was the intent; that is why you have not. The last bastion of one not educated regarding the Constitution and history is to cry about case law because they do not have an argument and cannot back up their statements with any historical evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, Troll, 4 people have already provided proof. Begone, trolling gnat. How many times before you understand you have been proven wrong? Again, CHILD, address posts to the person you are speaking to.  We don't want to read the blather prior to your inane rants. Otherwise, you'll be talking to yourself and ignored by the intelligent people.  buh-bye....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have yet to provide any article or clause to support your claim. You have not provided any evidence that your views are substantiated by the ;language or intent of the Constitution or Bill of Rights. You can dodge all you want; it only reflects poorly on you, not me.
Click to expand...

Let me get this right - you stated that my views are substantiated by the language of the Constitution - yet, boy, you claim I'm dodging?   Once again, you busted yourself out.  Your own ignorance reflects poorly on yourself.  SMH.  You have NEVER validated a single statement you made here.   Everyone else has, TROLLboy.


----------



## Sneekin

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.
> 
> Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.
> 
> Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly there isn't if you ignore the First Amendment to the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Provide your evidence regarding the First Amendment’s language and intent. The same goes with the Fourteenth Amendment. I am confident you will not.
Click to expand...

I will answer you, once you answer the 6-10 other people you blew off and failed to answer.  Not until  Which, TROLL,  I have repeatedly told you this.  Get some professional help.  You have grand delusions you are a constitutional scholar.  You are not.


----------



## Sneekin

Tennyson said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Tennyson's there are many ways to paraphrase the
> concept of govt/Congress "neither
> Establishing nor Prohibiting" the free exercise of religion
> 
> freedom of religion is the free exercise clause
> freedom from religion is the paraphrasing of the "not establishing" clause
> 
> For Anarchists to be included in this, I would paraphrase as "free will" or "informed consent"
> "free choice" or "civil liberty" as other ways to say "freedom to exercise" one's beliefs that can be about anything
> 
> If we only used "freedom of religion' to mean "large organized world religions"
> that would be discrimination by creed based on what affiliation a person has or not.
> 
> So to treat all people fairly I go with the more universal interpretation
> of free will, which is still subject to the rest of the First Amendment and Bill of Rights.
> 
> Free speech and Free will/exercise cannot be "taken out of context"
> so as to violate the freedom or peace or security of others (ie right to assemble peaceably and securely)
> or their due process or equal protections of law from deprivation of liberty or discrimination by creed
> WITHOUT VIOLATING the same laws being invoked.
> 
> That's probably the most liberal interpretation, but I use that so even
> atheists or anarchists who don't claim any religion can be included and protected equally.
> They just can't impose their beliefs on others if they don't want others imposing their beliefs on them,
> by these same laws.
> 
> =============
> 
> *Chants violated First Amendment right*
> *In response to the letter from Bolie Williams IV (Thresher, Sept. 1),*
> *if Rice University claims not to discriminate on the basis of religion,*
> *then students who believe in free speech should be accommodated equally*
> *as those, like Williams, who may not consider it an inalienable human right.*
> 
> *However, one might expect advocates of First Amendment rights and freedoms*
> *to show the same respect for "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"*
> *by refraining from speech or actions that would deliberately cause a breach*
> *of the peace and disrupt a public assembly.*
> 
> *The example quoted was "yelling fire in a crowded theater." In this case,*
> *it could be argued that the chanting and other jacks during matriculation*
> *temporarily abridged other people's freedom of speech and right to assemble peaceably.*
> 
> *Unlike Williams, I believe that the First Amendment can be quite effective*
> *when interpreted in a way that checks itself, which I recommend here.*
> 
> -- September 8, 1995
> http://houstonprogressive.org/letters.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> I am not sure how to answer this. There are not any ways to paraphrase “neither Establishing or Prohibiting” the free exercise of religion. They are two separate phrases with two separate meanings, intent, and backgrounds. The establishment clause was created only as a prohibition on the federal government; this precludes any mention of state. The dual purpose was to avoid another Church of England, and to no give one Protestant religion an advantage over other Protestant religions. This was started at the convention between Madison and Ames in what is referred to as the Gentlemen’s Agreement.  The free exercise clause came from Madison’s personal experience of how Baptists were treated in Virginia when he was younger. It only applied to the federal government as does the entire Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> G, Tenny, you are now claiming that the constitution only applies to the federal government, and doesn't cover what's not in the constitutions of all 50 states?  Once again, not true.
> 
> As to your other blather, you just laid claim that the United States can have a Federal Religion, as long as it's Catholic, Coptic, Muslim (Sunni/Shia), any of the various forms of Judaism, Buddhist, Sikh, or any of the other THOUSANDS of religion - provided they aren't Protestant.  That is pure blather, and not true.  Which is why the establishment clause is as follows:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - you will note, that Protestant no longer exists, didn't when the Constitution was finalized. Sorry, bud, epic fail. As to your constant false claims that states can establish a religion, that too is not true.   The Supreme Court made clear in a landmark ruling in 1947 that the Establishment Clause does apply to states. You are simply parroting a far right pipe dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.
> 
> I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.
> 
> The states has state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.
> 
> This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes you did, TROLL.  You claimed it only applied to Protestant religions.  For goodness sake, if you expand this response, you'll see where you were QUOTED saying it prohibited Protestants.  Why don't you stop.  The topic is Gay Marriage is not a constitutional right, not the entire constitution and the entire bill of rights.  And stop boring us with your "random twentieth century activist court rulings".   The only time you have used this phrase is when the SCOTUS ruling is something you disagree with.  Does that mean you are in full agreement, and as a strict constructionist (to explain to someone as illiterate as yourself) that you refer to a particular legal philosopy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation.  Then literally, you are, under the second amendment, bound to use weapons of those days only, so turn in everything but your one-shot weapons and cannons. Antonin and Thomas both changed from strict constructionist to "20th century activist judges" when it comes to one of their pet projects, the same as you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.
> 
> I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.
> 
> The states had state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.
> 
> This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.
> 
> All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Your attempt to paint me in a corner regarding the Second Amendment is impotent. I never made that statement nor did I allude to that statement.
Click to expand...

Wrong topic, TROLL.  it's whether or not gay marriage is or is not a constitutional right.   Please provide the states that currently have a state religion.  The only two that have tried have FAILED.   Just like the states you claim had their own religions - you will note, ignorant one, that they no longer exist due to constitutional reasons - and that would be the FEDERAL constitution.  You most certainly did claim the US could have a national religion - you stated that the US, according to our founding fathers could not have a Protestant Religion.   Last time I looked, Islam, and Judaism, just to name 2 out of the thousands, are NOT Protestant.


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights..



Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> I am not sure how to answer this. There are not any ways to paraphrase “neither Establishing or Prohibiting” the free exercise of religion. They are two separate phrases with two separate meanings, intent, and backgrounds. The establishment clause was created only as a prohibition on the federal government; this precludes any mention of state. The dual purpose was to avoid another Church of England, and to no give one Protestant religion an advantage over other Protestant religions. This was started at the convention between Madison and Ames in what is referred to as the Gentlemen’s Agreement.  The free exercise clause came from Madison’s personal experience of how Baptists were treated in Virginia when he was younger. It only applied to the federal government as does the entire Bill of Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G, Tenny, you are now claiming that the constitution only applies to the federal government, and doesn't cover what's not in the constitutions of all 50 states?  Once again, not true.
> 
> As to your other blather, you just laid claim that the United States can have a Federal Religion, as long as it's Catholic, Coptic, Muslim (Sunni/Shia), any of the various forms of Judaism, Buddhist, Sikh, or any of the other THOUSANDS of religion - provided they aren't Protestant.  That is pure blather, and not true.  Which is why the establishment clause is as follows:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - you will note, that Protestant no longer exists, didn't when the Constitution was finalized. Sorry, bud, epic fail. As to your constant false claims that states can establish a religion, that too is not true.   The Supreme Court made clear in a landmark ruling in 1947 that the Establishment Clause does apply to states. You are simply parroting a far right pipe dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.
> 
> I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.
> 
> The states has state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.
> 
> This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes you did, TROLL.  You claimed it only applied to Protestant religions.  For goodness sake, if you expand this response, you'll see where you were QUOTED saying it prohibited Protestants.  Why don't you stop.  The topic is Gay Marriage is not a constitutional right, not the entire constitution and the entire bill of rights.  And stop boring us with your "random twentieth century activist court rulings".   The only time you have used this phrase is when the SCOTUS ruling is something you disagree with.  Does that mean you are in full agreement, and as a strict constructionist (to explain to someone as illiterate as yourself) that you refer to a particular legal philosopy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation.  Then literally, you are, under the second amendment, bound to use weapons of those days only, so turn in everything but your one-shot weapons and cannons. Antonin and Thomas both changed from strict constructionist to "20th century activist judges" when it comes to one of their pet projects, the same as you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.
> 
> I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.
> 
> The states had state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.
> 
> This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.
> 
> All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Your attempt to paint me in a corner regarding the Second Amendment is impotent. I never made that statement nor did I allude to that statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong topic, TROLL.  it's whether or not gay marriage is or is not a constitutional right.   Please provide the states that currently have a state religion.  The only two that have tried have FAILED.   Just like the states you claim had their own religions - you will note, ignorant one, that they no longer exist due to constitutional reasons - and that would be the FEDERAL constitution.  You most certainly did claim the US could have a national religion - you stated that the US, according to our founding fathers could not have a Protestant Religion.   Last time I looked, Islam, and Judaism, just to name 2 out of the thousands, are NOT Protestant.
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin:
Texas does have a "faith in the republic" and the authority ultimately residing with the people:
See Section 2 of the Texas Bill of Rights:

*Sec. 2.  INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT.  All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit.  The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.*

If you read this in context: THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION  ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS, 
then you CAN see it as constituting a political religion (similar to beliefs in Constitutional laws), with or without mentioning the faith in GOD that it was originally based on. You can take that reference out, and the people still following God by faith first will keep interpreting the same laws the same way with that as the source of authority. So the religious element is still there, it's in the people enforcing the laws collectively.

The way I interpret and enforce the Constitution is like a political religion, too.
I'm more Green in that I believe in consensus and not coercion, but the others in the Democrat
DO believe in this political practice of imposing beliefs by majority rule; I decided that contradicts
equal free exercise, equal protections, and the principle of not discriminating by creed, so I go by consensus.

Frankly I'm puzzled once more about this religiously held belief that people have the right to use
govt to FORCE their beliefs on someone who hasn't committed a crime deserving of losing liberties.

One side of me says I should practice my belief and not impose on that person or group's free will;
while another angle would say since they BELIEVE in govt imposing, doesn't that mean they consent to it?

In comparison with people who believe Democracy "means" majority-rule only,
then this can be seen as a political belief or practice.

If you consider all party platforms to contain elements of a political religion or creed,
maybe we should rally against "political racism" and this business of excluding people
from their equal representation and protection from discrimination, in an attempt to defend or
exercise a different creed in opposition.

I thought the point was to find what everyone wants, and get to that goal by agreement,
and not bias or distract that path by introducing contested terms or conditions that other people dismiss.

It's so contorted by people overcorrecting, overcompensating, making pre-emptive strikes to prevent from going down a 'slippery slope' the other way, that you can't even tell what people really want and what they're just afraid will happen. And which factor is the reason for objection. We just dumb it down to yes or no, choice a or b,
instead of resolving all the issues that are combined or confused together.

So I'd like to do better than this, but by golly, the distrust of different beliefs is just staggering.

Maybe it has to come to a head before it settles down and people can talk without trying to outyell each other.

Hope we'll see an end to the media wars, and get over that phase of fear-based rhetoric and rallying points.
I know that anger and fear are easy triggers to build marketing campaigns around, but at some point
you'd think we'd burn out and quit responding to the same old tactics.

I like THIS approach better, Sneekin and Tennyson, that we share insights and corrections
back and forth, regardless what we feel personally which should not get in the way of working out the content.

Thanks for that. The fact that we don't personally get along or agree on so much,
makes it all the more valuable what we do get out of interacting when it's so challenging.

I think you both are quite excellent at communicating, and understand we each
have our own ways and perspectives. It's all the more rich that we are so different.

Thank you again.
Whatever is the next phase of political growth and development,
I hope to see in society the diversity of outreach and exchange
that I see going on here.  What a tremendous advantage and benefit.

Thanks to you both for being here.
Wow!


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Tennyson pure logic would tell us
that if states establish a religion or religious bias that
A. all their citizens agree to, nobody is going to contest it as religious imposition, so it will not be found
unconstitutional since nobody will complain or petition/sue for it to change
B. a number of their citizens DON'T believe in or agree with, then that WILL be contested as unconstitutional

(so it's the issue of CONSENT that makes it constitutional or unconstitutional)

If there isn't consent and there is a contested bias in the law due to clashing beliefs, this will cause
C. an argument whether it requires a 'consensus' of citizens to find it unconstitutional, 'majority rule' to determine if it is is or is not, or the FEDERAL GOVT to step in and decide if citizens are being deprived unconstitutionally

We will have the exact situation we have now with
1. people disagreeing about right to life, prochoice, and federal laws made by legislators or rulings by courts
2. similar arguments over the recognition of homosexual or transgender identity and marriage rights etc.

Tennyson we in fact DO have conflicts of religion going on with the govt and Constitution itself.
Some interpret and believe the history as govt founders DID establish an agreed process in creating the Constitution, where the conventions WERE presided over with prayer to God for wisdom to guide the process.

So this is in practice, an expression of the faith in the democratic process of establishing truth by "witnesses" in defense of one side or another, which is also reflected in the Bible, in Matthew 18:15-20 where trespasses are being addressed as a specific type of conflict, but this "due process of law" can apply to any grievance or issue.

If we BELIEVE in this process, and use Constitutional laws to express and enforce it, that is like a political religion because it involves govt processes.

I use these in GENERAL terms and contexts to mean PEOPLE (not just govt) redressing grievances.
So to me it is a spiritual process between people on a personal level first, then it extends to relationships between people and groups, and then the govt process reflects that collectively on a public or global scale.

I would say we DO have different denominations of Constitutionalism going on.



Tennyson said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Tennyson's there are many ways to paraphrase the
> concept of govt/Congress "neither
> Establishing nor Prohibiting" the free exercise of religion
> 
> freedom of religion is the free exercise clause
> freedom from religion is the paraphrasing of the "not establishing" clause
> 
> For Anarchists to be included in this, I would paraphrase as "free will" or "informed consent"
> "free choice" or "civil liberty" as other ways to say "freedom to exercise" one's beliefs that can be about anything
> 
> If we only used "freedom of religion' to mean "large organized world religions"
> that would be discrimination by creed based on what affiliation a person has or not.
> 
> So to treat all people fairly I go with the more universal interpretation
> of free will, which is still subject to the rest of the First Amendment and Bill of Rights.
> 
> Free speech and Free will/exercise cannot be "taken out of context"
> so as to violate the freedom or peace or security of others (ie right to assemble peaceably and securely)
> or their due process or equal protections of law from deprivation of liberty or discrimination by creed
> WITHOUT VIOLATING the same laws being invoked.
> 
> That's probably the most liberal interpretation, but I use that so even
> atheists or anarchists who don't claim any religion can be included and protected equally.
> They just can't impose their beliefs on others if they don't want others imposing their beliefs on them,
> by these same laws.
> 
> =============
> 
> *Chants violated First Amendment right*
> *In response to the letter from Bolie Williams IV (Thresher, Sept. 1),*
> *if Rice University claims not to discriminate on the basis of religion,*
> *then students who believe in free speech should be accommodated equally*
> *as those, like Williams, who may not consider it an inalienable human right.*
> 
> *However, one might expect advocates of First Amendment rights and freedoms*
> *to show the same respect for "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"*
> *by refraining from speech or actions that would deliberately cause a breach*
> *of the peace and disrupt a public assembly.*
> 
> *The example quoted was "yelling fire in a crowded theater." In this case,*
> *it could be argued that the chanting and other jacks during matriculation*
> *temporarily abridged other people's freedom of speech and right to assemble peaceably.*
> 
> *Unlike Williams, I believe that the First Amendment can be quite effective*
> *when interpreted in a way that checks itself, which I recommend here.*
> 
> -- September 8, 1995
> http://houstonprogressive.org/letters.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> I am not sure how to answer this. There are not any ways to paraphrase “neither Establishing or Prohibiting” the free exercise of religion. They are two separate phrases with two separate meanings, intent, and backgrounds. The establishment clause was created only as a prohibition on the federal government; this precludes any mention of state. The dual purpose was to avoid another Church of England, and to no give one Protestant religion an advantage over other Protestant religions. This was started at the convention between Madison and Ames in what is referred to as the Gentlemen’s Agreement.  The free exercise clause came from Madison’s personal experience of how Baptists were treated in Virginia when he was younger. It only applied to the federal government as does the entire Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> G, Tenny, you are now claiming that the constitution only applies to the federal government, and doesn't cover what's not in the constitutions of all 50 states?  Once again, not true.
> 
> As to your other blather, you just laid claim that the United States can have a Federal Religion, as long as it's Catholic, Coptic, Muslim (Sunni/Shia), any of the various forms of Judaism, Buddhist, Sikh, or any of the other THOUSANDS of religion - provided they aren't Protestant.  That is pure blather, and not true.  Which is why the establishment clause is as follows:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - you will note, that Protestant no longer exists, didn't when the Constitution was finalized. Sorry, bud, epic fail. As to your constant false claims that states can establish a religion, that too is not true.   The Supreme Court made clear in a landmark ruling in 1947 that the Establishment Clause does apply to states. You are simply parroting a far right pipe dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.
> 
> I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.
> 
> The states has state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.
> 
> This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes you did, TROLL.  You claimed it only applied to Protestant religions.  For goodness sake, if you expand this response, you'll see where you were QUOTED saying it prohibited Protestants.  Why don't you stop.  The topic is Gay Marriage is not a constitutional right, not the entire constitution and the entire bill of rights.  And stop boring us with your "random twentieth century activist court rulings".   The only time you have used this phrase is when the SCOTUS ruling is something you disagree with.  Does that mean you are in full agreement, and as a strict constructionist (to explain to someone as illiterate as yourself) that you refer to a particular legal philosopy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation.  Then literally, you are, under the second amendment, bound to use weapons of those days only, so turn in everything but your one-shot weapons and cannons. Antonin and Thomas both changed from strict constructionist to "20th century activist judges" when it comes to one of their pet projects, the same as you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.
> 
> I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.
> 
> The states had state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.
> 
> This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.
> 
> All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Your attempt to paint me in a corner regarding the Second Amendment is impotent. I never made that statement nor did I allude to that statement.
Click to expand...


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> G, Tenny, you are now claiming that the constitution only applies to the federal government, and doesn't cover what's not in the constitutions of all 50 states?  Once again, not true.
> 
> As to your other blather, you just laid claim that the United States can have a Federal Religion, as long as it's Catholic, Coptic, Muslim (Sunni/Shia), any of the various forms of Judaism, Buddhist, Sikh, or any of the other THOUSANDS of religion - provided they aren't Protestant.  That is pure blather, and not true.  Which is why the establishment clause is as follows:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - you will note, that Protestant no longer exists, didn't when the Constitution was finalized. Sorry, bud, epic fail. As to your constant false claims that states can establish a religion, that too is not true.   The Supreme Court made clear in a landmark ruling in 1947 that the Establishment Clause does apply to states. You are simply parroting a far right pipe dream.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.
> 
> I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.
> 
> The states has state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.
> 
> This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes you did, TROLL.  You claimed it only applied to Protestant religions.  For goodness sake, if you expand this response, you'll see where you were QUOTED saying it prohibited Protestants.  Why don't you stop.  The topic is Gay Marriage is not a constitutional right, not the entire constitution and the entire bill of rights.  And stop boring us with your "random twentieth century activist court rulings".   The only time you have used this phrase is when the SCOTUS ruling is something you disagree with.  Does that mean you are in full agreement, and as a strict constructionist (to explain to someone as illiterate as yourself) that you refer to a particular legal philosopy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation.  Then literally, you are, under the second amendment, bound to use weapons of those days only, so turn in everything but your one-shot weapons and cannons. Antonin and Thomas both changed from strict constructionist to "20th century activist judges" when it comes to one of their pet projects, the same as you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.
> 
> I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.
> 
> The states had state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.
> 
> This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.
> 
> All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Your attempt to paint me in a corner regarding the Second Amendment is impotent. I never made that statement nor did I allude to that statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong topic, TROLL.  it's whether or not gay marriage is or is not a constitutional right.   Please provide the states that currently have a state religion.  The only two that have tried have FAILED.   Just like the states you claim had their own religions - you will note, ignorant one, that they no longer exist due to constitutional reasons - and that would be the FEDERAL constitution.  You most certainly did claim the US could have a national religion - you stated that the US, according to our founding fathers could not have a Protestant Religion.   Last time I looked, Islam, and Judaism, just to name 2 out of the thousands, are NOT Protestant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin:
> Texas does have a "faith in the republic" and the authority ultimately residing with the people:
> See Section 2 of the Texas Bill of Rights:
> 
> *Sec. 2.  INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT.  All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit.  The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.*
> 
> If you read this in context: THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION  ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS,
> then you CAN see it as constituting a political religion (similar to beliefs in Constitutional laws), with or without mentioning the faith in GOD that it was originally based on. You can take that reference out, and the people still following God by faith first will keep interpreting the same laws the same way with that as the source of authority. So the religious element is still there, it's in the people enforcing the laws collectively.
> 
> The way I interpret and enforce the Constitution is like a political religion, too.
> I'm more Green in that I believe in consensus and not coercion, but the others in the Democrat
> DO believe in this political practice of imposing beliefs by majority rule; I decided that contradicts
> equal free exercise, equal protections, and the principle of not discriminating by creed, so I go by consensus.
> 
> Frankly I'm puzzled once more about this religiously held belief that people have the right to use
> govt to FORCE their beliefs on someone who hasn't committed a crime deserving of losing liberties.
> 
> One side of me says I should practice my belief and not impose on that person or group's free will;
> while another angle would say since they BELIEVE in govt imposing, doesn't that mean they consent to it?
> 
> In comparison with people who believe Democracy "means" majority-rule only,
> then this can be seen as a political belief or practice.
> 
> If you consider all party platforms to contain elements of a political religion or creed,
> maybe we should rally against "political racism" and this business of excluding people
> from their equal representation and protection from discrimination, in an attempt to defend or
> exercise a different creed in opposition.
> 
> I thought the point was to find what everyone wants, and get to that goal by agreement,
> and not bias or distract that path by introducing contested terms or conditions that other people dismiss.
> 
> It's so contorted by people overcorrecting, overcompensating, making pre-emptive strikes to prevent from going down a 'slippery slope' the other way, that you can't even tell what people really want and what they're just afraid will happen. And which factor is the reason for objection. We just dumb it down to yes or no, choice a or b,
> instead of resolving all the issues that are combined or confused together.
> 
> So I'd like to do better than this, but by golly, the distrust of different beliefs is just staggering.
> 
> Maybe it has to come to a head before it settles down and people can talk without trying to outyell each other.
> 
> Hope we'll see an end to the media wars, and get over that phase of fear-based rhetoric and rallying points.
> I know that anger and fear are easy triggers to build marketing campaigns around, but at some point
> you'd think we'd burn out and quit responding to the same old tactics.
> 
> I like THIS approach better, Sneekin and Tennyson, that we share insights and corrections
> back and forth, regardless what we feel personally which should not get in the way of working out the content.
> 
> Thanks for that. The fact that we don't personally get along or agree on so much,
> makes it all the more valuable what we do get out of interacting when it's so challenging.
> 
> I think you both are quite excellent at communicating, and understand we each
> have our own ways and perspectives. It's all the more rich that we are so different.
> 
> Thank you again.
> Whatever is the next phase of political growth and development,
> I hope to see in society the diversity of outreach and exchange
> that I see going on here.  What a tremendous advantage and benefit.
> 
> Thanks to you both for being here.
> Wow!
Click to expand...

That very verbiage is what separates it from religion, however.


----------



## Sneekin

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )
Click to expand...

Syriusly, have you noticed there's a little gnat buzzing around?  Tennyson just doesn't get it. Good answer back to him/her.  Have you noticed that the SCOTUS makes 20th century activist court rulings only when he/she disagrees with them, otherwise, they are fine.


----------



## MaryL

We all have the same rights, marriage is a right. Sexual preference isn't a right. Is that even in the constitution?  Homosexuals are a artificial group made up by liberals. I have Gay liberal transsexual relatives, I get it. I just don't accept it. My own personal opinion, I do have that right, don't I?


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am certain you do not have a law degree, and I am 110% certain you do not teach law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, troll? Prove it.   Now you show us you are an under endowed, overcompensating male grunt, concerned about his manhood (double major, also have degrees in Psychology, including ABNORMAL Psych).  You've just confirmed our beliefs, Troll.  110%?  Grow a pair.  Thank goodness we know at this point, you can't reproduce.  Begone gnat, and if you don't like what I write, ignore.   You've been corrected.  Perhaps if you focused on obtaining your GED, and turned off Judge Judy and Divorce Court, you'd have a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just confirmed my point again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, boy, wrong again. I realize I'm using multiple syllables, sorry. Ask your mommy to read them to you, or sound them out and use a dictionary.   I confirmed nothing, TROLL.
Click to expand...


You continue to confirm my point. Your copy and pasting an opinion regarding a court ruling and believing it was part of the ruling does not do much for your credibly.


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, EXCELLENT demonstration of lying.   I'm quoting directly from established CASE LAW.  The courts, on more than one occasion, have made sure that the US decision didn't violate said law.  You are an internet troll and buffoon.  I can see you've repeatedly threatened and attacked and refused direct questions for verification and references.  Sorry, you can't bully me, Tenny.  You bore me. But I'm always happy to point out your stupidity.  I used to think you were just ignorant of a few facts, but you have proven that you are either completely stupid, or doing nothing but trolling to try and "win" these threads. There is no win or lose - but in your case, it's compounding one ignorant lie after another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot provide any Article or clause in the Construction to support your claim; that is why you have not. You cannot provide one iota of evidence that this was the intent; that is why you have not. The last bastion of one not educated regarding the Constitution and history is to cry about case law because they do not have an argument and cannot back up their statements with any historical evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, Troll, 4 people have already provided proof. Begone, trolling gnat. How many times before you understand you have been proven wrong? Again, CHILD, address posts to the person you are speaking to.  We don't want to read the blather prior to your inane rants. Otherwise, you'll be talking to yourself and ignored by the intelligent people.  buh-bye....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have yet to provide any article or clause to support your claim. You have not provided any evidence that your views are substantiated by the ;language or intent of the Constitution or Bill of Rights. You can dodge all you want; it only reflects poorly on you, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this right - you stated that my views are substantiated by the language of the Constitution - yet, boy, you claim I'm dodging?   Once again, you busted yourself out.  Your own ignorance reflects poorly on yourself.  SMH.  You have NEVER validated a single statement you made here.   Everyone else has, TROLLboy.
Click to expand...


You do not get a pass to avoid. Here you go again:

You have yet to provide any article or clause to support your claim. You have not provided any evidence that your views are substantiated by the language or intent of the Constitution or Bill of Rights. You can dodge all you want; it only reflects poorly on you, not me.


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.
> 
> Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.
> 
> Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly there isn't if you ignore the First Amendment to the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Provide your evidence regarding the First Amendment’s language and intent. The same goes with the Fourteenth Amendment. I am confident you will not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will answer you, once you answer the 6-10 other people you blew off and failed to answer.  Not until  Which, TROLL,  I have repeatedly told you this.  Get some professional help.  You have grand delusions you are a constitutional scholar.  You are not.
Click to expand...


I have not avoided any questions. Here you go again with what you are dodging:

Provide your evidence regarding the First Amendment’s language and intent. The same goes with the Fourteenth Amendment. I am confident you will not.


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> I am not sure how to answer this. There are not any ways to paraphrase “neither Establishing or Prohibiting” the free exercise of religion. They are two separate phrases with two separate meanings, intent, and backgrounds. The establishment clause was created only as a prohibition on the federal government; this precludes any mention of state. The dual purpose was to avoid another Church of England, and to no give one Protestant religion an advantage over other Protestant religions. This was started at the convention between Madison and Ames in what is referred to as the Gentlemen’s Agreement.  The free exercise clause came from Madison’s personal experience of how Baptists were treated in Virginia when he was younger. It only applied to the federal government as does the entire Bill of Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G, Tenny, you are now claiming that the constitution only applies to the federal government, and doesn't cover what's not in the constitutions of all 50 states?  Once again, not true.
> 
> As to your other blather, you just laid claim that the United States can have a Federal Religion, as long as it's Catholic, Coptic, Muslim (Sunni/Shia), any of the various forms of Judaism, Buddhist, Sikh, or any of the other THOUSANDS of religion - provided they aren't Protestant.  That is pure blather, and not true.  Which is why the establishment clause is as follows:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - you will note, that Protestant no longer exists, didn't when the Constitution was finalized. Sorry, bud, epic fail. As to your constant false claims that states can establish a religion, that too is not true.   The Supreme Court made clear in a landmark ruling in 1947 that the Establishment Clause does apply to states. You are simply parroting a far right pipe dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.
> 
> I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.
> 
> The states has state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.
> 
> This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes you did, TROLL.  You claimed it only applied to Protestant religions.  For goodness sake, if you expand this response, you'll see where you were QUOTED saying it prohibited Protestants.  Why don't you stop.  The topic is Gay Marriage is not a constitutional right, not the entire constitution and the entire bill of rights.  And stop boring us with your "random twentieth century activist court rulings".   The only time you have used this phrase is when the SCOTUS ruling is something you disagree with.  Does that mean you are in full agreement, and as a strict constructionist (to explain to someone as illiterate as yourself) that you refer to a particular legal philosopy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation.  Then literally, you are, under the second amendment, bound to use weapons of those days only, so turn in everything but your one-shot weapons and cannons. Antonin and Thomas both changed from strict constructionist to "20th century activist judges" when it comes to one of their pet projects, the same as you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.
> 
> I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.
> 
> The states had state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.
> 
> This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.
> 
> All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Your attempt to paint me in a corner regarding the Second Amendment is impotent. I never made that statement nor did I allude to that statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong topic, TROLL.  it's whether or not gay marriage is or is not a constitutional right.   Please provide the states that currently have a state religion.  The only two that have tried have FAILED.   Just like the states you claim had their own religions - you will note, ignorant one, that they no longer exist due to constitutional reasons - and that would be the FEDERAL constitution.  You most certainly did claim the US could have a national religion - you stated that the US, according to our founding fathers could not have a Protestant Religion.   Last time I looked, Islam, and Judaism, just to name 2 out of the thousands, are NOT Protestant.
Click to expand...



The states had state sponsored religions into the nineteenth century. They eventually just went away and there was never a constitutional question whether they were constitutional or not because they were constitutional. I never stated that the U.S. could have a national religion as I made the opposite statement. I never stated that we could not have a protestant religion. Fabricating facts is not very flattering.

Since you are still avoiding my post, here you go again:

Again, the topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.

I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.

The states had state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.

This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.

All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Your attempt to paint me in a corner regarding the Second Amendment is impotent. I never made that statement nor did I allude to that statement.


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )
Click to expand...


The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?


----------



## Tennyson

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Tennyson pure logic would tell us
> that if states establish a religion or religious bias that
> A. all their citizens agree to, nobody is going to contest it as religious imposition, so it will not be found
> unconstitutional since nobody will complain or petition/sue for it to change
> B. a number of their citizens DON'T believe in or agree with, then that WILL be contested as unconstitutional
> 
> (so it's the issue of CONSENT that makes it constitutional or unconstitutional)
> 
> If there isn't consent and there is a contested bias in the law due to clashing beliefs, this will cause
> C. an argument whether it requires a 'consensus' of citizens to find it unconstitutional, 'majority rule' to determine if it is is or is not, or the FEDERAL GOVT to step in and decide if citizens are being deprived unconstitutionally
> 
> We will have the exact situation we have now with
> 1. people disagreeing about right to life, prochoice, and federal laws made by legislators or rulings by courts
> 2. similar arguments over the recognition of homosexual or transgender identity and marriage rights etc.
> 
> Tennyson we in fact DO have conflicts of religion going on with the govt and Constitution itself.
> Some interpret and believe the history as govt founders DID establish an agreed process in creating the Constitution, where the conventions WERE presided over with prayer to God for wisdom to guide the process.
> 
> So this is in practice, an expression of the faith in the democratic process of establishing truth by "witnesses" in defense of one side or another, which is also reflected in the Bible, in Matthew 18:15-20 where trespasses are being addressed as a specific type of conflict, but this "due process of law" can apply to any grievance or issue.
> 
> If we BELIEVE in this process, and use Constitutional laws to express and enforce it, that is like a political religion because it involves govt processes.
> 
> I use these in GENERAL terms and contexts to mean PEOPLE (not just govt) redressing grievances.
> So to me it is a spiritual process between people on a personal level first, then it extends to relationships between people and groups, and then the govt process reflects that collectively on a public or global scale.
> 
> I would say we DO have different denominations of Constitutionalism going on.
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> I am not sure how to answer this. There are not any ways to paraphrase “neither Establishing or Prohibiting” the free exercise of religion. They are two separate phrases with two separate meanings, intent, and backgrounds. The establishment clause was created only as a prohibition on the federal government; this precludes any mention of state. The dual purpose was to avoid another Church of England, and to no give one Protestant religion an advantage over other Protestant religions. This was started at the convention between Madison and Ames in what is referred to as the Gentlemen’s Agreement.  The free exercise clause came from Madison’s personal experience of how Baptists were treated in Virginia when he was younger. It only applied to the federal government as does the entire Bill of Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G, Tenny, you are now claiming that the constitution only applies to the federal government, and doesn't cover what's not in the constitutions of all 50 states?  Once again, not true.
> 
> As to your other blather, you just laid claim that the United States can have a Federal Religion, as long as it's Catholic, Coptic, Muslim (Sunni/Shia), any of the various forms of Judaism, Buddhist, Sikh, or any of the other THOUSANDS of religion - provided they aren't Protestant.  That is pure blather, and not true.  Which is why the establishment clause is as follows:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - you will note, that Protestant no longer exists, didn't when the Constitution was finalized. Sorry, bud, epic fail. As to your constant false claims that states can establish a religion, that too is not true.   The Supreme Court made clear in a landmark ruling in 1947 that the Establishment Clause does apply to states. You are simply parroting a far right pipe dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.
> 
> I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.
> 
> The states has state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.
> 
> This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes you did, TROLL.  You claimed it only applied to Protestant religions.  For goodness sake, if you expand this response, you'll see where you were QUOTED saying it prohibited Protestants.  Why don't you stop.  The topic is Gay Marriage is not a constitutional right, not the entire constitution and the entire bill of rights.  And stop boring us with your "random twentieth century activist court rulings".   The only time you have used this phrase is when the SCOTUS ruling is something you disagree with.  Does that mean you are in full agreement, and as a strict constructionist (to explain to someone as illiterate as yourself) that you refer to a particular legal philosopy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation.  Then literally, you are, under the second amendment, bound to use weapons of those days only, so turn in everything but your one-shot weapons and cannons. Antonin and Thomas both changed from strict constructionist to "20th century activist judges" when it comes to one of their pet projects, the same as you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.
> 
> I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.
> 
> The states had state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.
> 
> This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.
> 
> All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Your attempt to paint me in a corner regarding the Second Amendment is impotent. I never made that statement nor did I allude to that statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Emily,

The states had state sponsored religions into the eighteenth century. No religion was imposed on anyone. The advantage was receiving tax money from the state. All the states had different religions. There was no constitutional basis against what the states were doing. It is the same as the Fifteenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, and the reconstruction Congress' approving the state's anti-miscegenation laws. If the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment meant what activist courts have created that they meant, there would be no reason for the amendments because they could have just sued. They did not sue because the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses were only applicable for judicial proceedings.


----------



## Sneekin

MaryL said:


> We all have the same rights, marriage is a right. Sexual preference isn't a right. Is that even in the constitution?  Homosexuals are a artificial group made up by liberals. I have Gay liberal transsexual relatives, I get it. I just don't accept it. My own personal opinion, I do have that right, don't I?


I have gay conservative friends.   Homosexuals are not an artificial group, they EXIST.  Depending on the state, they have explicit rights.   Under various EEO Laws/Regs/Rulings, they also have a subset of those rights under the applicable law as well.  Learn the difference between a transsexual and a gay person.   A post-op transsexual female who has sexual congress with a man is not gay.  If she does same with a woman, she would be a Lesbian.  Big difference between L&G (same sex), B (Bisexual - attracted to men and women), and T (transgendered, which you apparently know nothing about.


----------



## Sneekin

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?
Click to expand...

Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.  This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner.  Did you not even complete the sixth grade?


----------



## Sneekin

Tennyson said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Tennyson pure logic would tell us
> that if states establish a religion or religious bias that
> A. all their citizens agree to, nobody is going to contest it as religious imposition, so it will not be found
> unconstitutional since nobody will complain or petition/sue for it to change
> B. a number of their citizens DON'T believe in or agree with, then that WILL be contested as unconstitutional
> 
> (so it's the issue of CONSENT that makes it constitutional or unconstitutional)
> 
> If there isn't consent and there is a contested bias in the law due to clashing beliefs, this will cause
> C. an argument whether it requires a 'consensus' of citizens to find it unconstitutional, 'majority rule' to determine if it is is or is not, or the FEDERAL GOVT to step in and decide if citizens are being deprived unconstitutionally
> 
> We will have the exact situation we have now with
> 1. people disagreeing about right to life, prochoice, and federal laws made by legislators or rulings by courts
> 2. similar arguments over the recognition of homosexual or transgender identity and marriage rights etc.
> 
> Tennyson we in fact DO have conflicts of religion going on with the govt and Constitution itself.
> Some interpret and believe the history as govt founders DID establish an agreed process in creating the Constitution, where the conventions WERE presided over with prayer to God for wisdom to guide the process.
> 
> So this is in practice, an expression of the faith in the democratic process of establishing truth by "witnesses" in defense of one side or another, which is also reflected in the Bible, in Matthew 18:15-20 where trespasses are being addressed as a specific type of conflict, but this "due process of law" can apply to any grievance or issue.
> 
> If we BELIEVE in this process, and use Constitutional laws to express and enforce it, that is like a political religion because it involves govt processes.
> 
> I use these in GENERAL terms and contexts to mean PEOPLE (not just govt) redressing grievances.
> So to me it is a spiritual process between people on a personal level first, then it extends to relationships between people and groups, and then the govt process reflects that collectively on a public or global scale.
> 
> I would say we DO have different denominations of Constitutionalism going on.
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> G, Tenny, you are now claiming that the constitution only applies to the federal government, and doesn't cover what's not in the constitutions of all 50 states?  Once again, not true.
> 
> As to your other blather, you just laid claim that the United States can have a Federal Religion, as long as it's Catholic, Coptic, Muslim (Sunni/Shia), any of the various forms of Judaism, Buddhist, Sikh, or any of the other THOUSANDS of religion - provided they aren't Protestant.  That is pure blather, and not true.  Which is why the establishment clause is as follows:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - you will note, that Protestant no longer exists, didn't when the Constitution was finalized. Sorry, bud, epic fail. As to your constant false claims that states can establish a religion, that too is not true.   The Supreme Court made clear in a landmark ruling in 1947 that the Establishment Clause does apply to states. You are simply parroting a far right pipe dream.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.
> 
> I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.
> 
> The states has state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.
> 
> This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes you did, TROLL.  You claimed it only applied to Protestant religions.  For goodness sake, if you expand this response, you'll see where you were QUOTED saying it prohibited Protestants.  Why don't you stop.  The topic is Gay Marriage is not a constitutional right, not the entire constitution and the entire bill of rights.  And stop boring us with your "random twentieth century activist court rulings".   The only time you have used this phrase is when the SCOTUS ruling is something you disagree with.  Does that mean you are in full agreement, and as a strict constructionist (to explain to someone as illiterate as yourself) that you refer to a particular legal philosopy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation.  Then literally, you are, under the second amendment, bound to use weapons of those days only, so turn in everything but your one-shot weapons and cannons. Antonin and Thomas both changed from strict constructionist to "20th century activist judges" when it comes to one of their pet projects, the same as you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.
> 
> I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.
> 
> The states had state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.
> 
> This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.
> 
> All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Your attempt to paint me in a corner regarding the Second Amendment is impotent. I never made that statement nor did I allude to that statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> The states had state sponsored religions into the eighteenth century. No religion was imposed on anyone. The advantage was receiving tax money from the state. All the states had different religions. There was no constitutional basis against what the states were doing. It is the same as the Fifteenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, and the reconstruction Congress' approving the state's anti-miscegenation laws. If the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment meant what activist courts have created that they meant, there would be no reason for the amendments because they could have just sued. They did not sue because the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses were only applicable for judicial proceedings.
Click to expand...

Syriusly, get a load  of this - there's no need for the 14th amendment, because people could have just sued using the principals of the 14th amendment.   Tenny must not realize that you only sue in judicial proceedings, as judicial proceedings are actions carried out in a court of law.  I still want to know how one sues without having applicable law in place.  Oh yes, that's why he's turning in his guns, since he can only have single shot revolvers and muskets, and cannons.    His teachers are shaking their heads in embarrassment. Hint -all we have, according to you are 21st century activist court rulings - you aren't even in the right century.  And according to you, we then use activist court rulings from the 18th century, 19th century, 20th century, (and as you ignorantly left out), 21st century.   You do realize the SSM rulings were THIS century, Tenny?


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.  This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner.  Did you not even complete the sixth grade?
Click to expand...


You seem to have forgotten to address this:

Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.


----------



## Sneekin

Tenny, as several of us have informed you, on numerous occasions, we will not answer your questions until you answer ours.  You've never answered a single one.  We may make exceptions, but only to further demonstrate ignorance, such as you not realizing the century court ruling were made (after all, one of them was in 2015, and that was SOOOOO long ago).  Additionally, you'll notice many aren't going to answer you, because you don't specifically address anyone, so people aren't going to wade through your voluminous BS where you continually regurgitate the same misinformation regarding several people's comments.  Model yourself off of Emily, Seriously, myself, Clayton, etc, who call you out/address you.  Otherwise, you just further demonstrate that you are nothing but the shallowest of internet trolls.


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Tennyson pure logic would tell us
> that if states establish a religion or religious bias that
> A. all their citizens agree to, nobody is going to contest it as religious imposition, so it will not be found
> unconstitutional since nobody will complain or petition/sue for it to change
> B. a number of their citizens DON'T believe in or agree with, then that WILL be contested as unconstitutional
> 
> (so it's the issue of CONSENT that makes it constitutional or unconstitutional)
> 
> If there isn't consent and there is a contested bias in the law due to clashing beliefs, this will cause
> C. an argument whether it requires a 'consensus' of citizens to find it unconstitutional, 'majority rule' to determine if it is is or is not, or the FEDERAL GOVT to step in and decide if citizens are being deprived unconstitutionally
> 
> We will have the exact situation we have now with
> 1. people disagreeing about right to life, prochoice, and federal laws made by legislators or rulings by courts
> 2. similar arguments over the recognition of homosexual or transgender identity and marriage rights etc.
> 
> Tennyson we in fact DO have conflicts of religion going on with the govt and Constitution itself.
> Some interpret and believe the history as govt founders DID establish an agreed process in creating the Constitution, where the conventions WERE presided over with prayer to God for wisdom to guide the process.
> 
> So this is in practice, an expression of the faith in the democratic process of establishing truth by "witnesses" in defense of one side or another, which is also reflected in the Bible, in Matthew 18:15-20 where trespasses are being addressed as a specific type of conflict, but this "due process of law" can apply to any grievance or issue.
> 
> If we BELIEVE in this process, and use Constitutional laws to express and enforce it, that is like a political religion because it involves govt processes.
> 
> I use these in GENERAL terms and contexts to mean PEOPLE (not just govt) redressing grievances.
> So to me it is a spiritual process between people on a personal level first, then it extends to relationships between people and groups, and then the govt process reflects that collectively on a public or global scale.
> 
> I would say we DO have different denominations of Constitutionalism going on.
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.
> 
> I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.
> 
> The states has state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.
> 
> This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did, TROLL.  You claimed it only applied to Protestant religions.  For goodness sake, if you expand this response, you'll see where you were QUOTED saying it prohibited Protestants.  Why don't you stop.  The topic is Gay Marriage is not a constitutional right, not the entire constitution and the entire bill of rights.  And stop boring us with your "random twentieth century activist court rulings".   The only time you have used this phrase is when the SCOTUS ruling is something you disagree with.  Does that mean you are in full agreement, and as a strict constructionist (to explain to someone as illiterate as yourself) that you refer to a particular legal philosopy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation.  Then literally, you are, under the second amendment, bound to use weapons of those days only, so turn in everything but your one-shot weapons and cannons. Antonin and Thomas both changed from strict constructionist to "20th century activist judges" when it comes to one of their pet projects, the same as you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.
> 
> I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.
> 
> The states had state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.
> 
> This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.
> 
> All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Your attempt to paint me in a corner regarding the Second Amendment is impotent. I never made that statement nor did I allude to that statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> The states had state sponsored religions into the eighteenth century. No religion was imposed on anyone. The advantage was receiving tax money from the state. All the states had different religions. There was no constitutional basis against what the states were doing. It is the same as the Fifteenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, and the reconstruction Congress' approving the state's anti-miscegenation laws. If the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment meant what activist courts have created that they meant, there would be no reason for the amendments because they could have just sued. They did not sue because the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses were only applicable for judicial proceedings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Syriusly, get a load  of this - there's no need for the 14th amendment, because people could have just sued using the principals of the 14th amendment.   Tenny must not realize that you only sue in judicial proceedings, as judicial proceedings are actions carried out in a court of law.  I still want to know how one sues without having applicable law in place.  Oh yes, that's why he's turning in his guns, since he can only have single shot revolvers and muskets, and cannons.    His teachers are shaking their heads in embarrassment. Hint -all we have, according to you are 21st century activist court rulings - you aren't even in the right century.  And according to you, we then use activist court rulings from the 18th century, 19th century, 20th century, (and as you ignorantly left out), 21st century.   You do realize the SSM rulings were THIS century, Tenny?
Click to expand...


I am trying to understand your post in the context of the law and the Constitution, but it defies both.


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> Tenny, as several of us have informed you, on numerous occasions, we will not answer your questions until you answer ours.  You've never answered a single one.  We may make exceptions, but only to further demonstrate ignorance, such as you not realizing the century court ruling were made (after all, one of them was in 2015, and that was SOOOOO long ago).  Additionally, you'll notice many aren't going to answer you, because you don't specifically address anyone, so people aren't going to wade through your voluminous BS where you continually regurgitate the same misinformation regarding several people's comments.  Model yourself off of Emily, Seriously, myself, Clayton, etc, who call you out/address you.  Otherwise, you just further demonstrate that you are nothing but the shallowest of internet trolls.



You have yet to ask a legitimate question to be answered. This is a very unbecoming method you have employed to avoid defending your posts when pressed.


----------



## Sneekin

Tennyson said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Tennyson pure logic would tell us
> that if states establish a religion or religious bias that
> A. all their citizens agree to, nobody is going to contest it as religious imposition, so it will not be found
> unconstitutional since nobody will complain or petition/sue for it to change
> B. a number of their citizens DON'T believe in or agree with, then that WILL be contested as unconstitutional
> 
> (so it's the issue of CONSENT that makes it constitutional or unconstitutional)
> 
> If there isn't consent and there is a contested bias in the law due to clashing beliefs, this will cause
> C. an argument whether it requires a 'consensus' of citizens to find it unconstitutional, 'majority rule' to determine if it is is or is not, or the FEDERAL GOVT to step in and decide if citizens are being deprived unconstitutionally
> 
> We will have the exact situation we have now with
> 1. people disagreeing about right to life, prochoice, and federal laws made by legislators or rulings by courts
> 2. similar arguments over the recognition of homosexual or transgender identity and marriage rights etc.
> 
> Tennyson we in fact DO have conflicts of religion going on with the govt and Constitution itself.
> Some interpret and believe the history as govt founders DID establish an agreed process in creating the Constitution, where the conventions WERE presided over with prayer to God for wisdom to guide the process.
> 
> So this is in practice, an expression of the faith in the democratic process of establishing truth by "witnesses" in defense of one side or another, which is also reflected in the Bible, in Matthew 18:15-20 where trespasses are being addressed as a specific type of conflict, but this "due process of law" can apply to any grievance or issue.
> 
> If we BELIEVE in this process, and use Constitutional laws to express and enforce it, that is like a political religion because it involves govt processes.
> 
> I use these in GENERAL terms and contexts to mean PEOPLE (not just govt) redressing grievances.
> So to me it is a spiritual process between people on a personal level first, then it extends to relationships between people and groups, and then the govt process reflects that collectively on a public or global scale.
> 
> I would say we DO have different denominations of Constitutionalism going on.
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did, TROLL.  You claimed it only applied to Protestant religions.  For goodness sake, if you expand this response, you'll see where you were QUOTED saying it prohibited Protestants.  Why don't you stop.  The topic is Gay Marriage is not a constitutional right, not the entire constitution and the entire bill of rights.  And stop boring us with your "random twentieth century activist court rulings".   The only time you have used this phrase is when the SCOTUS ruling is something you disagree with.  Does that mean you are in full agreement, and as a strict constructionist (to explain to someone as illiterate as yourself) that you refer to a particular legal philosopy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation.  Then literally, you are, under the second amendment, bound to use weapons of those days only, so turn in everything but your one-shot weapons and cannons. Antonin and Thomas both changed from strict constructionist to "20th century activist judges" when it comes to one of their pet projects, the same as you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.
> 
> I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.
> 
> The states had state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.
> 
> This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.
> 
> All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Your attempt to paint me in a corner regarding the Second Amendment is impotent. I never made that statement nor did I allude to that statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> The states had state sponsored religions into the eighteenth century. No religion was imposed on anyone. The advantage was receiving tax money from the state. All the states had different religions. There was no constitutional basis against what the states were doing. It is the same as the Fifteenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, and the reconstruction Congress' approving the state's anti-miscegenation laws. If the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment meant what activist courts have created that they meant, there would be no reason for the amendments because they could have just sued. They did not sue because the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses were only applicable for judicial proceedings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Syriusly, get a load  of this - there's no need for the 14th amendment, because people could have just sued using the principals of the 14th amendment.   Tenny must not realize that you only sue in judicial proceedings, as judicial proceedings are actions carried out in a court of law.  I still want to know how one sues without having applicable law in place.  Oh yes, that's why he's turning in his guns, since he can only have single shot revolvers and muskets, and cannons.    His teachers are shaking their heads in embarrassment. Hint -all we have, according to you are 21st century activist court rulings - you aren't even in the right century.  And according to you, we then use activist court rulings from the 18th century, 19th century, 20th century, (and as you ignorantly left out), 21st century.   You do realize the SSM rulings were THIS century, Tenny?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am trying to understand your post in the context of the law and the Constitution, but it defies both.
Click to expand...

Not a very nice thing to say to emily.  One has to assume english isn't your first language, and whoever taught you english had no grasp themselves on the language.  Perhaps you were raised learning pig latin.


----------



## Sneekin

Tennyson said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tenny, as several of us have informed you, on numerous occasions, we will not answer your questions until you answer ours.  You've never answered a single one.  We may make exceptions, but only to further demonstrate ignorance, such as you not realizing the century court ruling were made (after all, one of them was in 2015, and that was SOOOOO long ago).  Additionally, you'll notice many aren't going to answer you, because you don't specifically address anyone, so people aren't going to wade through your voluminous BS where you continually regurgitate the same misinformation regarding several people's comments.  Model yourself off of Emily, Seriously, myself, Clayton, etc, who call you out/address you.  Otherwise, you just further demonstrate that you are nothing but the shallowest of internet trolls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to ask a legitimate question to be answered. This is a very unbecoming method you have employed to avoid defending your posts when pressed.
Click to expand...

7 people so far have asked you questions, including myself.  This is the same non-answer you always give.  You've been told before - we don't answer your questions until you answer ares.  If it requires you going through 107 pages, then I suggest you start now, TROLL.


----------



## Sneekin

Tennyson said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Tennyson pure logic would tell us
> that if states establish a religion or religious bias that
> A. all their citizens agree to, nobody is going to contest it as religious imposition, so it will not be found
> unconstitutional since nobody will complain or petition/sue for it to change
> B. a number of their citizens DON'T believe in or agree with, then that WILL be contested as unconstitutional
> 
> (so it's the issue of CONSENT that makes it constitutional or unconstitutional)
> 
> If there isn't consent and there is a contested bias in the law due to clashing beliefs, this will cause
> C. an argument whether it requires a 'consensus' of citizens to find it unconstitutional, 'majority rule' to determine if it is is or is not, or the FEDERAL GOVT to step in and decide if citizens are being deprived unconstitutionally
> 
> We will have the exact situation we have now with
> 1. people disagreeing about right to life, prochoice, and federal laws made by legislators or rulings by courts
> 2. similar arguments over the recognition of homosexual or transgender identity and marriage rights etc.
> 
> Tennyson we in fact DO have conflicts of religion going on with the govt and Constitution itself.
> Some interpret and believe the history as govt founders DID establish an agreed process in creating the Constitution, where the conventions WERE presided over with prayer to God for wisdom to guide the process.
> 
> So this is in practice, an expression of the faith in the democratic process of establishing truth by "witnesses" in defense of one side or another, which is also reflected in the Bible, in Matthew 18:15-20 where trespasses are being addressed as a specific type of conflict, but this "due process of law" can apply to any grievance or issue.
> 
> If we BELIEVE in this process, and use Constitutional laws to express and enforce it, that is like a political religion because it involves govt processes.
> 
> I use these in GENERAL terms and contexts to mean PEOPLE (not just govt) redressing grievances.
> So to me it is a spiritual process between people on a personal level first, then it extends to relationships between people and groups, and then the govt process reflects that collectively on a public or global scale.
> 
> I would say we DO have different denominations of Constitutionalism going on.
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did, TROLL.  You claimed it only applied to Protestant religions.  For goodness sake, if you expand this response, you'll see where you were QUOTED saying it prohibited Protestants.  Why don't you stop.  The topic is Gay Marriage is not a constitutional right, not the entire constitution and the entire bill of rights.  And stop boring us with your "random twentieth century activist court rulings".   The only time you have used this phrase is when the SCOTUS ruling is something you disagree with.  Does that mean you are in full agreement, and as a strict constructionist (to explain to someone as illiterate as yourself) that you refer to a particular legal philosopy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation.  Then literally, you are, under the second amendment, bound to use weapons of those days only, so turn in everything but your one-shot weapons and cannons. Antonin and Thomas both changed from strict constructionist to "20th century activist judges" when it comes to one of their pet projects, the same as you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.
> 
> I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.
> 
> The states had state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.
> 
> This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.
> 
> All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Your attempt to paint me in a corner regarding the Second Amendment is impotent. I never made that statement nor did I allude to that statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> The states had state sponsored religions into the eighteenth century. No religion was imposed on anyone. The advantage was receiving tax money from the state. All the states had different religions. There was no constitutional basis against what the states were doing. It is the same as the Fifteenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, and the reconstruction Congress' approving the state's anti-miscegenation laws. If the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment meant what activist courts have created that they meant, there would be no reason for the amendments because they could have just sued. They did not sue because the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses were only applicable for judicial proceedings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Syriusly, get a load  of this - there's no need for the 14th amendment, because people could have just sued using the principals of the 14th amendment.   Tenny must not realize that you only sue in judicial proceedings, as judicial proceedings are actions carried out in a court of law.  I still want to know how one sues without having applicable law in place.  Oh yes, that's why he's turning in his guns, since he can only have single shot revolvers and muskets, and cannons.    His teachers are shaking their heads in embarrassment. Hint -all we have, according to you are 21st century activist court rulings - you aren't even in the right century.  And according to you, we then use activist court rulings from the 18th century, 19th century, 20th century, (and as you ignorantly left out), 21st century.   You do realize the SSM rulings were THIS century, Tenny?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am trying to understand your post in the context of the law and the Constitution, but it defies both.
Click to expand...

If you don't understand english, admit it. You've already demonstrated your ignorance of the law and the US Constitution.   Figured out yet that the Bill of rights are the start of the US Constitution, or are you still in some kind of drug or alcohol stupor that prevents you from understanding?"  Answer questions - and you'll get answers.  Keep ignoring us, and you'll get nothing. I see you've failed to grasp the concept that judicial proceedings occur in courts, and that for someone to sue citing the 14th amendment, the 14th amendment must be in place.  Thanks for proving ignorance is bliss. We can see you giggling inanely behind your keyboard and monitor.  To dumb this down to your level - You cannot sue someone for establishing a federal religion if it was not already determined to violate the first amendment - that is to say, slow minded one, if there was no first amendment, you cannot sue.   We are dazzled by your stupidity (as opposed to just ignorance of the constitution).   Dropped on your head?


----------



## Sneekin

Tennyson said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.  This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner.  Did you not even complete the sixth grade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to have forgotten to address this:
> 
> Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.
Click to expand...

Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions.  The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution.   This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you.  Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers.  I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.  

I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes).  You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution.  All men are created equal, not just old white men.

Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean_“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”. _


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Tennyson pure logic would tell us
> that if states establish a religion or religious bias that
> A. all their citizens agree to, nobody is going to contest it as religious imposition, so it will not be found
> unconstitutional since nobody will complain or petition/sue for it to change
> B. a number of their citizens DON'T believe in or agree with, then that WILL be contested as unconstitutional
> 
> (so it's the issue of CONSENT that makes it constitutional or unconstitutional)
> 
> If there isn't consent and there is a contested bias in the law due to clashing beliefs, this will cause
> C. an argument whether it requires a 'consensus' of citizens to find it unconstitutional, 'majority rule' to determine if it is is or is not, or the FEDERAL GOVT to step in and decide if citizens are being deprived unconstitutionally
> 
> We will have the exact situation we have now with
> 1. people disagreeing about right to life, prochoice, and federal laws made by legislators or rulings by courts
> 2. similar arguments over the recognition of homosexual or transgender identity and marriage rights etc.
> 
> Tennyson we in fact DO have conflicts of religion going on with the govt and Constitution itself.
> Some interpret and believe the history as govt founders DID establish an agreed process in creating the Constitution, where the conventions WERE presided over with prayer to God for wisdom to guide the process.
> 
> So this is in practice, an expression of the faith in the democratic process of establishing truth by "witnesses" in defense of one side or another, which is also reflected in the Bible, in Matthew 18:15-20 where trespasses are being addressed as a specific type of conflict, but this "due process of law" can apply to any grievance or issue.
> 
> If we BELIEVE in this process, and use Constitutional laws to express and enforce it, that is like a political religion because it involves govt processes.
> 
> I use these in GENERAL terms and contexts to mean PEOPLE (not just govt) redressing grievances.
> So to me it is a spiritual process between people on a personal level first, then it extends to relationships between people and groups, and then the govt process reflects that collectively on a public or global scale.
> 
> I would say we DO have different denominations of Constitutionalism going on.
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.
> 
> I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.
> 
> The states had state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.
> 
> This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.
> 
> All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Your attempt to paint me in a corner regarding the Second Amendment is impotent. I never made that statement nor did I allude to that statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> The states had state sponsored religions into the eighteenth century. No religion was imposed on anyone. The advantage was receiving tax money from the state. All the states had different religions. There was no constitutional basis against what the states were doing. It is the same as the Fifteenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, and the reconstruction Congress' approving the state's anti-miscegenation laws. If the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment meant what activist courts have created that they meant, there would be no reason for the amendments because they could have just sued. They did not sue because the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses were only applicable for judicial proceedings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Syriusly, get a load  of this - there's no need for the 14th amendment, because people could have just sued using the principals of the 14th amendment.   Tenny must not realize that you only sue in judicial proceedings, as judicial proceedings are actions carried out in a court of law.  I still want to know how one sues without having applicable law in place.  Oh yes, that's why he's turning in his guns, since he can only have single shot revolvers and muskets, and cannons.    His teachers are shaking their heads in embarrassment. Hint -all we have, according to you are 21st century activist court rulings - you aren't even in the right century.  And according to you, we then use activist court rulings from the 18th century, 19th century, 20th century, (and as you ignorantly left out), 21st century.   You do realize the SSM rulings were THIS century, Tenny?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am trying to understand your post in the context of the law and the Constitution, but it defies both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a very nice thing to say to emily.  One has to assume english isn't your first language, and whoever taught you english had no grasp themselves on the language.  Perhaps you were raised learning pig latin.
Click to expand...


That was addressed to you and you know that it was.


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tenny, as several of us have informed you, on numerous occasions, we will not answer your questions until you answer ours.  You've never answered a single one.  We may make exceptions, but only to further demonstrate ignorance, such as you not realizing the century court ruling were made (after all, one of them was in 2015, and that was SOOOOO long ago).  Additionally, you'll notice many aren't going to answer you, because you don't specifically address anyone, so people aren't going to wade through your voluminous BS where you continually regurgitate the same misinformation regarding several people's comments.  Model yourself off of Emily, Seriously, myself, Clayton, etc, who call you out/address you.  Otherwise, you just further demonstrate that you are nothing but the shallowest of internet trolls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to ask a legitimate question to be answered. This is a very unbecoming method you have employed to avoid defending your posts when pressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 7 people so far have asked you questions, including myself.  This is the same non-answer you always give.  You've been told before - we don't answer your questions until you answer ares.  If it requires you going through 107 pages, then I suggest you start now, TROLL.
Click to expand...


You have yet to ask a legitimate question to be answered. This is a very unbecoming method you have employed to avoid defending your posts when pressed. You are made claims that you have failed to substantiate with any historical evidence.


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Tennyson pure logic would tell us
> that if states establish a religion or religious bias that
> A. all their citizens agree to, nobody is going to contest it as religious imposition, so it will not be found
> unconstitutional since nobody will complain or petition/sue for it to change
> B. a number of their citizens DON'T believe in or agree with, then that WILL be contested as unconstitutional
> 
> (so it's the issue of CONSENT that makes it constitutional or unconstitutional)
> 
> If there isn't consent and there is a contested bias in the law due to clashing beliefs, this will cause
> C. an argument whether it requires a 'consensus' of citizens to find it unconstitutional, 'majority rule' to determine if it is is or is not, or the FEDERAL GOVT to step in and decide if citizens are being deprived unconstitutionally
> 
> We will have the exact situation we have now with
> 1. people disagreeing about right to life, prochoice, and federal laws made by legislators or rulings by courts
> 2. similar arguments over the recognition of homosexual or transgender identity and marriage rights etc.
> 
> Tennyson we in fact DO have conflicts of religion going on with the govt and Constitution itself.
> Some interpret and believe the history as govt founders DID establish an agreed process in creating the Constitution, where the conventions WERE presided over with prayer to God for wisdom to guide the process.
> 
> So this is in practice, an expression of the faith in the democratic process of establishing truth by "witnesses" in defense of one side or another, which is also reflected in the Bible, in Matthew 18:15-20 where trespasses are being addressed as a specific type of conflict, but this "due process of law" can apply to any grievance or issue.
> 
> If we BELIEVE in this process, and use Constitutional laws to express and enforce it, that is like a political religion because it involves govt processes.
> 
> I use these in GENERAL terms and contexts to mean PEOPLE (not just govt) redressing grievances.
> So to me it is a spiritual process between people on a personal level first, then it extends to relationships between people and groups, and then the govt process reflects that collectively on a public or global scale.
> 
> I would say we DO have different denominations of Constitutionalism going on.
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.
> 
> I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.
> 
> The states had state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.
> 
> This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.
> 
> All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Your attempt to paint me in a corner regarding the Second Amendment is impotent. I never made that statement nor did I allude to that statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> The states had state sponsored religions into the eighteenth century. No religion was imposed on anyone. The advantage was receiving tax money from the state. All the states had different religions. There was no constitutional basis against what the states were doing. It is the same as the Fifteenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, and the reconstruction Congress' approving the state's anti-miscegenation laws. If the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment meant what activist courts have created that they meant, there would be no reason for the amendments because they could have just sued. They did not sue because the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses were only applicable for judicial proceedings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Syriusly, get a load  of this - there's no need for the 14th amendment, because people could have just sued using the principals of the 14th amendment.   Tenny must not realize that you only sue in judicial proceedings, as judicial proceedings are actions carried out in a court of law.  I still want to know how one sues without having applicable law in place.  Oh yes, that's why he's turning in his guns, since he can only have single shot revolvers and muskets, and cannons.    His teachers are shaking their heads in embarrassment. Hint -all we have, according to you are 21st century activist court rulings - you aren't even in the right century.  And according to you, we then use activist court rulings from the 18th century, 19th century, 20th century, (and as you ignorantly left out), 21st century.   You do realize the SSM rulings were THIS century, Tenny?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am trying to understand your post in the context of the law and the Constitution, but it defies both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't understand english, admit it. You've already demonstrated your ignorance of the law and the US Constitution.   Figured out yet that the Bill of rights are the start of the US Constitution, or are you still in some kind of drug or alcohol stupor that prevents you from understanding?"  Answer questions - and you'll get answers.  Keep ignoring us, and you'll get nothing. I see you've failed to grasp the concept that judicial proceedings occur in courts, and that for someone to sue citing the 14th amendment, the 14th amendment must be in place.  Thanks for proving ignorance is bliss. We can see you giggling inanely behind your keyboard and monitor.  To dumb this down to your level - You cannot sue someone for establishing a federal religion if it was not already determined to violate the first amendment - that is to say, slow minded one, if there was no first amendment, you cannot sue.   We are dazzled by your stupidity (as opposed to just ignorance of the constitution).   Dropped on your head?
Click to expand...


I am trying to understand your post in the context of the law and the Constitution, but it defies both. There is nothing in this post that I can assign to any legitimate legal or constitutional concept.


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.  This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner.  Did you not even complete the sixth grade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to have forgotten to address this:
> 
> Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions.  The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution.   This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you.  Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers.  I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.
> 
> I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes).  You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution.  All men are created equal, not just old white men.
> 
> Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean_“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”. _
Click to expand...


If the founders wanted to insert the Bill of Rights into the Constitution they probably would have written the Bill of Rights into certain articles by deleting parts of the article, section, or paragraph and inserting the amendment in their place.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.  This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner.  Did you not even complete the sixth grade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to have forgotten to address this:
> 
> Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions.  The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution.   This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you.  Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers.  I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.
> 
> I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes).  You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution.  All men are created equal, not just old white men.
> 
> Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean_“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”. _
Click to expand...

Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority

The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.

Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief.  Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.

Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .


----------



## Syriusly

Tennyson said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.  This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner.  Did you not even complete the sixth grade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to have forgotten to address this:
> 
> Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions.  The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution.   This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you.  Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers.  I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.
> 
> I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes).  You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution.  All men are created equal, not just old white men.
> 
> Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean_“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the founders wanted to insert the Bill of Rights into the Constitution they probably would have written the Bill of Rights into certain articles by deleting parts of the article, section, or paragraph and inserting the amendment in their place.
Click to expand...


The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution. 

Every amendment to the Constitution is part of the Constitution.


----------



## Sneekin

Tennyson said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Tennyson pure logic would tell us
> that if states establish a religion or religious bias that
> A. all their citizens agree to, nobody is going to contest it as religious imposition, so it will not be found
> unconstitutional since nobody will complain or petition/sue for it to change
> B. a number of their citizens DON'T believe in or agree with, then that WILL be contested as unconstitutional
> 
> (so it's the issue of CONSENT that makes it constitutional or unconstitutional)
> 
> If there isn't consent and there is a contested bias in the law due to clashing beliefs, this will cause
> C. an argument whether it requires a 'consensus' of citizens to find it unconstitutional, 'majority rule' to determine if it is is or is not, or the FEDERAL GOVT to step in and decide if citizens are being deprived unconstitutionally
> 
> We will have the exact situation we have now with
> 1. people disagreeing about right to life, prochoice, and federal laws made by legislators or rulings by courts
> 2. similar arguments over the recognition of homosexual or transgender identity and marriage rights etc.
> 
> Tennyson we in fact DO have conflicts of religion going on with the govt and Constitution itself.
> Some interpret and believe the history as govt founders DID establish an agreed process in creating the Constitution, where the conventions WERE presided over with prayer to God for wisdom to guide the process.
> 
> So this is in practice, an expression of the faith in the democratic process of establishing truth by "witnesses" in defense of one side or another, which is also reflected in the Bible, in Matthew 18:15-20 where trespasses are being addressed as a specific type of conflict, but this "due process of law" can apply to any grievance or issue.
> 
> If we BELIEVE in this process, and use Constitutional laws to express and enforce it, that is like a political religion because it involves govt processes.
> 
> I use these in GENERAL terms and contexts to mean PEOPLE (not just govt) redressing grievances.
> So to me it is a spiritual process between people on a personal level first, then it extends to relationships between people and groups, and then the govt process reflects that collectively on a public or global scale.
> 
> I would say we DO have different denominations of Constitutionalism going on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> The states had state sponsored religions into the eighteenth century. No religion was imposed on anyone. The advantage was receiving tax money from the state. All the states had different religions. There was no constitutional basis against what the states were doing. It is the same as the Fifteenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, and the reconstruction Congress' approving the state's anti-miscegenation laws. If the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment meant what activist courts have created that they meant, there would be no reason for the amendments because they could have just sued. They did not sue because the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses were only applicable for judicial proceedings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Syriusly, get a load  of this - there's no need for the 14th amendment, because people could have just sued using the principals of the 14th amendment.   Tenny must not realize that you only sue in judicial proceedings, as judicial proceedings are actions carried out in a court of law.  I still want to know how one sues without having applicable law in place.  Oh yes, that's why he's turning in his guns, since he can only have single shot revolvers and muskets, and cannons.    His teachers are shaking their heads in embarrassment. Hint -all we have, according to you are 21st century activist court rulings - you aren't even in the right century.  And according to you, we then use activist court rulings from the 18th century, 19th century, 20th century, (and as you ignorantly left out), 21st century.   You do realize the SSM rulings were THIS century, Tenny?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am trying to understand your post in the context of the law and the Constitution, but it defies both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a very nice thing to say to emily.  One has to assume english isn't your first language, and whoever taught you english had no grasp themselves on the language.  Perhaps you were raised learning pig latin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was addressed to you and you know that it was.
Click to expand...

No I don't know that.   I'm not the self effacing twit that you are. So your questions will not get answered.


----------



## Sneekin

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?
> 
> 
> 
> Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.  This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner.  Did you not even complete the sixth grade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to have forgotten to address this:
> 
> Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions.  The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution.   This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you.  Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers.  I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.
> 
> I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes).  You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution.  All men are created equal, not just old white men.
> 
> Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean_“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the founders wanted to insert the Bill of Rights into the Constitution they probably would have written the Bill of Rights into certain articles by deleting parts of the article, section, or paragraph and inserting the amendment in their place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution.
> 
> Every amendment to the Constitution is part of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

To all but Tennyson, apparently.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.  This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner.  Did you not even complete the sixth grade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to have forgotten to address this:
> 
> Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions.  The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution.   This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you.  Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers.  I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.
> 
> I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes).  You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution.  All men are created equal, not just old white men.
> 
> Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean_“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
> 1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
> 2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority
> 
> The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.
> 
> Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief.  Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.
> 
> Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .
Click to expand...

Emily, simply not true.  Discrimination cannot (or should not) be written into the Constitution.  This is why we have the courts, and the laws.   It makes no difference if you believe SSM or Interracial Marriage infringes on what you consider your equal rights - and the two don't violate the first amendment.  The government most certainly can take sides - it always takes sides, in fact.   Whichever side is IAW the US Constitution or subsequent amendments. The Constitution (and TItle X) address the creed issue as well.  While you can't discriminate based on creed (we can't allow ANY Muslim to come to the US, we can't promote, we can't have them in positions of power), the government could step in when a piece of their religious creed violates another's rights (constitutional, legal, etc).


----------



## Sneekin

Tennyson said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Tennyson pure logic would tell us
> that if states establish a religion or religious bias that
> A. all their citizens agree to, nobody is going to contest it as religious imposition, so it will not be found
> unconstitutional since nobody will complain or petition/sue for it to change
> B. a number of their citizens DON'T believe in or agree with, then that WILL be contested as unconstitutional
> 
> (so it's the issue of CONSENT that makes it constitutional or unconstitutional)
> 
> If there isn't consent and there is a contested bias in the law due to clashing beliefs, this will cause
> C. an argument whether it requires a 'consensus' of citizens to find it unconstitutional, 'majority rule' to determine if it is is or is not, or the FEDERAL GOVT to step in and decide if citizens are being deprived unconstitutionally
> 
> We will have the exact situation we have now with
> 1. people disagreeing about right to life, prochoice, and federal laws made by legislators or rulings by courts
> 2. similar arguments over the recognition of homosexual or transgender identity and marriage rights etc.
> 
> Tennyson we in fact DO have conflicts of religion going on with the govt and Constitution itself.
> Some interpret and believe the history as govt founders DID establish an agreed process in creating the Constitution, where the conventions WERE presided over with prayer to God for wisdom to guide the process.
> 
> So this is in practice, an expression of the faith in the democratic process of establishing truth by "witnesses" in defense of one side or another, which is also reflected in the Bible, in Matthew 18:15-20 where trespasses are being addressed as a specific type of conflict, but this "due process of law" can apply to any grievance or issue.
> 
> If we BELIEVE in this process, and use Constitutional laws to express and enforce it, that is like a political religion because it involves govt processes.
> 
> I use these in GENERAL terms and contexts to mean PEOPLE (not just govt) redressing grievances.
> So to me it is a spiritual process between people on a personal level first, then it extends to relationships between people and groups, and then the govt process reflects that collectively on a public or global scale.
> 
> I would say we DO have different denominations of Constitutionalism going on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> The states had state sponsored religions into the eighteenth century. No religion was imposed on anyone. The advantage was receiving tax money from the state. All the states had different religions. There was no constitutional basis against what the states were doing. It is the same as the Fifteenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, and the reconstruction Congress' approving the state's anti-miscegenation laws. If the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment meant what activist courts have created that they meant, there would be no reason for the amendments because they could have just sued. They did not sue because the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses were only applicable for judicial proceedings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Syriusly, get a load  of this - there's no need for the 14th amendment, because people could have just sued using the principals of the 14th amendment.   Tenny must not realize that you only sue in judicial proceedings, as judicial proceedings are actions carried out in a court of law.  I still want to know how one sues without having applicable law in place.  Oh yes, that's why he's turning in his guns, since he can only have single shot revolvers and muskets, and cannons.    His teachers are shaking their heads in embarrassment. Hint -all we have, according to you are 21st century activist court rulings - you aren't even in the right century.  And according to you, we then use activist court rulings from the 18th century, 19th century, 20th century, (and as you ignorantly left out), 21st century.   You do realize the SSM rulings were THIS century, Tenny?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am trying to understand your post in the context of the law and the Constitution, but it defies both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't understand english, admit it. You've already demonstrated your ignorance of the law and the US Constitution.   Figured out yet that the Bill of rights are the start of the US Constitution, or are you still in some kind of drug or alcohol stupor that prevents you from understanding?"  Answer questions - and you'll get answers.  Keep ignoring us, and you'll get nothing. I see you've failed to grasp the concept that judicial proceedings occur in courts, and that for someone to sue citing the 14th amendment, the 14th amendment must be in place.  Thanks for proving ignorance is bliss. We can see you giggling inanely behind your keyboard and monitor.  To dumb this down to your level - You cannot sue someone for establishing a federal religion if it was not already determined to violate the first amendment - that is to say, slow minded one, if there was no first amendment, you cannot sue.   We are dazzled by your stupidity (as opposed to just ignorance of the constitution).   Dropped on your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tenny Shoe,  I am trying to understand your post in the context of the law and the Constitution, but it defies both. There is nothing in this post that I can assign to any legitimate legal or constitutional concept.
Click to expand...

Is it true that Life is like a box of chocolates?  I'm sorry, but as I said, that's all I will right until you answer questions.   The bill of rights?  You mean the beginning of the US Constitution?   What an idiot you are.   How are you doing declaring that state religion of Catholicism?  How about that federal religion of Catholicism? Answer some questions and I'll dumb it down even more. Wipe the spittle off the screen, and let it sink in that I'm responding to your post with your own answers.  You've stated multiple times that we cannot have a Protestant religion.   Fool.  Hopefully this was addressed to me, but once again, trolls can't follow rules as laid out by usmessageboard.com, or requests by other posters to address your pathetic trolls to specific people.


To quote Syriusly, "The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution. 
Every amendment to the Constitution is part of the Constitution."

If you would learn to count higher than one, you could possibly understand that more than one person asks and/or addresses you.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?
> 
> 
> 
> Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.  This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner.  Did you not even complete the sixth grade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to have forgotten to address this:
> 
> Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions.  The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution.   This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you.  Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers.  I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.
> 
> I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes).  You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution.  All men are created equal, not just old white men.
> 
> Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean_“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
> 1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
> 2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority
> 
> The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.
> 
> Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief.  Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.
> 
> Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, simply not true.  Discrimination cannot (or should not) be written into the Constitution.  This is why we have the courts, and the laws.   It makes no difference if you believe SSM or Interracial Marriage infringes on what you consider your equal rights - and the two don't violate the first amendment.  The government most certainly can take sides - it always takes sides, in fact.   Whichever side is IAW the US Constitution or subsequent amendments. The Constitution (and TItle X) address the creed issue as well.  While you can't discriminate based on creed (we can't allow ANY Muslim to come to the US, we can't promote, we can't have them in positions of power), the government could step in when a piece of their religious creed violates another's rights (constitutional, legal, etc).
Click to expand...


I don't disagree with you Sneekin but saying the same thing: that govt cannot be involved in discriminating by creed

the difference I am addressing which you do not seem to acknowledge
is that the solution to FIX the discrimination
cannot then impose ANOTHER creed that discriminates.

I am trying to prevent BOTH sides from discriminating against the other
and abusing govt to do so.

so I am asking how do we achieve that?


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.  This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner.  Did you not even complete the sixth grade?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have forgotten to address this:
> 
> Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions.  The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution.   This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you.  Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers.  I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.
> 
> I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes).  You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution.  All men are created equal, not just old white men.
> 
> Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean_“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
> 1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
> 2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority
> 
> The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.
> 
> Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief.  Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.
> 
> Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, simply not true.  Discrimination cannot (or should not) be written into the Constitution.  This is why we have the courts, and the laws.   It makes no difference if you believe SSM or Interracial Marriage infringes on what you consider your equal rights - and the two don't violate the first amendment.  The government most certainly can take sides - it always takes sides, in fact.   Whichever side is IAW the US Constitution or subsequent amendments. The Constitution (and TItle X) address the creed issue as well.  While you can't discriminate based on creed (we can't allow ANY Muslim to come to the US, we can't promote, we can't have them in positions of power), the government could step in when a piece of their religious creed violates another's rights (constitutional, legal, etc).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with you Sneekin but saying the same thing: that govt cannot be involved in discriminating by creed
> 
> the difference I am addressing which you do not seem to acknowledge
> is that the solution to FIX the discrimination
> cannot then impose ANOTHER creed that discriminates.
> 
> I am trying to prevent BOTH sides from discriminating against the other
> and abusing govt to do so.
> 
> so I am asking how do we achieve that?
Click to expand...

And I'm saying, yes they can impose discrimination.  We can no longer impose an eye for an eye  (Capital Punishment) in many states, even though that goes against the creed of some.  Some Christian religions prohibit interracial marriage.   Loving directly violates their religious creed.  Ditto SSM, where some religions allow SSM, some do not, yet it is legal - so it violates their religious creed as well. By allowing SSM/Interracial marriage, it violates the creed of another. Catholics don't allow remarriage (unless their first spouse died/marriage was annulled), most protestants allow divorce.  Diametrically opposed.  FIrst amendment allows us to be any religion (or none at all).  We never impose creeds, that would be a violation of their constitutional rights.  However, the laws may allow those not of your creed to do something (ie, interracial marriage/SSM); even though your creed disagrees.  I'm still not sure why you think one side discriminates against another.    Both sides disagree sometimes, it's what makes this country great (our choice).  Government is not abused because your religion may disagree with SSM and mine may agree with it.  Hope this helps.


----------



## Tennyson

Syriusly said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?
> 
> 
> 
> Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.  This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner.  Did you not even complete the sixth grade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to have forgotten to address this:
> 
> Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions.  The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution.   This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you.  Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers.  I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.
> 
> I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes).  You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution.  All men are created equal, not just old white men.
> 
> Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean_“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the founders wanted to insert the Bill of Rights into the Constitution they probably would have written the Bill of Rights into certain articles by deleting parts of the article, section, or paragraph and inserting the amendment in their place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution.
> 
> Every amendment to the Constitution is part of the Constitution.
Click to expand...


If the founders intended for the Bill of Rights to be part of the Constitution, they probably would have written the Bill of Rights into certain articles by deleting parts of the article, section, or paragraph and inserting the amendment in their place with words such as "added," "struck," or "inserted."


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.  This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner.  Did you not even complete the sixth grade?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have forgotten to address this:
> 
> Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions.  The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution.   This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you.  Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers.  I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.
> 
> I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes).  You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution.  All men are created equal, not just old white men.
> 
> Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean_“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the founders wanted to insert the Bill of Rights into the Constitution they probably would have written the Bill of Rights into certain articles by deleting parts of the article, section, or paragraph and inserting the amendment in their place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution.
> 
> Every amendment to the Constitution is part of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To all but Tennyson, apparently.
Click to expand...


If the founders intended for the Bill of Rights to be part of the Constitution, they probably would have written the Bill of Rights into certain articles by deleting parts of the article, section, or paragraph and inserting the amendment in their place with words such as "added," "struck," or "inserted."


----------



## Tennyson

Sneekin said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> The states had state sponsored religions into the eighteenth century. No religion was imposed on anyone. The advantage was receiving tax money from the state. All the states had different religions. There was no constitutional basis against what the states were doing. It is the same as the Fifteenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, and the reconstruction Congress' approving the state's anti-miscegenation laws. If the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment meant what activist courts have created that they meant, there would be no reason for the amendments because they could have just sued. They did not sue because the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses were only applicable for judicial proceedings.
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly, get a load  of this - there's no need for the 14th amendment, because people could have just sued using the principals of the 14th amendment.   Tenny must not realize that you only sue in judicial proceedings, as judicial proceedings are actions carried out in a court of law.  I still want to know how one sues without having applicable law in place.  Oh yes, that's why he's turning in his guns, since he can only have single shot revolvers and muskets, and cannons.    His teachers are shaking their heads in embarrassment. Hint -all we have, according to you are 21st century activist court rulings - you aren't even in the right century.  And according to you, we then use activist court rulings from the 18th century, 19th century, 20th century, (and as you ignorantly left out), 21st century.   You do realize the SSM rulings were THIS century, Tenny?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am trying to understand your post in the context of the law and the Constitution, but it defies both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't understand english, admit it. You've already demonstrated your ignorance of the law and the US Constitution.   Figured out yet that the Bill of rights are the start of the US Constitution, or are you still in some kind of drug or alcohol stupor that prevents you from understanding?"  Answer questions - and you'll get answers.  Keep ignoring us, and you'll get nothing. I see you've failed to grasp the concept that judicial proceedings occur in courts, and that for someone to sue citing the 14th amendment, the 14th amendment must be in place.  Thanks for proving ignorance is bliss. We can see you giggling inanely behind your keyboard and monitor.  To dumb this down to your level - You cannot sue someone for establishing a federal religion if it was not already determined to violate the first amendment - that is to say, slow minded one, if there was no first amendment, you cannot sue.   We are dazzled by your stupidity (as opposed to just ignorance of the constitution).   Dropped on your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tenny Shoe,  I am trying to understand your post in the context of the law and the Constitution, but it defies both. There is nothing in this post that I can assign to any legitimate legal or constitutional concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it true that Life is like a box of chocolates?  I'm sorry, but as I said, that's all I will right until you answer questions.   The bill of rights?  You mean the beginning of the US Constitution?   What an idiot you are.   How are you doing declaring that state religion of Catholicism?  How about that federal religion of Catholicism? Answer some questions and I'll dumb it down even more. Wipe the spittle off the screen, and let it sink in that I'm responding to your post with your own answers.  You've stated multiple times that we cannot have a Protestant religion.   Fool.  Hopefully this was addressed to me, but once again, trolls can't follow rules as laid out by usmessageboard.com, or requests by other posters to address your pathetic trolls to specific people.
> 
> 
> To quote Syriusly, "The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution.
> Every amendment to the Constitution is part of the Constitution."
> 
> If you would learn to count higher than one, you could possibly understand that more than one person asks and/or addresses you.
Click to expand...


If the founders intended for the Bill of Rights to be part of the Constitution, they probably would have written the Bill of Rights into certain articles by deleting parts of the article, section, or paragraph and inserting the amendment in their place with words such as "added," "struck," or "inserted."


----------



## Sneekin

Tennyson said:


> If the founders intended for the Bill of Rights to be part of the Constitution, they probably would have written the Bill of Rights into certain articles by deleting parts of the article, section, or paragraph and inserting the amendment in their place with words such as "added," "struck," or "inserted."



Syriusly - do you hear an annoying buzzing sound?  reminds me of a spoiled little child who doesn't get his way.  He's repeated himself twice now, he must have learned copy/paste in his remedial keyboarding class!  I see he still hasn't learned that to speak with someone, he needs to use their name.  Perhaps if he paid more attention to his teachers, he would be able to retain.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.  This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner.  Did you not even complete the sixth grade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to have forgotten to address this:
> 
> Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions.  The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution.   This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you.  Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers.  I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.
> 
> I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes).  You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution.  All men are created equal, not just old white men.
> 
> Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean_“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
> 1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
> 2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority
> 
> The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.
> 
> Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief.  Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.
> 
> Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .
Click to expand...

Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?


----------



## Sneekin

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?
> 
> 
> 
> Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.  This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner.  Did you not even complete the sixth grade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to have forgotten to address this:
> 
> Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions.  The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution.   This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you.  Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers.  I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.
> 
> I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes).  You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution.  All men are created equal, not just old white men.
> 
> Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean_“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
> 1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
> 2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority
> 
> The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.
> 
> Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief.  Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.
> 
> Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?
Click to expand...


Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses. 

Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.  

Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.  This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner.  Did you not even complete the sixth grade?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have forgotten to address this:
> 
> Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions.  The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution.   This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you.  Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers.  I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.
> 
> I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes).  You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution.  All men are created equal, not just old white men.
> 
> Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean_“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
> 1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
> 2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority
> 
> The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.
> 
> Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief.  Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.
> 
> Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
> 
> Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.
Click to expand...

Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.

As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.

The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt. 

It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have forgotten to address this:
> 
> Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.
> 
> 
> 
> Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions.  The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution.   This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you.  Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers.  I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.
> 
> I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes).  You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution.  All men are created equal, not just old white men.
> 
> Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean_“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
> 1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
> 2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority
> 
> The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.
> 
> Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief.  Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.
> 
> Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
> 
> Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
Click to expand...

No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions.  The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution.   This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you.  Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers.  I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.
> 
> I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes).  You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution.  All men are created equal, not just old white men.
> 
> Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean_“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”. _
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
> 1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
> 2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority
> 
> The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.
> 
> Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief.  Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.
> 
> Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
> 
> Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.
Click to expand...

Dear Faun
people who believe the federal govt *cannot* pass biased Faith based policies without violating the Constitution are having our beliefs violated. Same with ACA. Neither you nor the people who actually passed these take responsibility for violating Constitutional beliefs of people like me.

Thanks to that, now I understand why right to life people feel violated by laws or rulings interpreted as making abortion legal. I believe in decriminaluzing it, I believe in not banning it.

But since people do not believe in these things religiously, it is an unconstitutional violation to abuse govt to incorporate such faith based policies and practices into govt itself.

Marriage beliefs should remain legal to practice freely but nothing religiously biased should be endorsed by govt against the beliefs of others or it violates constitutional equal freedoms and protections.

Faun you don't have to be forced to participate or change atheist beliefs to SUE to Remove a Cross from a public bldg.

The Principle bring violated is called the establishment clause in the first amendment. It does not require forcing anyone, because just the govt Endorsing and Incorporating the faith based reference is grounds for lawsuit to remove it!

Do you understand that the same first amendment arguments used by atheists to remove crosses from public display can be applied here to answer your supposition?

Can you explain how a cross can be removed from public school property by a religious freedom organization suing from across the country that doesn't even see the display they are suing to remove. How is that forcing the to change their beliefs?

If it's just the Principle, that govt not endorsed a faith based belief, why aren't LGBT beliefs subject to equal treatment?

Are your LGBT beliefs so important and special they should be endorsed by govt in violation of the establishment clause, while Christians don't get that same inclusion and tolerance you are demanding by law for your beliefs?

If Crosses get removed off public buildings that aren't forcing anyone, but just one atheist or one group sued because they Don't Share those beliefs, why can't Christians sue to remove references to gay marriage they don't believe in just like the atheists argued don't belong in govt.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions.  The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution.   This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you.  Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers.  I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.
> 
> I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes).  You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution.  All men are created equal, not just old white men.
> 
> Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean_“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”. _
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
> 1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
> 2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority
> 
> The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.
> 
> Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief.  Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.
> 
> Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
> 
> Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.
Click to expand...

Faun Over half the nation is being forced to deny our beliefs in states rights. Not just with this insistence with imposing YOUR belief that the judiciary can create a faith based belief in right to marriage, but also we have put up with unconstitutional mandates violating our beliefs that federal government has no authority to force us to buy insurance.

I have said repeatedly that I agree the courts strike down marriage bans as unconstitutional but that's NOT the same as attempting to legislate laws or create rights through the judiciary.

That's where it goes Too Far.

So abusing fed govt this way violates Constitutional beliefs of others like me, not represented or protected equally but excluded whenever the govt over steps and pushes laws or rulings we don't believe in as Constituonalists.

Sorry that you don't count our beliefs as grounds for contesting laws that are biased by faith based beliefs:
The right to marriage which is faith based, the right to health care which is faith based, and the right to make laws through the judiciary that violate beliefs of others because you are biased against states rights.

If you keep ignoring this conflict, you remind me of Christians who believe in pushing their beliefs through govt and don't count opposing views as valid.
Keep doing what you are doing, and you open the door for Christians to do the same -- abusing govt to endorse faith based beliefs regardless of anyone else's beliefs. You are like them!


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
> 1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
> 2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority
> 
> The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.
> 
> Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief.  Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.
> 
> Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .
> 
> 
> 
> Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
> 
> Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> people who believe the federal govt *cannot* pass biased Faith based policies without violating the Constitution are having our beliefs violated. Same with ACA. Neither you nor the people who actually passed these take responsibility for violating Constitutional beliefs of people like me.
> 
> Thanks to that, now I understand why right to life people feel violated by laws or rulings interpreted as making abortion legal. I believe in decriminaluzing it, I believe in not banning it.
> 
> But since people do not believe in these things religiously, it is an unconstitutional violation to abuse govt to incorporate such faith based policies and practices into govt itself.
> 
> Marriage beliefs should remain legal to practice freely but nothing religiously biased should be endorsed by govt against the beliefs of others or it violates constitutional equal freedoms and protections.
> 
> Faun you don't have to be forced to participate or change atheist beliefs to SUE to Remove a Cross from a public bldg.
> 
> The Principle bring violated is called the establishment clause in the first amendment. It does not require forcing anyone, because just the govt Endorsing and Incorporating the faith based reference is grounds for lawsuit to remove it!
> 
> Do you understand that the same first amendment arguments used by atheists to remove crosses from public display can be applied here to answer your supposition?
> 
> Can you explain how a cross can be removed from public school property by a religious freedom organization suing from across the country that doesn't even see the display they are suing to remove. How is that forcing the to change their beliefs?
> 
> If it's just the Principle, that govt not endorsed a faith based belief, why aren't LGBT beliefs subject to equal treatment?
> 
> Are your LGBT beliefs so important and special they should be endorsed by govt in violation of the establishment clause, while Christians don't get that same inclusion and tolerance you are demanding by law for your beliefs?
> 
> If Crosses get removed off public buildings that aren't forcing anyone, but just one atheist or one group sued because they Don't Share those beliefs, why can't Christians sue to remove references to gay marriage they don't believe in just like the atheists argued don't belong in govt.
Click to expand...

That entire diatribe is misguided as same-sex marriage laws have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with equal protection under the law. If straight people have the liberty and right to marry the person they love and want to be legally married to, so can gay folks. We don't allow religious beliefs to deny people rights because religious people are offended.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
> 
> Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> people who believe the federal govt *cannot* pass biased Faith based policies without violating the Constitution are having our beliefs violated. Same with ACA. Neither you nor the people who actually passed these take responsibility for violating Constitutional beliefs of people like me.
> 
> Thanks to that, now I understand why right to life people feel violated by laws or rulings interpreted as making abortion legal. I believe in decriminaluzing it, I believe in not banning it.
> 
> But since people do not believe in these things religiously, it is an unconstitutional violation to abuse govt to incorporate such faith based policies and practices into govt itself.
> 
> Marriage beliefs should remain legal to practice freely but nothing religiously biased should be endorsed by govt against the beliefs of others or it violates constitutional equal freedoms and protections.
> 
> Faun you don't have to be forced to participate or change atheist beliefs to SUE to Remove a Cross from a public bldg.
> 
> The Principle bring violated is called the establishment clause in the first amendment. It does not require forcing anyone, because just the govt Endorsing and Incorporating the faith based reference is grounds for lawsuit to remove it!
> 
> Do you understand that the same first amendment arguments used by atheists to remove crosses from public display can be applied here to answer your supposition?
> 
> Can you explain how a cross can be removed from public school property by a religious freedom organization suing from across the country that doesn't even see the display they are suing to remove. How is that forcing the to change their beliefs?
> 
> If it's just the Principle, that govt not endorsed a faith based belief, why aren't LGBT beliefs subject to equal treatment?
> 
> Are your LGBT beliefs so important and special they should be endorsed by govt in violation of the establishment clause, while Christians don't get that same inclusion and tolerance you are demanding by law for your beliefs?
> 
> If Crosses get removed off public buildings that aren't forcing anyone, but just one atheist or one group sued because they Don't Share those beliefs, why can't Christians sue to remove references to gay marriage they don't believe in just like the atheists argued don't belong in govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That entire diatribe is misguided as same-sex marriage laws have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with equal protection under the law. If straight people have the liberty and right to marry the person they love and want to be legally married to, so can gay folks. We don't allow religious beliefs to deny people rights because religious people are offended.
Click to expand...

Yes and no Faun
Marriage laws should be passed by states; even after federal courts may strike down bad laws or bans as unconstitutional,  it's still up to states to revise their own laws through their legislatures.

As for equal protections, your beliefs are yours to follow.

The problem is that marriage already crosses the line between church and state. So once that is a faith based practice, then either policy, for traditional marriage, for same sex marriage, or both ALL involve beliefs that don't belong to federal government to dictate.

Fed court can strike down laws or bans as unconstitutional, but don't have authority to write laws or create rights.

That's the point people like you don't get.

You are like trying to defend govt replacing Christianity with Universal salvationism that includes more people for equal protection. Sorry but NONE of that belongs in govt unless everyone consents. Replacing it with a different policy doesn't change the fact that marriage already involves beliefs. So will the replacement policy involve beliefs. So that's what is causing the conflict


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
> 
> Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> people who believe the federal govt *cannot* pass biased Faith based policies without violating the Constitution are having our beliefs violated. Same with ACA. Neither you nor the people who actually passed these take responsibility for violating Constitutional beliefs of people like me.
> 
> Thanks to that, now I understand why right to life people feel violated by laws or rulings interpreted as making abortion legal. I believe in decriminaluzing it, I believe in not banning it.
> 
> But since people do not believe in these things religiously, it is an unconstitutional violation to abuse govt to incorporate such faith based policies and practices into govt itself.
> 
> Marriage beliefs should remain legal to practice freely but nothing religiously biased should be endorsed by govt against the beliefs of others or it violates constitutional equal freedoms and protections.
> 
> Faun you don't have to be forced to participate or change atheist beliefs to SUE to Remove a Cross from a public bldg.
> 
> The Principle bring violated is called the establishment clause in the first amendment. It does not require forcing anyone, because just the govt Endorsing and Incorporating the faith based reference is grounds for lawsuit to remove it!
> 
> Do you understand that the same first amendment arguments used by atheists to remove crosses from public display can be applied here to answer your supposition?
> 
> Can you explain how a cross can be removed from public school property by a religious freedom organization suing from across the country that doesn't even see the display they are suing to remove. How is that forcing the to change their beliefs?
> 
> If it's just the Principle, that govt not endorsed a faith based belief, why aren't LGBT beliefs subject to equal treatment?
> 
> Are your LGBT beliefs so important and special they should be endorsed by govt in violation of the establishment clause, while Christians don't get that same inclusion and tolerance you are demanding by law for your beliefs?
> 
> If Crosses get removed off public buildings that aren't forcing anyone, but just one atheist or one group sued because they Don't Share those beliefs, why can't Christians sue to remove references to gay marriage they don't believe in just like the atheists argued don't belong in govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That entire diatribe is misguided as same-sex marriage laws have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with equal protection under the law. If straight people have the liberty and right to marry the person they love and want to be legally married to, so can gay folks. We don't allow religious beliefs to deny people rights because religious people are offended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes and no Faun
> Marriage laws should be passed by states; even after federal courts may strike down bad laws or bans as unconstitutional,  it's still up to states to revise their own laws through their legislatures.
> 
> As for equal protections, your beliefs are yours to follow.
> 
> The problem is that marriage already crosses the line between church and state. So once that is a faith based practice, then either policy, for traditional marriage, for same sex marriage, or both ALL involve beliefs that don't belong to federal government to dictate.
> 
> Fed court can strike down laws or bans as unconstitutional, but don't have authority to write laws or create rights.
> 
> That's the point people like you don't get.
> 
> You are like trying to defend govt replacing Christianity with Universal salvationism that includes more people for equal protection. Sorry but NONE of that belongs in govt unless everyone consents. Replacing it with a different policy doesn't change the fact that marriage already involves beliefs. So will the replacement policy involve beliefs. So that's what is causing the conflict
Click to expand...

It's like you're oblivous to what happened regarding Obergfell. Marriage laws are still written by the states. Obergfell did not write laws or create rights. Marriage is the union of two people. The race, creed, gender, or religion of them matters not in the eyes of the law.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
> 
> 
> 
> No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> people who believe the federal govt *cannot* pass biased Faith based policies without violating the Constitution are having our beliefs violated. Same with ACA. Neither you nor the people who actually passed these take responsibility for violating Constitutional beliefs of people like me.
> 
> Thanks to that, now I understand why right to life people feel violated by laws or rulings interpreted as making abortion legal. I believe in decriminaluzing it, I believe in not banning it.
> 
> But since people do not believe in these things religiously, it is an unconstitutional violation to abuse govt to incorporate such faith based policies and practices into govt itself.
> 
> Marriage beliefs should remain legal to practice freely but nothing religiously biased should be endorsed by govt against the beliefs of others or it violates constitutional equal freedoms and protections.
> 
> Faun you don't have to be forced to participate or change atheist beliefs to SUE to Remove a Cross from a public bldg.
> 
> The Principle bring violated is called the establishment clause in the first amendment. It does not require forcing anyone, because just the govt Endorsing and Incorporating the faith based reference is grounds for lawsuit to remove it!
> 
> Do you understand that the same first amendment arguments used by atheists to remove crosses from public display can be applied here to answer your supposition?
> 
> Can you explain how a cross can be removed from public school property by a religious freedom organization suing from across the country that doesn't even see the display they are suing to remove. How is that forcing the to change their beliefs?
> 
> If it's just the Principle, that govt not endorsed a faith based belief, why aren't LGBT beliefs subject to equal treatment?
> 
> Are your LGBT beliefs so important and special they should be endorsed by govt in violation of the establishment clause, while Christians don't get that same inclusion and tolerance you are demanding by law for your beliefs?
> 
> If Crosses get removed off public buildings that aren't forcing anyone, but just one atheist or one group sued because they Don't Share those beliefs, why can't Christians sue to remove references to gay marriage they don't believe in just like the atheists argued don't belong in govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That entire diatribe is misguided as same-sex marriage laws have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with equal protection under the law. If straight people have the liberty and right to marry the person they love and want to be legally married to, so can gay folks. We don't allow religious beliefs to deny people rights because religious people are offended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes and no Faun
> Marriage laws should be passed by states; even after federal courts may strike down bad laws or bans as unconstitutional,  it's still up to states to revise their own laws through their legislatures.
> 
> As for equal protections, your beliefs are yours to follow.
> 
> The problem is that marriage already crosses the line between church and state. So once that is a faith based practice, then either policy, for traditional marriage, for same sex marriage, or both ALL involve beliefs that don't belong to federal government to dictate.
> 
> Fed court can strike down laws or bans as unconstitutional, but don't have authority to write laws or create rights.
> 
> That's the point people like you don't get.
> 
> You are like trying to defend govt replacing Christianity with Universal salvationism that includes more people for equal protection. Sorry but NONE of that belongs in govt unless everyone consents. Replacing it with a different policy doesn't change the fact that marriage already involves beliefs. So will the replacement policy involve beliefs. So that's what is causing the conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's like you're oblivous to what happened regarding Obergfell. Marriage laws are still written by the states. Obergfell did not write laws or create rights. Marriage is the union of two people. The race, creed, gender, or religion of them matters not in the eyes of the law.
Click to expand...

Almost Faun You could promote Civil Unions as neutral contracts between people independent of social relationships.  But bringing in and using the term Marriage involves Beliefs about Marriage. You might see this as a neutral term. But it's not neutral for people with religious beliefs about Marriage. It's like using the term Shariah to mean secular laws, but this discriminates against people for which Shariah means spiritual duties and practice within their faith -- to them it's not a neutral secular term.

So that's what's going wrong.  These laws and rulings aren't staying secular as you intend and interpret. They cross lines into affecting areas of faith.


----------



## emilynghiem

PS thanks Faun for trying to talk through this, reason and understand it. Especially where it doesn't affect you, if it doesn't matter to you if secular laws use the word Marriage to mean secular civil contracts, or states rights vs federal rulings don't affect you and your beliefs. They do affect others whose beliefs are violated.

To me, it's no big deal to use the term Jihadist to mean warmongering terrorists who worship Jihadist as War against the world.  But to Muslims this is co-opting their faith and terms for spiritual practice in abusive contradictory ways. So if we write public laws and statements, it is imposing on or establishing adverse beliefs to use language in ways that conflict with people of faith for which these terms mean sacred things.

I don't always get it either, when it seems secular to me too, but out of respect for those who have other beliefs I will try to include them and their limits. 

So if my LGBT friends need public endorsement of certain policies to feel equally represented in laws, let's find a way to achieve that inclusion WITHOUT overstepping bounds and unintentionally excluding or violating beliefs of others in the process.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> people who believe the federal govt *cannot* pass biased Faith based policies without violating the Constitution are having our beliefs violated. Same with ACA. Neither you nor the people who actually passed these take responsibility for violating Constitutional beliefs of people like me.
> 
> Thanks to that, now I understand why right to life people feel violated by laws or rulings interpreted as making abortion legal. I believe in decriminaluzing it, I believe in not banning it.
> 
> But since people do not believe in these things religiously, it is an unconstitutional violation to abuse govt to incorporate such faith based policies and practices into govt itself.
> 
> Marriage beliefs should remain legal to practice freely but nothing religiously biased should be endorsed by govt against the beliefs of others or it violates constitutional equal freedoms and protections.
> 
> Faun you don't have to be forced to participate or change atheist beliefs to SUE to Remove a Cross from a public bldg.
> 
> The Principle bring violated is called the establishment clause in the first amendment. It does not require forcing anyone, because just the govt Endorsing and Incorporating the faith based reference is grounds for lawsuit to remove it!
> 
> Do you understand that the same first amendment arguments used by atheists to remove crosses from public display can be applied here to answer your supposition?
> 
> Can you explain how a cross can be removed from public school property by a religious freedom organization suing from across the country that doesn't even see the display they are suing to remove. How is that forcing the to change their beliefs?
> 
> If it's just the Principle, that govt not endorsed a faith based belief, why aren't LGBT beliefs subject to equal treatment?
> 
> Are your LGBT beliefs so important and special they should be endorsed by govt in violation of the establishment clause, while Christians don't get that same inclusion and tolerance you are demanding by law for your beliefs?
> 
> If Crosses get removed off public buildings that aren't forcing anyone, but just one atheist or one group sued because they Don't Share those beliefs, why can't Christians sue to remove references to gay marriage they don't believe in just like the atheists argued don't belong in govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That entire diatribe is misguided as same-sex marriage laws have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with equal protection under the law. If straight people have the liberty and right to marry the person they love and want to be legally married to, so can gay folks. We don't allow religious beliefs to deny people rights because religious people are offended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes and no Faun
> Marriage laws should be passed by states; even after federal courts may strike down bad laws or bans as unconstitutional,  it's still up to states to revise their own laws through their legislatures.
> 
> As for equal protections, your beliefs are yours to follow.
> 
> The problem is that marriage already crosses the line between church and state. So once that is a faith based practice, then either policy, for traditional marriage, for same sex marriage, or both ALL involve beliefs that don't belong to federal government to dictate.
> 
> Fed court can strike down laws or bans as unconstitutional, but don't have authority to write laws or create rights.
> 
> That's the point people like you don't get.
> 
> You are like trying to defend govt replacing Christianity with Universal salvationism that includes more people for equal protection. Sorry but NONE of that belongs in govt unless everyone consents. Replacing it with a different policy doesn't change the fact that marriage already involves beliefs. So will the replacement policy involve beliefs. So that's what is causing the conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's like you're oblivous to what happened regarding Obergfell. Marriage laws are still written by the states. Obergfell did not write laws or create rights. Marriage is the union of two people. The race, creed, gender, or religion of them matters not in the eyes of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Almost Faun You could promote Civil Unions as neutral contracts between people independent of social relationships.  But bringing in and using the term Marriage involves Beliefs about Marriage. You might see this as a neutral term. But it's not neutral for people with religious beliefs about Marriage. It's like using the term Shariah to mean secular laws, but this discriminates against people for which Shariah means spiritual duties and practice within their faith -- to them it's not a neutral secular term.
> 
> So that's what's going wrong.  These laws and rulings aren't staying secular as you intend and interpret. They cross lines into affecting areas of faith.
Click to expand...

There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.

Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> people who believe the federal govt *cannot* pass biased Faith based policies without violating the Constitution are having our beliefs violated. Same with ACA. Neither you nor the people who actually passed these take responsibility for violating Constitutional beliefs of people like me.
> 
> Thanks to that, now I understand why right to life people feel violated by laws or rulings interpreted as making abortion legal. I believe in decriminaluzing it, I believe in not banning it.
> 
> But since people do not believe in these things religiously, it is an unconstitutional violation to abuse govt to incorporate such faith based policies and practices into govt itself.
> 
> Marriage beliefs should remain legal to practice freely but nothing religiously biased should be endorsed by govt against the beliefs of others or it violates constitutional equal freedoms and protections.
> 
> Faun you don't have to be forced to participate or change atheist beliefs to SUE to Remove a Cross from a public bldg.
> 
> The Principle bring violated is called the establishment clause in the first amendment. It does not require forcing anyone, because just the govt Endorsing and Incorporating the faith based reference is grounds for lawsuit to remove it!
> 
> Do you understand that the same first amendment arguments used by atheists to remove crosses from public display can be applied here to answer your supposition?
> 
> Can you explain how a cross can be removed from public school property by a religious freedom organization suing from across the country that doesn't even see the display they are suing to remove. How is that forcing the to change their beliefs?
> 
> If it's just the Principle, that govt not endorsed a faith based belief, why aren't LGBT beliefs subject to equal treatment?
> 
> Are your LGBT beliefs so important and special they should be endorsed by govt in violation of the establishment clause, while Christians don't get that same inclusion and tolerance you are demanding by law for your beliefs?
> 
> If Crosses get removed off public buildings that aren't forcing anyone, but just one atheist or one group sued because they Don't Share those beliefs, why can't Christians sue to remove references to gay marriage they don't believe in just like the atheists argued don't belong in govt.
> 
> 
> 
> That entire diatribe is misguided as same-sex marriage laws have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with equal protection under the law. If straight people have the liberty and right to marry the person they love and want to be legally married to, so can gay folks. We don't allow religious beliefs to deny people rights because religious people are offended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes and no Faun
> Marriage laws should be passed by states; even after federal courts may strike down bad laws or bans as unconstitutional,  it's still up to states to revise their own laws through their legislatures.
> 
> As for equal protections, your beliefs are yours to follow.
> 
> The problem is that marriage already crosses the line between church and state. So once that is a faith based practice, then either policy, for traditional marriage, for same sex marriage, or both ALL involve beliefs that don't belong to federal government to dictate.
> 
> Fed court can strike down laws or bans as unconstitutional, but don't have authority to write laws or create rights.
> 
> That's the point people like you don't get.
> 
> You are like trying to defend govt replacing Christianity with Universal salvationism that includes more people for equal protection. Sorry but NONE of that belongs in govt unless everyone consents. Replacing it with a different policy doesn't change the fact that marriage already involves beliefs. So will the replacement policy involve beliefs. So that's what is causing the conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's like you're oblivous to what happened regarding Obergfell. Marriage laws are still written by the states. Obergfell did not write laws or create rights. Marriage is the union of two people. The race, creed, gender, or religion of them matters not in the eyes of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Almost Faun You could promote Civil Unions as neutral contracts between people independent of social relationships.  But bringing in and using the term Marriage involves Beliefs about Marriage. You might see this as a neutral term. But it's not neutral for people with religious beliefs about Marriage. It's like using the term Shariah to mean secular laws, but this discriminates against people for which Shariah means spiritual duties and practice within their faith -- to them it's not a neutral secular term.
> 
> So that's what's going wrong.  These laws and rulings aren't staying secular as you intend and interpret. They cross lines into affecting areas of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.
> 
> Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.
Click to expand...

Dear Faun
Everyone has the right to Prayer
but that doesn't mean that the practice of prayers should be endorsed through govt.

Civil unions can be incorporated and cover all cases. Marriage like prayer can be practiced in private and doesn't need to be connected with govt.

All social benefits can be done through civil unions and contracts and not attempt to define or regulate terms of marriage that remain free to people to choose just like how we pray or meditate.

If we don't agree on terms of social benefits or marriage, that can be done collectively through organizations of free choice, similar to choice of religious programs and practice. It doesn't have to be done through govt which can be reserved to just the secular issues of managing contracts for legal guardianship, custody, Estates etc as civil business contracts independent of beliefs about social relationships between people spiritually which govt should not be abused to regulate or endorse.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> That entire diatribe is misguided as same-sex marriage laws have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with equal protection under the law. If straight people have the liberty and right to marry the person they love and want to be legally married to, so can gay folks. We don't allow religious beliefs to deny people rights because religious people are offended.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no Faun
> Marriage laws should be passed by states; even after federal courts may strike down bad laws or bans as unconstitutional,  it's still up to states to revise their own laws through their legislatures.
> 
> As for equal protections, your beliefs are yours to follow.
> 
> The problem is that marriage already crosses the line between church and state. So once that is a faith based practice, then either policy, for traditional marriage, for same sex marriage, or both ALL involve beliefs that don't belong to federal government to dictate.
> 
> Fed court can strike down laws or bans as unconstitutional, but don't have authority to write laws or create rights.
> 
> That's the point people like you don't get.
> 
> You are like trying to defend govt replacing Christianity with Universal salvationism that includes more people for equal protection. Sorry but NONE of that belongs in govt unless everyone consents. Replacing it with a different policy doesn't change the fact that marriage already involves beliefs. So will the replacement policy involve beliefs. So that's what is causing the conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's like you're oblivous to what happened regarding Obergfell. Marriage laws are still written by the states. Obergfell did not write laws or create rights. Marriage is the union of two people. The race, creed, gender, or religion of them matters not in the eyes of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Almost Faun You could promote Civil Unions as neutral contracts between people independent of social relationships.  But bringing in and using the term Marriage involves Beliefs about Marriage. You might see this as a neutral term. But it's not neutral for people with religious beliefs about Marriage. It's like using the term Shariah to mean secular laws, but this discriminates against people for which Shariah means spiritual duties and practice within their faith -- to them it's not a neutral secular term.
> 
> So that's what's going wrong.  These laws and rulings aren't staying secular as you intend and interpret. They cross lines into affecting areas of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.
> 
> Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> Everyone has the right to Prayer
> but that doesn't mean that the practice of prayers should be endorsed through govt.
> 
> Civil unions can be incorporated and cover all cases. Marriage like prayer can be practiced in private and doesn't need to be connected with govt.
> 
> All social benefits can be done through civil unions and contracts and not attempt to define or regulate terms of marriage that remain free to people to choose just like how we pray or meditate.
> 
> If we don't agree on terms of social benefits or marriage, that can be done collectively through organizations of free choice, similar to choice of religious programs and practice. It doesn't have to be done through govt which can be reserved to just the secular issues of managing contracts for legal guardianship, custody, Estates etc as civil business contracts independent of beliefs about social relationships between people spiritually which govt should not be abused to regulate or endorse.
Click to expand...

This is about marriage, not prayer. One glaring difference, the state sanctions marriage but not prayer. Given the state sanctions marriage, they have to do so equally for all except for in cases where compelling interests prevail, such as certain age restrictions.

That it offends Christians is not a compelling interest. It could be if it forced Christians to marry folks of their same gender, but that is not the case.

So there is no compelling interest in this case to let gays marry the person of their choise, like straight folks can, but then not call it "marriage."


----------



## emilynghiem

PS thanks Faun for trying to talk through this, reason and understand it. Especially where it doesn't affect you, if it doesn't matter to you if secular laws use the word Marriage to mean secular civil contracts, or states rights vs federal rulings don't affect you and your beliefs. They do affect others whose beliefs are violated.

To me, it's no big deal to use the term Jihadist to mean warmongering terrorists who worship Jihadist as War against the world.  But to Muslims this is co-opting their faith and terms for spiritual practice in abusive contradictory ways. So if we write public laws and statements, it is imposing on or establishing adverse beliefs to use language in ways that conflict with people of faith for which these terms mean sacred things.

I don't always get it either, when it seems secular to me too, but out of respect for those who have other beliefs I will try to include them and their limits. 

So if my LGBT friends need public endorsement of certain policies to feel equally represented in laws, let's find a way to achieve that in ways that don't overreach, go too far, and end up indirectly unintentionally violating other beliefs and principles.

Similar to gun laws and prolife beliefs. Those laws need to be written and focused correctly where they don't incidentally infringe on other rights .

If you want people to respect your rights, it makes sense to respect other peoples. 

If you want them to hear your objections and what you need for representation, then of course, we listen to theirs too.

Like you said, the marriage laws must account for everyone.

So why would you override the objections of others, then argue the laws should reflect everyone???

How can they reflect the public unless we include all people's consent and resolve all issues causing objection!


----------



## emilynghiem

PS thanks Faun for trying to talk through this, reason and understand it. Especially where it doesn't affect you, if it doesn't matter to you if secular laws use the word Marriage to mean secular civil contracts, or states rights vs federal rulings don't affect you and your beliefs. They do affect others whose beliefs are violated.

To me, it's no big deal to use the term Jihadist to mean warmongering terrorists who worship Jihadist as War against the world.  But to Muslims this is co-opting their faith and terms for spiritual practice in abusive contradictory ways. So if we write public laws and statements, it is imposing on or establishing adverse beliefs to use language in ways that conflict with people of faith for which these terms mean sacred things.

I don't always get it either, when it seems secular to me too, but out of respect for those who have other beliefs I will try to include them and their limits. 

So if my LGBT friends need public endorsement of certain policies to feel equally represented in laws, let's find a way to achieve that in ways that don't overreach, go too far, and end up indirectly unintentionally violating other beliefs and principles.

Similar to gun laws and prolife beliefs. Those laws need to be written and focused correctly where they don't incidentally infringe on other rights .

If you want people to respect your rights, it makes sense to respect other peoples. 

If you want them to hear your objections and what you need for representation, then of course, we listen to theirs too.

Like you said, the marriage laws must account for everyone.

So why would you override the objections of others, then argue the laws should reflect everyone???

How can they reflect the public unless we include all people's consent and resolve all issues causing objection!


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no Faun
> Marriage laws should be passed by states; even after federal courts may strike down bad laws or bans as unconstitutional,  it's still up to states to revise their own laws through their legislatures.
> 
> As for equal protections, your beliefs are yours to follow.
> 
> The problem is that marriage already crosses the line between church and state. So once that is a faith based practice, then either policy, for traditional marriage, for same sex marriage, or both ALL involve beliefs that don't belong to federal government to dictate.
> 
> Fed court can strike down laws or bans as unconstitutional, but don't have authority to write laws or create rights.
> 
> That's the point people like you don't get.
> 
> You are like trying to defend govt replacing Christianity with Universal salvationism that includes more people for equal protection. Sorry but NONE of that belongs in govt unless everyone consents. Replacing it with a different policy doesn't change the fact that marriage already involves beliefs. So will the replacement policy involve beliefs. So that's what is causing the conflict
> 
> 
> 
> It's like you're oblivous to what happened regarding Obergfell. Marriage laws are still written by the states. Obergfell did not write laws or create rights. Marriage is the union of two people. The race, creed, gender, or religion of them matters not in the eyes of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Almost Faun You could promote Civil Unions as neutral contracts between people independent of social relationships.  But bringing in and using the term Marriage involves Beliefs about Marriage. You might see this as a neutral term. But it's not neutral for people with religious beliefs about Marriage. It's like using the term Shariah to mean secular laws, but this discriminates against people for which Shariah means spiritual duties and practice within their faith -- to them it's not a neutral secular term.
> 
> So that's what's going wrong.  These laws and rulings aren't staying secular as you intend and interpret. They cross lines into affecting areas of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.
> 
> Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> Everyone has the right to Prayer
> but that doesn't mean that the practice of prayers should be endorsed through govt.
> 
> Civil unions can be incorporated and cover all cases. Marriage like prayer can be practiced in private and doesn't need to be connected with govt.
> 
> All social benefits can be done through civil unions and contracts and not attempt to define or regulate terms of marriage that remain free to people to choose just like how we pray or meditate.
> 
> If we don't agree on terms of social benefits or marriage, that can be done collectively through organizations of free choice, similar to choice of religious programs and practice. It doesn't have to be done through govt which can be reserved to just the secular issues of managing contracts for legal guardianship, custody, Estates etc as civil business contracts independent of beliefs about social relationships between people spiritually which govt should not be abused to regulate or endorse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is about marriage, not prayer. One glaring difference, the state sanctions marriage but not prayer. Given the state sanctions marriage, they have to do so equally for all except for in cases where compelling interests prevail, such as certain age restrictions.
> 
> That it offends Christians is not a compelling interest. It could be if it forced Christians to marry folks of their same gender, but that is not the case.
> 
> So there is no compelling interest in this case to let gays marry the person of their choise, like straight folks can, but then not call it "marriage."
Click to expand...

Dear Faun
1. What marriage and prayer have in common is they both fall under religious freedom. Do you not get that?

Buddhism is not the same as Christianity but they are both covered equally under religious freedom.

Are you saying we need a separate law for Buddhism, for Christianity, for atheists for secular humanists for Muslims?

Do prayer and marriage have to be the same thing before a law applies to both?

What are you saying?

2.
If you unable to separate the social benefits of marriage from civil unions, and only keep the civil unions through govt:

Who are you to expect other people to separate their religious beliefs about marriage from the civil contracts under govt?

If you can't do it either, that's even More reason to separate marriage from govt.
If neither side can keep their beliefs out of marriage, it is truly a religious issue.
And govt should not touch or regulate anything that is such a religious matter!

You prove that argument even more.
Thank you.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Boss and Tennyson can I please ask your help to review where I'm getting stuck with Faun.

I'm saying that where marriage involves people's beliefs it should NOT be federal govt that decides laws. At most the States could pass laws. But when I read Faun beliefs even that is not compatible with people who believe the govt should stop at civil unions and not micromanage social benefits based on beliefs about relationships.

what do you think? Are we heading for separate policies and benefits programs dividing tax representation by party? Would that allow people to choose whether to endorse
* gay marriage and benefits or traditional marriage only
* right to health care or free market
* prochoice or prolife beliefs
* gun regulations or gun rights
* life imprisonment or death penalty
* statism vs states rights

Would that solve more problems by allowing choice of partisan platform to pay taxes under. And only keep federal law and taxes for where all parties agree, and delegate the rest proportionally by party per state. So blue states that delegate more to federal can pay and get those benefits. While red states keep more taxes except blue party citizens can still pay taxes through blue programs and micromanage the social programs they choose to relegate collectively on a national level, while allowing red party members to opt out

Would that help where all states can get their representation and not have to have everyone agree to one way or one set of beliefs

pvsi


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> people who believe the federal govt *cannot* pass biased Faith based policies without violating the Constitution are having our beliefs violated. Same with ACA. Neither you nor the people who actually passed these take responsibility for violating Constitutional beliefs of people like me.
> 
> Thanks to that, now I understand why right to life people feel violated by laws or rulings interpreted as making abortion legal. I believe in decriminaluzing it, I believe in not banning it.
> 
> But since people do not believe in these things religiously, it is an unconstitutional violation to abuse govt to incorporate such faith based policies and practices into govt itself.
> 
> Marriage beliefs should remain legal to practice freely but nothing religiously biased should be endorsed by govt against the beliefs of others or it violates constitutional equal freedoms and protections.
> 
> Faun you don't have to be forced to participate or change atheist beliefs to SUE to Remove a Cross from a public bldg.
> 
> The Principle bring violated is called the establishment clause in the first amendment. It does not require forcing anyone, because just the govt Endorsing and Incorporating the faith based reference is grounds for lawsuit to remove it!
> 
> Do you understand that the same first amendment arguments used by atheists to remove crosses from public display can be applied here to answer your supposition?
> 
> Can you explain how a cross can be removed from public school property by a religious freedom organization suing from across the country that doesn't even see the display they are suing to remove. How is that forcing the to change their beliefs?
> 
> If it's just the Principle, that govt not endorsed a faith based belief, why aren't LGBT beliefs subject to equal treatment?
> 
> Are your LGBT beliefs so important and special they should be endorsed by govt in violation of the establishment clause, while Christians don't get that same inclusion and tolerance you are demanding by law for your beliefs?
> 
> If Crosses get removed off public buildings that aren't forcing anyone, but just one atheist or one group sued because they Don't Share those beliefs, why can't Christians sue to remove references to gay marriage they don't believe in just like the atheists argued don't belong in govt.
> 
> 
> 
> That entire diatribe is misguided as same-sex marriage laws have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with equal protection under the law. If straight people have the liberty and right to marry the person they love and want to be legally married to, so can gay folks. We don't allow religious beliefs to deny people rights because religious people are offended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes and no Faun
> Marriage laws should be passed by states; even after federal courts may strike down bad laws or bans as unconstitutional,  it's still up to states to revise their own laws through their legislatures.
> 
> As for equal protections, your beliefs are yours to follow.
> 
> The problem is that marriage already crosses the line between church and state. So once that is a faith based practice, then either policy, for traditional marriage, for same sex marriage, or both ALL involve beliefs that don't belong to federal government to dictate.
> 
> Fed court can strike down laws or bans as unconstitutional, but don't have authority to write laws or create rights.
> 
> That's the point people like you don't get.
> 
> You are like trying to defend govt replacing Christianity with Universal salvationism that includes more people for equal protection. Sorry but NONE of that belongs in govt unless everyone consents. Replacing it with a different policy doesn't change the fact that marriage already involves beliefs. So will the replacement policy involve beliefs. So that's what is causing the conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's like you're oblivous to what happened regarding Obergfell. Marriage laws are still written by the states. Obergfell did not write laws or create rights. Marriage is the union of two people. The race, creed, gender, or religion of them matters not in the eyes of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Almost Faun You could promote Civil Unions as neutral contracts between people independent of social relationships.  But bringing in and using the term Marriage involves Beliefs about Marriage. You might see this as a neutral term. But it's not neutral for people with religious beliefs about Marriage. It's like using the term Shariah to mean secular laws, but this discriminates against people for which Shariah means spiritual duties and practice within their faith -- to them it's not a neutral secular term.
> 
> So that's what's going wrong.  These laws and rulings aren't staying secular as you intend and interpret. They cross lines into affecting areas of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.
> 
> Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.
Click to expand...

Dear Faun 
1. Civil unions can be for everyone and avoid the issue of marriage beliefs not everyone shares. You are free to exercise, teach and practice your beliefs about marriage, but not to impose them through govt on people of other beliefs about marriage. 

To be fair to all people of all beliefs, civil unions are universal and secular.

2. If you want to impose further, that is like people who want prayer in schools to include Christian practice of invoking God through everyone joining in Christ Jesus name. I happen to understand GOD represents universal concepts that cover and include all people, but people do not agree on religious terms. It has to remain free choice where beliefs are involved. 

Same with beliefs about marriage, not all people agree on religious terms, so out of respect for religious freedom it makes sense to stick with civil unions for the government to recognize as secular contracts and leave beliefs about marriage out of govt.

Again, if you believe otherwise, so do many Christians believe in integrating their beliefs through govt they believe are universal truth as well that includes all people.

3. If you all agree to open the doors of govt to endorse and incorporate all manner of beliefs into laws and public institutions, then that's fair and you are including all people.

But it's discrimination to tell Christians that references to Crosses, prayers to God through Christ, and teaching creation through God all have to be Removed from public institutions while insisting that beliefs about gay marriage and homosexuality as natural must be included for tolerance even when it violates beliefs of others that these are not natural. 

It's discriminating by creed, so it violates other laws.

Faun would you agree to a resolution allowing all Christian beliefs and practices to be endorsed and implemented in public policies and institutions, including Christian healing prayer and right to life for unborn and teaching creation in schools, in exchange for allowing beliefs in gate marriage?

I'm sure an agreement can be worked out if all beliefs are included equally as you are asking.

Are you willing to incorporate and include all beliefs equally as yours? Are only the beliefs you happen to agree with? Thanks Faun 

Even if we cannot agree how to accommodate all beliefs equally, at least we tried.


----------



## emilynghiem

Ps Faun the compelling interest is upholding laws consistently.

Civil unions for everyone would keep beliefs about marriage out of government and protect religious freedom of people on both sides equally.

Otherwise if one side pushes traditional marriage only or the other side imposes beliefs about marriage for everyone this violates
* beliefs of people of the other group
* beliefs of people who believe in states rights to decide either way
*beliefs of Constitutionalists like me who believe both sides should get their way without imposing on the other
*beliefs of people who believe the state should just recognize civil unions

So pushing gay marriages through govt violates beliefs of all these other people.

While sticking to just civil unions includes all of them and doesn't exclude one more than the other.
Everyone can follow their own beliefs about marriage by recognizing civil unions, so that covers all beliefs equally while yours does not.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have forgotten to address this:
> 
> Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.
> 
> 
> 
> Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions.  The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution.   This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you.  Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers.  I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.
> 
> I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes).  You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution.  All men are created equal, not just old white men.
> 
> Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean_“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
> 1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
> 2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority
> 
> The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.
> 
> Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief.  Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.
> 
> Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
> 
> Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
Click to expand...

Sorry, Emily, but it's not about BELIEFS.   You've been asked this before, and I don't remember your answer, so I'll ask again.  Hypothetically, let's say your faith or your intellect or your policies are against SSM.   The Government struck down (did not change the law, they struck down a law that violated the constitution, several amendments).   How is this asking you to change your beliefs?   Are you required to marry a woman?  No.  Is your church, group, intellect etc ordered by the government to change?  Absolutely not.  You are completely off base here.  It never violated your religious freedom.  You are still able to hate it or like it.   If it's against your religion, it's STILL against your religion, and you will note, the government itself says it cannot demand your religion change it's beliefs.  

Your nonsense about prayers is different - praying out loud violates my rights if I'm not of the faith professed in the prayers - it violates MY freedom of religion.  Bring peace?  Seriously?  Try just reading what I said, and studying the matter.   You want to violate my rights, and that's acceptable.  I don't want to violate your rights, and that is unacceptable to you.  My suggestion?  Hire an attorney at this point, maybe at 200 an hour when the money actually changes hand will it sink in for you.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
> 1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
> 2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority
> 
> The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.
> 
> Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief.  Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.
> 
> Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .
> 
> 
> 
> Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
> 
> Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> people who believe the federal govt *cannot* pass biased Faith based policies without violating the Constitution are having our beliefs violated. Same with ACA. Neither you nor the people who actually passed these take responsibility for violating Constitutional beliefs of people like me.
> 
> Thanks to that, now I understand why right to life people feel violated by laws or rulings interpreted as making abortion legal. I believe in decriminaluzing it, I believe in not banning it.
> 
> But since people do not believe in these things religiously, it is an unconstitutional violation to abuse govt to incorporate such faith based policies and practices into govt itself.
> 
> Marriage beliefs should remain legal to practice freely but nothing religiously biased should be endorsed by govt against the beliefs of others or it violates constitutional equal freedoms and protections.
> 
> Faun you don't have to be forced to participate or change atheist beliefs to SUE to Remove a Cross from a public bldg.
> 
> The Principle bring violated is called the establishment clause in the first amendment. It does not require forcing anyone, because just the govt Endorsing and Incorporating the faith based reference is grounds for lawsuit to remove it!
> 
> Do you understand that the same first amendment arguments used by atheists to remove crosses from public display can be applied here to answer your supposition?
> 
> Can you explain how a cross can be removed from public school property by a religious freedom organization suing from across the country that doesn't even see the display they are suing to remove. How is that forcing the to change their beliefs?
> 
> If it's just the Principle, that govt not endorsed a faith based belief, why aren't LGBT beliefs subject to equal treatment?
> 
> Are your LGBT beliefs so important and special they should be endorsed by govt in violation of the establishment clause, while Christians don't get that same inclusion and tolerance you are demanding by law for your beliefs?
> 
> If Crosses get removed off public buildings that aren't forcing anyone, but just one atheist or one group sued because they Don't Share those beliefs, why can't Christians sue to remove references to gay marriage they don't believe in just like the atheists argued don't belong in govt.
Click to expand...

Sorry Emily, but you are wrong again.  The US Government is not making faith based rulings.   There is NO coercion, except in your own mind.   Who is making you marry a woman?  Certainly not the government.   And stick with the subject.   I can be a Christian and go down to city hall and demand they take a cross down.  Bad example.  If you live in NYC, and I live in LA, my organization can sue your city hall if they display a cross.   Why?  Because it violates EVERYONE'S religious freedom. Why is that such a hard concept to understand?

Gays finally are subject to equal treatment, or are trying to assure they keep what equal treatment they have.  It's not endorsed by the Establishment clause.......  equal rights to heterosexuals and homosexuals.   Please explain why you feel heterosexuals deserve more rights?  They can't sue to remove references to gay marriage from any public document, just as gays can't sue to remove references to heterosexual marriage.   That's a big difference than a cross that violates my religious rights.   Removal of information, be it heterosexual or homosexual is wrong, unless both sides are either removed, or included.  Of course, these documents must be included.  Pretty simple concept.  Are you thinking that just because "you" don't believe in SSM, then they don't deserve any of the 1138 rights granted by the constitution, city, state and federal laws?  that, Emily, is a gross violation of their constitutional rights.   Which is why the IRS moved so quickly after Obergefell and WIndsor decisions to have all the tax laws apply to ALL marriages.  After all, Emily, I think you fail to grasp there's really no such thing as SSM or heterosexual marriage anymore, it's just simply civil marriage.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
> 1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
> 2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority
> 
> The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.
> 
> Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief.  Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.
> 
> Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .
> 
> 
> 
> Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
> 
> Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faun Over half the nation is being forced to deny our beliefs in states rights. Not just with this insistence with imposing YOUR belief that the judiciary can create a faith based belief in right to marriage, but also we have put up with unconstitutional mandates violating our beliefs that federal government has no authority to force us to buy insurance.
> 
> I have said repeatedly that I agree the courts strike down marriage bans as unconstitutional but that's NOT the same as attempting to legislate laws or create rights through the judiciary.
> 
> That's where it goes Too Far.
> 
> So abusing fed govt this way violates Constitutional beliefs of others like me, not represented or protected equally but excluded whenever the govt over steps and pushes laws or rulings we don't believe in as Constituonalists.
> 
> Sorry that you don't count our beliefs as grounds for contesting laws that are biased by faith based beliefs:
> The right to marriage which is faith based, the right to health care which is faith based, and the right to make laws through the judiciary that violate beliefs of others because you are biased against states rights.
> 
> If you keep ignoring this conflict, you remind me of Christians who believe in pushing their beliefs through govt and don't count opposing views as valid.
> Keep doing what you are doing, and you open the door for Christians to do the same -- abusing govt to endorse faith based beliefs regardless of anyone else's beliefs. You are like them!
Click to expand...

Emily, hire an attorney.  SCOTUS did not make new law.  They ruled the laws of EACH state unconstitutional.  Why?  Because we don't vote on civil rights.  A civil right applies to ALL people, not just the people you wish to apply them to.  You are protected equally.   You are represented equally.  You simply either can't comprehend this, or doing a great job of faking ignorance of the facts.  Christians CAN'T impose their views on me.   Get with the program. Again - the judiciary created no law - they simply overturned state bans against SSM because they violated multiple constitutional amendments.   That's not a new law, it's actually elimination of a standing ILLEGAL law.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions.  The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution.   This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you.  Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers.  I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.
> 
> I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes).  You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution.  All men are created equal, not just old white men.
> 
> Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean_“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”. _
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
> 1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
> 2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority
> 
> The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.
> 
> Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief.  Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.
> 
> Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
> 
> Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, Emily, but it's not about BELIEFS.   You've been asked this before, and I don't remember your answer, so I'll ask again.  Hypothetically, let's say your faith or your intellect or your policies are against SSM.   The Government struck down (did not change the law, they struck down a law that violated the constitution, several amendments).   How is this asking you to change your beliefs?   Are you required to marry a woman?  No.  Is your church, group, intellect etc ordered by the government to change?  Absolutely not.  You are completely off base here.  It never violated your religious freedom.  You are still able to hate it or like it.   If it's against your religion, it's STILL against your religion, and you will note, the government itself says it cannot demand your religion change it's beliefs.
> 
> Your nonsense about prayers is different - praying out loud violates my rights if I'm not of the faith professed in the prayers - it violates MY freedom of religion.  Bring peace?  Seriously?  Try just reading what I said, and studying the matter.   You want to violate my rights, and that's acceptable.  I don't want to violate your rights, and that is unacceptable to you.  My suggestion?  Hire an attorney at this point, maybe at 200 an hour when the money actually changes hand will it sink in for you.
Click to expand...

Dear Sneekin
1. I have stated consistently that the bans excluding gay marriage are equally unconstitutional *for the same reasons* and I agree that Doma and other faith based and biased laws DO need to be struck down
2. By that same standard, neither can govt pass laws that introduce Other Biases on marriage equally faith based, and relative to people's values and beliefs
3. I pointed out that Atheists are not "forced" to be or change to other beliefs to sue to Remove Crosses from public buildings. Where in the First Amendment does it require someone to be "forced" before they defend their freedom NOT to have govt establish a belief they don't share?
4. So I'm asking to be Consistent about the Principle of separating beliefs from govt.

If Christians are expected not to impose their beliefs about prayer and practice and expression in public institutions, it's only fair to treat LGBT beliefs expression and practice the same way.

Sneekin I'm also for supporting ALL beliefs to be allowed in public institutions if gay marriage is going to be recognized. 

Why don't you and Faun treat prayer and marriage as equal free exercise of one's beliefs?

If it's because marriage involves social and financial benefits through govt, why can't that be done through civil contracts and unions for everyone? Why can't marriage be kept in private as a personal choice, and keep civil unions "for everyone" through the state?


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> PS thanks Faun for trying to talk through this, reason and understand it. Especially where it doesn't affect you, if it doesn't matter to you if secular laws use the word Marriage to mean secular civil contracts, or states rights vs federal rulings don't affect you and your beliefs. They do affect others whose beliefs are violated.
> 
> To me, it's no big deal to use the term Jihadist to mean warmongering terrorists who worship Jihadist as War against the world.  But to Muslims this is co-opting their faith and terms for spiritual practice in abusive contradictory ways. So if we write public laws and statements, it is imposing on or establishing adverse beliefs to use language in ways that conflict with people of faith for which these terms mean sacred things.
> 
> I don't always get it either, when it seems secular to me too, but out of respect for those who have other beliefs I will try to include them and their limits.
> 
> So if my LGBT friends need public endorsement of certain policies to feel equally represented in laws, let's find a way to achieve that inclusion WITHOUT overstepping bounds and unintentionally excluding or violating beliefs of others in the process.


Emily, crack open a dictionary, and look up the definition of jihad - it means HOLY WAR.  Not a Muslim Holy War.    It's not co-opting their faith.  Perhaps you should go to as mosque as well, and talk to an Imam. 

Your LGBT friends don't need endorsement, they need to be sure the public acknowledges the fact that LGBT persons have all of the rights that non-LGBT have.  You still don't get it.  No one is overstepping bounds except those that violate the laws of the LGBT.  Just as cake baking and gay marriage.  If the laws of my city or state say that the public cannot discriminate either by race, color, creed, national origin, sex, age, or sexual persuasion, then a cake business, being a public business, BY LAW cannot refuse to make a wedding cake for gays.  If your city or state does not have sexual persuasion in the law, then the bakers most certainly can.  Pretty simple concept.   In over half the counties in Indiana, it's perfectly legal to refuse to make a cake, take pictures, etc at a gay wedding.   Move  to Indianapolis, South Bend, and most other college towns, then you you CANNOT refuse.    No bounds are being  overstepped.  I've had a business for many years - and I know what laws must be obeyed to keep a business license.  You deserve to be sued, if you refuse to obey the law.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
> 
> Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> people who believe the federal govt *cannot* pass biased Faith based policies without violating the Constitution are having our beliefs violated. Same with ACA. Neither you nor the people who actually passed these take responsibility for violating Constitutional beliefs of people like me.
> 
> Thanks to that, now I understand why right to life people feel violated by laws or rulings interpreted as making abortion legal. I believe in decriminaluzing it, I believe in not banning it.
> 
> But since people do not believe in these things religiously, it is an unconstitutional violation to abuse govt to incorporate such faith based policies and practices into govt itself.
> 
> Marriage beliefs should remain legal to practice freely but nothing religiously biased should be endorsed by govt against the beliefs of others or it violates constitutional equal freedoms and protections.
> 
> Faun you don't have to be forced to participate or change atheist beliefs to SUE to Remove a Cross from a public bldg.
> 
> The Principle bring violated is called the establishment clause in the first amendment. It does not require forcing anyone, because just the govt Endorsing and Incorporating the faith based reference is grounds for lawsuit to remove it!
> 
> Do you understand that the same first amendment arguments used by atheists to remove crosses from public display can be applied here to answer your supposition?
> 
> Can you explain how a cross can be removed from public school property by a religious freedom organization suing from across the country that doesn't even see the display they are suing to remove. How is that forcing the to change their beliefs?
> 
> If it's just the Principle, that govt not endorsed a faith based belief, why aren't LGBT beliefs subject to equal treatment?
> 
> Are your LGBT beliefs so important and special they should be endorsed by govt in violation of the establishment clause, while Christians don't get that same inclusion and tolerance you are demanding by law for your beliefs?
> 
> If Crosses get removed off public buildings that aren't forcing anyone, but just one atheist or one group sued because they Don't Share those beliefs, why can't Christians sue to remove references to gay marriage they don't believe in just like the atheists argued don't belong in govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry Emily, but you are wrong again.  The US Government is not making faith based rulings.   There is NO coercion, except in your own mind.   Who is making you marry a woman?  Certainly not the government.   And stick with the subject.   I can be a Christian and go down to city hall and demand they take a cross down.  Bad example.  If you live in NYC, and I live in LA, my organization can sue your city hall if they display a cross.   Why?  Because it violates EVERYONE'S religious freedom. Why is that such a hard concept to understand?
> 
> Gays finally are subject to equal treatment, or are trying to assure they keep what equal treatment they have.  It's not endorsed by the Establishment clause.......  equal rights to heterosexuals and homosexuals.   Please explain why you feel heterosexuals deserve more rights?  They can't sue to remove references to gay marriage from any public document, just as gays can't sue to remove references to heterosexual marriage.   That's a big difference than a cross that violates my religious rights.   Removal of information, be it heterosexual or homosexual is wrong, unless both sides are either removed, or included.  Of course, these documents must be included.  Pretty simple concept.  Are you thinking that just because "you" don't believe in SSM, then they don't deserve any of the 1138 rights granted by the constitution, city, state and federal laws?  that, Emily, is a gross violation of their constitutional rights.   Which is why the IRS moved so quickly after Obergefell and WIndsor decisions to have all the tax laws apply to ALL marriages.  After all, Emily, I think you fail to grasp there's really no such thing as SSM or heterosexual marriage anymore, it's just simply civil marriage.
Click to expand...

Dear Sneekin
Then you could say the same of Atheists,  that a cross on a public building or on a teachers memorial on public property is "not forcing" them to change their beliefs.

Their beliefs including separation of church and state, so it's the principle that is violated not the content.

Same with beliefs on States rights vs Statism.

It's the principle being violated.

Nobody has to be "forced" to prove the Principle in Constitutional laws is being violated.

This may be an unchartered area of law: what do we do when there are clashing political beliefs on both sides? How do we protect citizens on both sides from discrimination against one creed or another by govt laws? 

I think this problem has been going on, and overdue to be addressed.

Both sides have inalienable political and religious beliefs, and as a Constitutionalist I believe the govt is required to resolve all grievances and ensure equal representation and free exercise of people of both beliefs without exclusion, imposition or discrimination. So how do we resolve this? Where all beliefs are treated equally and none imposed on each other through govt.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> That entire diatribe is misguided as same-sex marriage laws have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with equal protection under the law. If straight people have the liberty and right to marry the person they love and want to be legally married to, so can gay folks. We don't allow religious beliefs to deny people rights because religious people are offended.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no Faun
> Marriage laws should be passed by states; even after federal courts may strike down bad laws or bans as unconstitutional,  it's still up to states to revise their own laws through their legislatures.
> 
> As for equal protections, your beliefs are yours to follow.
> 
> The problem is that marriage already crosses the line between church and state. So once that is a faith based practice, then either policy, for traditional marriage, for same sex marriage, or both ALL involve beliefs that don't belong to federal government to dictate.
> 
> Fed court can strike down laws or bans as unconstitutional, but don't have authority to write laws or create rights.
> 
> That's the point people like you don't get.
> 
> You are like trying to defend govt replacing Christianity with Universal salvationism that includes more people for equal protection. Sorry but NONE of that belongs in govt unless everyone consents. Replacing it with a different policy doesn't change the fact that marriage already involves beliefs. So will the replacement policy involve beliefs. So that's what is causing the conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's like you're oblivous to what happened regarding Obergfell. Marriage laws are still written by the states. Obergfell did not write laws or create rights. Marriage is the union of two people. The race, creed, gender, or religion of them matters not in the eyes of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Almost Faun You could promote Civil Unions as neutral contracts between people independent of social relationships.  But bringing in and using the term Marriage involves Beliefs about Marriage. You might see this as a neutral term. But it's not neutral for people with religious beliefs about Marriage. It's like using the term Shariah to mean secular laws, but this discriminates against people for which Shariah means spiritual duties and practice within their faith -- to them it's not a neutral secular term.
> 
> So that's what's going wrong.  These laws and rulings aren't staying secular as you intend and interpret. They cross lines into affecting areas of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.
> 
> Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. Civil unions can be for everyone and avoid the issue of marriage beliefs not everyone shares. You are free to exercise, teach and practice your beliefs about marriage, but not to impose them through govt on people of other beliefs about marriage.
> 
> To be fair to all people of all beliefs, civil unions are universal and secular.
> 
> 2. If you want to impose further, that is like people who want prayer in schools to include Christian practice of invoking God through everyone joining in Christ Jesus name. I happen to understand GOD represents universal concepts that cover and include all people, but people do not agree on religious terms. It has to remain free choice where beliefs are involved.
> 
> Same with beliefs about marriage, not all people agree on religious terms, so out of respect for religious freedom it makes sense to stick with civil unions for the government to recognize as secular contracts and leave beliefs about marriage out of govt.
> 
> Again, if you believe otherwise, so do many Christians believe in integrating their beliefs through govt they believe are universal truth as well that includes all people.
> 
> 3. If you all agree to open the doors of govt to endorse and incorporate all manner of beliefs into laws and public institutions, then that's fair and you are including all people.
> 
> But it's discrimination to tell Christians that references to Crosses, prayers to God through Christ, and teaching creation through God all have to be Removed from public institutions while insisting that beliefs about gay marriage and homosexuality as natural must be included for tolerance even when it violates beliefs of others that these are not natural.
> 
> It's discriminating by creed, so it violates other laws.
> 
> Faun would you agree to a resolution allowing all Christian beliefs and practices to be endorsed and implemented in public policies and institutions, including Christian healing prayer and right to life for unborn and teaching creation in schools, in exchange for allowing beliefs in gate marriage?
> 
> I'm sure an agreement can be worked out if all beliefs are included equally as you are asking.
> 
> Are you willing to incorporate and include all beliefs equally as yours? Are only the beliefs you happen to agree with? Thanks Faun
> 
> Even if we cannot agree how to accommodate all beliefs equally, at least we tried.
Click to expand...

The courts already ruled on civil unions versus marriage.  Marriage is a civil contract between 2 persons.   civil unions are being eliminated in some states already.  You are using the concept of separate but equal, which, in and of itself is also grossly illegal.   Do you also agree we need different doors, restaurants, drinking fountains for minorities?  Because that's what you say when you demand  SSM must be called civil unions.  That's separate but equal, illegal, and already ruled upon by the SCOTUS YEARS AGO, Emily!


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS thanks Faun for trying to talk through this, reason and understand it. Especially where it doesn't affect you, if it doesn't matter to you if secular laws use the word Marriage to mean secular civil contracts, or states rights vs federal rulings don't affect you and your beliefs. They do affect others whose beliefs are violated.
> 
> To me, it's no big deal to use the term Jihadist to mean warmongering terrorists who worship Jihadist as War against the world.  But to Muslims this is co-opting their faith and terms for spiritual practice in abusive contradictory ways. So if we write public laws and statements, it is imposing on or establishing adverse beliefs to use language in ways that conflict with people of faith for which these terms mean sacred things.
> 
> I don't always get it either, when it seems secular to me too, but out of respect for those who have other beliefs I will try to include them and their limits.
> 
> So if my LGBT friends need public endorsement of certain policies to feel equally represented in laws, let's find a way to achieve that inclusion WITHOUT overstepping bounds and unintentionally excluding or violating beliefs of others in the process.
> 
> 
> 
> Emily, crack open a dictionary, and look up the definition of jihad - it means HOLY WAR.  Not a Muslim Holy War.    It's not co-opting their faith.  Perhaps you should go to as mosque as well, and talk to an Imam.
> 
> Your LGBT friends don't need endorsement, they need to be sure the public acknowledges the fact that LGBT persons have all of the rights that non-LGBT have.  You still don't get it.  No one is overstepping bounds except those that violate the laws of the LGBT.  Just as cake baking and gay marriage.  If the laws of my city or state say that the public cannot discriminate either by race, color, creed, national origin, sex, age, or sexual persuasion, then a cake business, being a public business, BY LAW cannot refuse to make a wedding cake for gays.  If your city or state does not have sexual persuasion in the law, then the bakers most certainly can.  Pretty simple concept.   In over half the counties in Indiana, it's perfectly legal to refuse to make a cake, take pictures, etc at a gay wedding.   Move  to Indianapolis, South Bend, and most other college towns, then you you CANNOT refuse.    No bounds are being  overstepped.  I've had a business for many years - and I know what laws must be obeyed to keep a business license.  You deserve to be sued, if you refuse to obey the law.
Click to expand...

Dear Sneekin 
Sorry but to Muslims, Jihad means an internal struggle in the conscience to follow what is right and seek peace not war.  It is a struggle or spiritual fight but to resist wrong and live right.

As for marriage, and what defines gender, if people don't agree on beliefs that is not for govt to define.

Marriage and relations are spiritual.

People need to decide these things for themselves by free choice.

Now if we all Agree on laws, such as on murder, then yes we can pass laws and these respect consent of the governed and are enforced and binding contracts we agree to live by.

But where we don't agree, such as people believing abortion counts as murder, we don't allow that belief into govt as law. 

The right to life who believe in including unborn have to practice their beliefs in private .
So I'm saying to treat right to marriage the same way out of respect for people of other beliefs.

We can agree to civil unions so keep that in govt for all people without discrimination. 

But keep out beliefs about marriage that remain free in private. Just like right to life beliefs not everyone shares eithet.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
> 1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
> 2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority
> 
> The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.
> 
> Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief.  Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.
> 
> Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .
> 
> 
> 
> Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
> 
> Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, Emily, but it's not about BELIEFS.   You've been asked this before, and I don't remember your answer, so I'll ask again.  Hypothetically, let's say your faith or your intellect or your policies are against SSM.   The Government struck down (did not change the law, they struck down a law that violated the constitution, several amendments).   How is this asking you to change your beliefs?   Are you required to marry a woman?  No.  Is your church, group, intellect etc ordered by the government to change?  Absolutely not.  You are completely off base here.  It never violated your religious freedom.  You are still able to hate it or like it.   If it's against your religion, it's STILL against your religion, and you will note, the government itself says it cannot demand your religion change it's beliefs.
> 
> Your nonsense about prayers is different - praying out loud violates my rights if I'm not of the faith professed in the prayers - it violates MY freedom of religion.  Bring peace?  Seriously?  Try just reading what I said, and studying the matter.   You want to violate my rights, and that's acceptable.  I don't want to violate your rights, and that is unacceptable to you.  My suggestion?  Hire an attorney at this point, maybe at 200 an hour when the money actually changes hand will it sink in for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 1. I have stated consistently that the bans excluding gay marriage are equally unconstitutional *for the same reasons* and I agree that Doma and other faith based and biased laws DO need to be struck down
> 2. By that same standard, neither can govt pass laws that introduce Other Biases on marriage equally faith based, and relative to people's values and beliefs
> 3. I pointed out that Atheists are not "forced" to be or change to other beliefs to sue to Remove Crosses from public buildings. Where in the First Amendment does it require someone to be "forced" before they defend their freedom NOT to have govt establish a belief they don't share?
> 4. So I'm asking to be Consistent about the Principle of separating beliefs from govt.
> 
> If Christians are expected not to impose their beliefs about prayer and practice and expression in public institutions, it's only fair to treat LGBT beliefs expression and practice the same way.
> 
> Sneekin I'm also for supporting ALL beliefs to be allowed in public institutions if gay marriage is going to be recognized.
> 
> Why don't you and Faun treat prayer and marriage as equal free exercise of one's beliefs?
> 
> If it's because marriage involves social and financial benefits through govt, why can't that be done through civil contracts and unions for everyone? Why can't marriage be kept in private as a personal choice, and keep civil unions "for everyone" through the state?
Click to expand...

1, DOMA was struck down several years ago, Emily.  2.  The govt ruled that several states had ILLEGAL LAWS on the books that banned SSM.  That is not introducing bias.  Using your logic, I guess I'll go to the corner and buy me a slave?.  3. No one is forced to have a belief.  Please produce evidence that any Christian is required to perform, attend, endorse or agree with SSM. They most certainly aren't, and if you'd take the few minutes it would require for you to read Obergefell, you would understand that your concerns were SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED.  4.  There already is a separation of church and state.  You are really trying to see issues that don't exist, and you fail to grasp some basic concepts.   Christians CAN'T impose their prayer, practice and expressions in public places, it violates the first amendment.   LGBT is saying that they have the same rights as Christians to be married, and that state laws in some states illegally banned them.  SCOTUS invalidated those laws.   You keep babbling about all beliefs need to be exercised the same.  That's all LGBT wish to do.  If Christians can marry, so can they.   Prayer is not a civil right. Marriage is.   Civil Unions instead of marriage for gays is PATENTLY illegal, as you've been told before, because you are claiming separate but equal.  

Since some states are eliminating civil unions, why would we rewrite laws to pacify a few people?  Over 68 percent agree with SSM in the US.   As marriage.  Why should someone who's LGBT have to keep their marriage silent, when a Christian or straight does not?  That too would be separate laws based on sexual orientation. Why can't you grasp the fact that a religious marriage is called Holy Matrimony, and Marriage is a civil term that's been used for over 10,000 years, prior to christianity, and referred to both SSM and straight marriages?  Hmmm?


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no Faun
> Marriage laws should be passed by states; even after federal courts may strike down bad laws or bans as unconstitutional,  it's still up to states to revise their own laws through their legislatures.
> 
> As for equal protections, your beliefs are yours to follow.
> 
> The problem is that marriage already crosses the line between church and state. So once that is a faith based practice, then either policy, for traditional marriage, for same sex marriage, or both ALL involve beliefs that don't belong to federal government to dictate.
> 
> Fed court can strike down laws or bans as unconstitutional, but don't have authority to write laws or create rights.
> 
> That's the point people like you don't get.
> 
> You are like trying to defend govt replacing Christianity with Universal salvationism that includes more people for equal protection. Sorry but NONE of that belongs in govt unless everyone consents. Replacing it with a different policy doesn't change the fact that marriage already involves beliefs. So will the replacement policy involve beliefs. So that's what is causing the conflict
> 
> 
> 
> It's like you're oblivous to what happened regarding Obergfell. Marriage laws are still written by the states. Obergfell did not write laws or create rights. Marriage is the union of two people. The race, creed, gender, or religion of them matters not in the eyes of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Almost Faun You could promote Civil Unions as neutral contracts between people independent of social relationships.  But bringing in and using the term Marriage involves Beliefs about Marriage. You might see this as a neutral term. But it's not neutral for people with religious beliefs about Marriage. It's like using the term Shariah to mean secular laws, but this discriminates against people for which Shariah means spiritual duties and practice within their faith -- to them it's not a neutral secular term.
> 
> So that's what's going wrong.  These laws and rulings aren't staying secular as you intend and interpret. They cross lines into affecting areas of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.
> 
> Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. Civil unions can be for everyone and avoid the issue of marriage beliefs not everyone shares. You are free to exercise, teach and practice your beliefs about marriage, but not to impose them through govt on people of other beliefs about marriage.
> 
> To be fair to all people of all beliefs, civil unions are universal and secular.
> 
> 2. If you want to impose further, that is like people who want prayer in schools to include Christian practice of invoking God through everyone joining in Christ Jesus name. I happen to understand GOD represents universal concepts that cover and include all people, but people do not agree on religious terms. It has to remain free choice where beliefs are involved.
> 
> Same with beliefs about marriage, not all people agree on religious terms, so out of respect for religious freedom it makes sense to stick with civil unions for the government to recognize as secular contracts and leave beliefs about marriage out of govt.
> 
> Again, if you believe otherwise, so do many Christians believe in integrating their beliefs through govt they believe are universal truth as well that includes all people.
> 
> 3. If you all agree to open the doors of govt to endorse and incorporate all manner of beliefs into laws and public institutions, then that's fair and you are including all people.
> 
> But it's discrimination to tell Christians that references to Crosses, prayers to God through Christ, and teaching creation through God all have to be Removed from public institutions while insisting that beliefs about gay marriage and homosexuality as natural must be included for tolerance even when it violates beliefs of others that these are not natural.
> 
> It's discriminating by creed, so it violates other laws.
> 
> Faun would you agree to a resolution allowing all Christian beliefs and practices to be endorsed and implemented in public policies and institutions, including Christian healing prayer and right to life for unborn and teaching creation in schools, in exchange for allowing beliefs in gate marriage?
> 
> I'm sure an agreement can be worked out if all beliefs are included equally as you are asking.
> 
> Are you willing to incorporate and include all beliefs equally as yours? Are only the beliefs you happen to agree with? Thanks Faun
> 
> Even if we cannot agree how to accommodate all beliefs equally, at least we tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The courts already ruled on civil unions versus marriage.  Marriage is a civil contract between 2 persons.   civil unions are being eliminated in some states already.  You are using the concept of separate but equal, which, in and of itself is also grossly illegal.   Do you also agree we need different doors, restaurants, drinking fountains for minorities?  Because that's what you say when you demand  SSM must be called civil unions.  That's separate but equal, illegal, and already ruled upon by the SCOTUS YEARS AGO, Emily!
Click to expand...

Dear Sneekin
If you say marriage is different from prayer, how can you say it is like public accommodations?

And orientation is not like race and racial segregation.

1. Race is determined even before birth by the genetics of the two parents even before conception because their DNA is set. Orientation is spiritual either from birth by conditions in the womb, or environment such as homosexuality resulting from sexual or other abuse, or spiritual karma. Peope have changed their orientation similar to changing ones identity of faith, which can't be said of race which is fixed genetically.

2. Why are you taking it as insulting to treat LGBT beliefs as other beliefs or creeds that are someone s free choice and right to exercise freely without discrimination?

What is wrong with separate but equal political parties or religions?
Is it offensive to have Catholics practice closed communion and eucharist while Lutherans have open ones anyone can participate in?


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> That entire diatribe is misguided as same-sex marriage laws have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with equal protection under the law. If straight people have the liberty and right to marry the person they love and want to be legally married to, so can gay folks. We don't allow religious beliefs to deny people rights because religious people are offended.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no Faun
> Marriage laws should be passed by states; even after federal courts may strike down bad laws or bans as unconstitutional,  it's still up to states to revise their own laws through their legislatures.
> 
> As for equal protections, your beliefs are yours to follow.
> 
> The problem is that marriage already crosses the line between church and state. So once that is a faith based practice, then either policy, for traditional marriage, for same sex marriage, or both ALL involve beliefs that don't belong to federal government to dictate.
> 
> Fed court can strike down laws or bans as unconstitutional, but don't have authority to write laws or create rights.
> 
> That's the point people like you don't get.
> 
> You are like trying to defend govt replacing Christianity with Universal salvationism that includes more people for equal protection. Sorry but NONE of that belongs in govt unless everyone consents. Replacing it with a different policy doesn't change the fact that marriage already involves beliefs. So will the replacement policy involve beliefs. So that's what is causing the conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's like you're oblivous to what happened regarding Obergfell. Marriage laws are still written by the states. Obergfell did not write laws or create rights. Marriage is the union of two people. The race, creed, gender, or religion of them matters not in the eyes of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Almost Faun You could promote Civil Unions as neutral contracts between people independent of social relationships.  But bringing in and using the term Marriage involves Beliefs about Marriage. You might see this as a neutral term. But it's not neutral for people with religious beliefs about Marriage. It's like using the term Shariah to mean secular laws, but this discriminates against people for which Shariah means spiritual duties and practice within their faith -- to them it's not a neutral secular term.
> 
> So that's what's going wrong.  These laws and rulings aren't staying secular as you intend and interpret. They cross lines into affecting areas of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.
> 
> Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> Everyone has the right to Prayer
> but that doesn't mean that the practice of prayers should be endorsed through govt.
> 
> Civil unions can be incorporated and cover all cases. Marriage like prayer can be practiced in private and doesn't need to be connected with govt.
> 
> All social benefits can be done through civil unions and contracts and not attempt to define or regulate terms of marriage that remain free to people to choose just like how we pray or meditate.
> 
> If we don't agree on terms of social benefits or marriage, that can be done collectively through organizations of free choice, similar to choice of religious programs and practice. It doesn't have to be done through govt which can be reserved to just the secular issues of managing contracts for legal guardianship, custody, Estates etc as civil business contracts independent of beliefs about social relationships between people spiritually which govt should not be abused to regulate or endorse.
Click to expand...

This is seriously getting old.   My daughter and her husband was married by a judge.  It's a marriage.  My two gay friends got married in a church by a minister.  It's also a marriage. Do you actually know the costs involved to make civil unions the same as marriage?  Apparently not.   Each person, going to the most cut-rate attorney would be paying around 10,000 or more to obtain these rights.  And yes, t checked it out.   You don't determine who is married and who uses the almost non-existent separate but equal term that's also ILLEGAL.  Try and pay attention.   You are now just being rude.  There are 1138 separate rights granted by marriage.   Do you not grasp what the costs would be to put that in a contract?  Not to mention, your claims fly in the face of the SCOTUS ruling.  READ THE RULING.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
> 
> Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, Emily, but it's not about BELIEFS.   You've been asked this before, and I don't remember your answer, so I'll ask again.  Hypothetically, let's say your faith or your intellect or your policies are against SSM.   The Government struck down (did not change the law, they struck down a law that violated the constitution, several amendments).   How is this asking you to change your beliefs?   Are you required to marry a woman?  No.  Is your church, group, intellect etc ordered by the government to change?  Absolutely not.  You are completely off base here.  It never violated your religious freedom.  You are still able to hate it or like it.   If it's against your religion, it's STILL against your religion, and you will note, the government itself says it cannot demand your religion change it's beliefs.
> 
> Your nonsense about prayers is different - praying out loud violates my rights if I'm not of the faith professed in the prayers - it violates MY freedom of religion.  Bring peace?  Seriously?  Try just reading what I said, and studying the matter.   You want to violate my rights, and that's acceptable.  I don't want to violate your rights, and that is unacceptable to you.  My suggestion?  Hire an attorney at this point, maybe at 200 an hour when the money actually changes hand will it sink in for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 1. I have stated consistently that the bans excluding gay marriage are equally unconstitutional *for the same reasons* and I agree that Doma and other faith based and biased laws DO need to be struck down
> 2. By that same standard, neither can govt pass laws that introduce Other Biases on marriage equally faith based, and relative to people's values and beliefs
> 3. I pointed out that Atheists are not "forced" to be or change to other beliefs to sue to Remove Crosses from public buildings. Where in the First Amendment does it require someone to be "forced" before they defend their freedom NOT to have govt establish a belief they don't share?
> 4. So I'm asking to be Consistent about the Principle of separating beliefs from govt.
> 
> If Christians are expected not to impose their beliefs about prayer and practice and expression in public institutions, it's only fair to treat LGBT beliefs expression and practice the same way.
> 
> Sneekin I'm also for supporting ALL beliefs to be allowed in public institutions if gay marriage is going to be recognized.
> 
> Why don't you and Faun treat prayer and marriage as equal free exercise of one's beliefs?
> 
> If it's because marriage involves social and financial benefits through govt, why can't that be done through civil contracts and unions for everyone? Why can't marriage be kept in private as a personal choice, and keep civil unions "for everyone" through the state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1, DOMA was struck down several years ago, Emily.  2.  The govt ruled that several states had ILLEGAL LAWS on the books that banned SSM.  That is not introducing bias.  Using your logic, I guess I'll go to the corner and buy me a slave?.  3. No one is forced to have a belief.  Please produce evidence that any Christian is required to perform, attend, endorse or agree with SSM. They most certainly aren't, and if you'd take the few minutes it would require for you to read Obergefell, you would understand that your concerns were SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED.  4.  There already is a separation of church and state.  You are really trying to see issues that don't exist, and you fail to grasp some basic concepts.   Christians CAN'T impose their prayer, practice and expressions in public places, it violates the first amendment.   LGBT is saying that they have the same rights as Christians to be married, and that state laws in some states illegally banned them.  SCOTUS invalidated those laws.   You keep babbling about all beliefs need to be exercised the same.  That's all LGBT wish to do.  If Christians can marry, so can they.   Prayer is not a civil right. Marriage is.   Civil Unions instead of marriage for gays is PATENTLY illegal, as you've been told before, because you are claiming separate but equal.
> 
> Since some states are eliminating civil unions, why would we rewrite laws to pacify a few people?  Over 68 percent agree with SSM in the US.   As marriage.  Why should someone who's LGBT have to keep their marriage silent, when a Christian or straight does not?  That too would be separate laws based on sexual orientation. Why can't you grasp the fact that a religious marriage is called Holy Matrimony, and Marriage is a civil term that's been used for over 10,000 years, prior to christianity, and referred to both SSM and straight marriages?  Hmmm?
Click to expand...

Dear Sneekin
1. Are you even reading my messages? I already said repeatedly I agree to strike down Doma and other bans as unconstitutional. Why are you arguing about this again, no matter how many times I explain I agree with you the government is right to strike those down!

2. The marriage laws were always in violation of separation of church and state. But people didn't challenge them until now. So now they have to be changed.

If states struck down civil unions and can't agree then maybe we should remove all social benefits and divide these by party.

It's like religion. If Muslims and Hindus or if catholics and protestants agree on laws, they can pass them if everyone consents. .but if not then agree to separate beliefs in private and only keep the common laws in public that don't conflict with anyone's beliefs.

3. How is it you want to blame the cost on one side? If only 4% of the population is pushing the change, and that's considered justified, why not accept the cost of the changes?

If 100% of the people can all practice their own way by reducing states to just civil unions and keeping benefits decided by individuals or parties
A. Isn't that equal protection of both sides from each other
B. Won't it reduce costs by stopping lawsuits and legislative battles by investing in separate programs

4. I hope you understand I do support gay marriage but not by imposing it through govt. If it's better to separate programs by party that's more cost effective and equally inclusive to let members of each party fund their own benefits programs and get tax credit and experience for self govt.

*NOT trying to be "rude" at all, but the opposite, trying to "bend over backwards" to include ALL beliefs equally, both for and against gay marriage.

the money saved by separating beliefs by party would affect and resolve other issues as well, from the death penalty to abortion issues. So the cost benefit would be comprehensive, in investing resources in local solutions and quit fighting politically and overburdening courts and govt with issues that can be resolved by separating them.*


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's like you're oblivous to what happened regarding Obergfell. Marriage laws are still written by the states. Obergfell did not write laws or create rights. Marriage is the union of two people. The race, creed, gender, or religion of them matters not in the eyes of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> Almost Faun You could promote Civil Unions as neutral contracts between people independent of social relationships.  But bringing in and using the term Marriage involves Beliefs about Marriage. You might see this as a neutral term. But it's not neutral for people with religious beliefs about Marriage. It's like using the term Shariah to mean secular laws, but this discriminates against people for which Shariah means spiritual duties and practice within their faith -- to them it's not a neutral secular term.
> 
> So that's what's going wrong.  These laws and rulings aren't staying secular as you intend and interpret. They cross lines into affecting areas of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.
> 
> Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> Everyone has the right to Prayer
> but that doesn't mean that the practice of prayers should be endorsed through govt.
> 
> Civil unions can be incorporated and cover all cases. Marriage like prayer can be practiced in private and doesn't need to be connected with govt.
> 
> All social benefits can be done through civil unions and contracts and not attempt to define or regulate terms of marriage that remain free to people to choose just like how we pray or meditate.
> 
> If we don't agree on terms of social benefits or marriage, that can be done collectively through organizations of free choice, similar to choice of religious programs and practice. It doesn't have to be done through govt which can be reserved to just the secular issues of managing contracts for legal guardianship, custody, Estates etc as civil business contracts independent of beliefs about social relationships between people spiritually which govt should not be abused to regulate or endorse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is about marriage, not prayer. One glaring difference, the state sanctions marriage but not prayer. Given the state sanctions marriage, they have to do so equally for all except for in cases where compelling interests prevail, such as certain age restrictions.
> 
> That it offends Christians is not a compelling interest. It could be if it forced Christians to marry folks of their same gender, but that is not the case.
> 
> So there is no compelling interest in this case to let gays marry the person of their choise, like straight folks can, but then not call it "marriage."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. What marriage and prayer have in common is they both fall under religious freedom. Do you not get that?
> 
> Buddhism is not the same as Christianity but they are both covered equally under religious freedom.
> 
> Are you saying we need a separate law for Buddhism, for Christianity, for atheists for secular humanists for Muslims?
> 
> Do prayer and marriage have to be the same thing before a law applies to both?
> 
> What are you saying?
> 
> 2.
> If you unable to separate the social benefits of marriage from civil unions, and only keep the civil unions through govt:
> 
> Who are you to expect other people to separate their religious beliefs about marriage from the civil contracts under govt?
> 
> If you can't do it either, that's even More reason to separate marriage from govt.
> If neither side can keep their beliefs out of marriage, it is truly a religious issue.
> And govt should not touch or regulate anything that is such a religious matter!
> 
> You prove that argument even more.
> Thank you.
Click to expand...

Marriage is a civil right.  Prayer is a religious right.   If I'm atheist, I don't pray.  Doesn't mean I can't be married.  They are completely different, as Faun so eloquently put it to you.   No one is saying we need separate laws for each religion, except you yourself.   Oranges are citrus.  Apples are not.   Do they have to be the same fruit before I can juice them?  No.  Prayer is a religious right, provided it doesn't impact the general public.  Marriage is a civil right, and with few exceptions, everyone now can get married.   You still can't have prayer in school, however, but two people of the same or opposite sexes can get married.

I think ministers have done a fine job for over 200 plus years.  Not sure why you think they can't separate it now.  All along, they actually have to perform a secular (non-religious) duty, for the person to be recognized by the state and federal governments.  If they don't remove their religious hat, and put on their secular hat, then your marriage is not recognized by anything BUT the church.   No 1138 rights, including inheritance, taxes, children, you name it.   Marriage is NOT a religious issue.  The actual marriage portion is a secular one.   You are playing a semantics game, but fail to grasp you are talking that there is actually Holy Matrimony (religious), and at the end, Marriage (secualr) where the priest/minister signs as a representative of the STATE that these people are actually married.  No need to call it a civil union, when marriage is a civil contract.  When a religious entity is involved, then Holy Matrimony occurs as well.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's like you're oblivous to what happened regarding Obergfell. Marriage laws are still written by the states. Obergfell did not write laws or create rights. Marriage is the union of two people. The race, creed, gender, or religion of them matters not in the eyes of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> Almost Faun You could promote Civil Unions as neutral contracts between people independent of social relationships.  But bringing in and using the term Marriage involves Beliefs about Marriage. You might see this as a neutral term. But it's not neutral for people with religious beliefs about Marriage. It's like using the term Shariah to mean secular laws, but this discriminates against people for which Shariah means spiritual duties and practice within their faith -- to them it's not a neutral secular term.
> 
> So that's what's going wrong.  These laws and rulings aren't staying secular as you intend and interpret. They cross lines into affecting areas of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.
> 
> Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. Civil unions can be for everyone and avoid the issue of marriage beliefs not everyone shares. You are free to exercise, teach and practice your beliefs about marriage, but not to impose them through govt on people of other beliefs about marriage.
> 
> To be fair to all people of all beliefs, civil unions are universal and secular.
> 
> 2. If you want to impose further, that is like people who want prayer in schools to include Christian practice of invoking God through everyone joining in Christ Jesus name. I happen to understand GOD represents universal concepts that cover and include all people, but people do not agree on religious terms. It has to remain free choice where beliefs are involved.
> 
> Same with beliefs about marriage, not all people agree on religious terms, so out of respect for religious freedom it makes sense to stick with civil unions for the government to recognize as secular contracts and leave beliefs about marriage out of govt.
> 
> Again, if you believe otherwise, so do many Christians believe in integrating their beliefs through govt they believe are universal truth as well that includes all people.
> 
> 3. If you all agree to open the doors of govt to endorse and incorporate all manner of beliefs into laws and public institutions, then that's fair and you are including all people.
> 
> But it's discrimination to tell Christians that references to Crosses, prayers to God through Christ, and teaching creation through God all have to be Removed from public institutions while insisting that beliefs about gay marriage and homosexuality as natural must be included for tolerance even when it violates beliefs of others that these are not natural.
> 
> It's discriminating by creed, so it violates other laws.
> 
> Faun would you agree to a resolution allowing all Christian beliefs and practices to be endorsed and implemented in public policies and institutions, including Christian healing prayer and right to life for unborn and teaching creation in schools, in exchange for allowing beliefs in gate marriage?
> 
> I'm sure an agreement can be worked out if all beliefs are included equally as you are asking.
> 
> Are you willing to incorporate and include all beliefs equally as yours? Are only the beliefs you happen to agree with? Thanks Faun
> 
> Even if we cannot agree how to accommodate all beliefs equally, at least we tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The courts already ruled on civil unions versus marriage.  Marriage is a civil contract between 2 persons.   civil unions are being eliminated in some states already.  You are using the concept of separate but equal, which, in and of itself is also grossly illegal.   Do you also agree we need different doors, restaurants, drinking fountains for minorities?  Because that's what you say when you demand  SSM must be called civil unions.  That's separate but equal, illegal, and already ruled upon by the SCOTUS YEARS AGO, Emily!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> If you say marriage is different from prayer, how can you say it is like public accommodations?
> 
> And orientation is not like race and racial segregation.
> 
> 1. Race is determined even before birth by the genetics of the two parents even before conception because their DNA is set. Orientation is spiritual either from birth by conditions in the womb, or environment such as homosexuality resulting from sexual or other abuse, or spiritual karma. Peope have changed their orientation similar to changing ones identity of faith, which can't be said of race which is fixed genetically.
> 
> 2. Why are you taking it as insulting to treat LGBT beliefs as other beliefs or creeds that are someone s free choice and right to exercise freely without discrimination?
> 
> What is wrong with separate but equal political parties or religions?
> Is it offensive to have Catholics practice closed communion and eucharist while Lutherans have open ones anyone can participate in?
Click to expand...

1.  Orientation is like race, color, creed, national origin, etc (segregation can occur for any of those, including orientation).  Orientation is believed to occur NON-SPIRITUALLY prior to birth.  It doesn't occur from sexual abuse, because close to 50 percent of the population (male and female) would be gay, based on abuse).  People don't change their orientation, that's been disproven as well.   Being gay is not the act of sex.   You can be straight or gay, and never have sex.  so wrong....   Changing one's faith is changing your philosophy, not the same as you changing who you love.  
2. LGBT is not a free choice.  Why do you claim it is?  You can't just change it, that's been proven literally thousands if not millions of times.  ex-gays become people that are still gay, not having sex, or sneaking around having same sex behind the back of their opposite sex partner.  Seen it happen too many times.
3.  What's wrong with "colored only" drinking fountains, entrances, restaurants, etc?  Did you really ask?   Different religious beliefs and political parties do not meet the criteria for separate but equal.  Add that to your list of questions to ask an attorney.
Who are you asking about Catholic v Lutheran offensiveness?   It has nothing to do with separate but equal, either.   Really not cool.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Ps Faun the compelling interest is upholding laws consistently.
> 
> Civil unions for everyone would keep beliefs about marriage out of government and protect religious freedom of people on both sides equally.
> 
> Otherwise if one side pushes traditional marriage only or the other side imposes beliefs about marriage for everyone this violates
> * beliefs of people of the other group
> * beliefs of people who believe in states rights to decide either way
> *beliefs of Constitutionalists like me who believe both sides should get their way without imposing on the other
> *beliefs of people who believe the state should just recognize civil unions
> 
> So pushing gay marriages through govt violates beliefs of all these other people.
> 
> While sticking to just civil unions includes all of them and doesn't exclude one more than the other.
> Everyone can follow their own beliefs about marriage by recognizing civil unions, so that covers all beliefs equally while yours does not.


Sorry, Emily, but nothing you've outlined above comes close to being truthful.  Denying someone their civil rights is completely different than a christian having to hear on the news that Obergefell is the law of the land.  It in NO WAY impacts non-believers of SSM.  You are NOT a constructionist (proper term).   Both sides can't get their way when one is out to deny rights, and the other side is saying everyone deserves the same rights.  Really basic concept here.  
I know of no one in the legal profession other than a handful of religious extremists that believe in civil unions.  The state already recognizes MARRIAGE.   CIVIL MARRIAGE.  You fail to grasp that states don't even recognize religious MARRIAGES AT ALL.  They only recognize that 2 same sex or opposite sex people are married when the license is signed by the Minister, Priest, Judge, etc.  Try and focus on that fact.   If you want to use civil unions, tell each of the churches to call their services civil unions.  Makes the same amount of sense as what you've thrown about.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost Faun You could promote Civil Unions as neutral contracts between people independent of social relationships.  But bringing in and using the term Marriage involves Beliefs about Marriage. You might see this as a neutral term. But it's not neutral for people with religious beliefs about Marriage. It's like using the term Shariah to mean secular laws, but this discriminates against people for which Shariah means spiritual duties and practice within their faith -- to them it's not a neutral secular term.
> 
> So that's what's going wrong.  These laws and rulings aren't staying secular as you intend and interpret. They cross lines into affecting areas of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.
> 
> Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> Everyone has the right to Prayer
> but that doesn't mean that the practice of prayers should be endorsed through govt.
> 
> Civil unions can be incorporated and cover all cases. Marriage like prayer can be practiced in private and doesn't need to be connected with govt.
> 
> All social benefits can be done through civil unions and contracts and not attempt to define or regulate terms of marriage that remain free to people to choose just like how we pray or meditate.
> 
> If we don't agree on terms of social benefits or marriage, that can be done collectively through organizations of free choice, similar to choice of religious programs and practice. It doesn't have to be done through govt which can be reserved to just the secular issues of managing contracts for legal guardianship, custody, Estates etc as civil business contracts independent of beliefs about social relationships between people spiritually which govt should not be abused to regulate or endorse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is about marriage, not prayer. One glaring difference, the state sanctions marriage but not prayer. Given the state sanctions marriage, they have to do so equally for all except for in cases where compelling interests prevail, such as certain age restrictions.
> 
> That it offends Christians is not a compelling interest. It could be if it forced Christians to marry folks of their same gender, but that is not the case.
> 
> So there is no compelling interest in this case to let gays marry the person of their choise, like straight folks can, but then not call it "marriage."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. What marriage and prayer have in common is they both fall under religious freedom. Do you not get that?
> 
> Buddhism is not the same as Christianity but they are both covered equally under religious freedom.
> 
> Are you saying we need a separate law for Buddhism, for Christianity, for atheists for secular humanists for Muslims?
> 
> Do prayer and marriage have to be the same thing before a law applies to both?
> 
> What are you saying?
> 
> 2.
> If you unable to separate the social benefits of marriage from civil unions, and only keep the civil unions through govt:
> 
> Who are you to expect other people to separate their religious beliefs about marriage from the civil contracts under govt?
> 
> If you can't do it either, that's even More reason to separate marriage from govt.
> If neither side can keep their beliefs out of marriage, it is truly a religious issue.
> And govt should not touch or regulate anything that is such a religious matter!
> 
> You prove that argument even more.
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is a civil right.  Prayer is a religious right.   If I'm atheist, I don't pray.  Doesn't mean I can't be married.  They are completely different, as Faun so eloquently put it to you.   No one is saying we need separate laws for each religion, except you yourself.   Oranges are citrus.  Apples are not.   Do they have to be the same fruit before I can juice them?  No.  Prayer is a religious right, provided it doesn't impact the general public.  Marriage is a civil right, and with few exceptions, everyone now can get married.   You still can't have prayer in school, however, but two people of the same or opposite sexes can get married.
> 
> I think ministers have done a fine job for over 200 plus years.  Not sure why you think they can't separate it now.  All along, they actually have to perform a secular (non-religious) duty, for the person to be recognized by the state and federal governments.  If they don't remove their religious hat, and put on their secular hat, then your marriage is not recognized by anything BUT the church.   No 1138 rights, including inheritance, taxes, children, you name it.   Marriage is NOT a religious issue.  The actual marriage portion is a secular one.   You are playing a semantics game, but fail to grasp you are talking that there is actually Holy Matrimony (religious), and at the end, Marriage (secualr) where the priest/minister signs as a representative of the STATE that these people are actually married.  No need to call it a civil union, when marriage is a civil contract.  When a religious entity is involved, then Holy Matrimony occurs as well.
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin 
1. you sound like the right to life people who believe the babies right to life is civil and protected by law.
That's fine but the LAWS defending that right have to be Constitutionally inclusive and not biased by faith based arguments.

2. If you are saying laws should not be changed if they've been in place,
then why argue to change marriage laws to include same sex couples?

If you are asking for this recognition of "marriage as a right", why not accept the responsibility that comes with it?

It seems to me you are blaming other people for the changes it takes to accommodate beliefs you have.

3. Anyone can practice marriage beliefs just like any other cultural practice.

The part that we can all AGREE in being managed by the state is civil unions.
If we can't agree on that, then the social benefits can be divided by party also
so even the people of each state don't have to agree with each other to access
the same benefits.  

Just accept responsibility for their own beliefs about
* marriage
* health care
* abortion
* drug legalization
and quit trying to impose beliefs biased by religion or party
on other people of different religious or political beliefs.

Isn't that fair and all inclusive, treating people of all creeds equally?
If none of them can be forced to pay for creeds of other people,
but each is equally free to fund benefits for members who agree
to the same terms to fund and be under? 

Again, Not trying to be "rude" at all but fair and equal to all
without imposing any one set of beliefs onto anyone else who disagrees
with a policy that would violate their beliefs.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
> 
> Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, Emily, but it's not about BELIEFS.   You've been asked this before, and I don't remember your answer, so I'll ask again.  Hypothetically, let's say your faith or your intellect or your policies are against SSM.   The Government struck down (did not change the law, they struck down a law that violated the constitution, several amendments).   How is this asking you to change your beliefs?   Are you required to marry a woman?  No.  Is your church, group, intellect etc ordered by the government to change?  Absolutely not.  You are completely off base here.  It never violated your religious freedom.  You are still able to hate it or like it.   If it's against your religion, it's STILL against your religion, and you will note, the government itself says it cannot demand your religion change it's beliefs.
> 
> Your nonsense about prayers is different - praying out loud violates my rights if I'm not of the faith professed in the prayers - it violates MY freedom of religion.  Bring peace?  Seriously?  Try just reading what I said, and studying the matter.   You want to violate my rights, and that's acceptable.  I don't want to violate your rights, and that is unacceptable to you.  My suggestion?  Hire an attorney at this point, maybe at 200 an hour when the money actually changes hand will it sink in for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 1. I have stated consistently that the bans excluding gay marriage are equally unconstitutional *for the same reasons* and I agree that Doma and other faith based and biased laws DO need to be struck down
> 2. By that same standard, neither can govt pass laws that introduce Other Biases on marriage equally faith based, and relative to people's values and beliefs
> 3. I pointed out that Atheists are not "forced" to be or change to other beliefs to sue to Remove Crosses from public buildings. Where in the First Amendment does it require someone to be "forced" before they defend their freedom NOT to have govt establish a belief they don't share?
> 4. So I'm asking to be Consistent about the Principle of separating beliefs from govt.
> 
> If Christians are expected not to impose their beliefs about prayer and practice and expression in public institutions, it's only fair to treat LGBT beliefs expression and practice the same way.
> 
> Sneekin I'm also for supporting ALL beliefs to be allowed in public institutions if gay marriage is going to be recognized.
> 
> Why don't you and Faun treat prayer and marriage as equal free exercise of one's beliefs?
> 
> If it's because marriage involves social and financial benefits through govt, why can't that be done through civil contracts and unions for everyone? Why can't marriage be kept in private as a personal choice, and keep civil unions "for everyone" through the state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1, DOMA was struck down several years ago, Emily.  2.  The govt ruled that several states had ILLEGAL LAWS on the books that banned SSM.  That is not introducing bias.  Using your logic, I guess I'll go to the corner and buy me a slave?.  3. No one is forced to have a belief.  Please produce evidence that any Christian is required to perform, attend, endorse or agree with SSM. They most certainly aren't, and if you'd take the few minutes it would require for you to read Obergefell, you would understand that your concerns were SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED.  4.  There already is a separation of church and state.  You are really trying to see issues that don't exist, and you fail to grasp some basic concepts.   Christians CAN'T impose their prayer, practice and expressions in public places, it violates the first amendment.   LGBT is saying that they have the same rights as Christians to be married, and that state laws in some states illegally banned them.  SCOTUS invalidated those laws.   You keep babbling about all beliefs need to be exercised the same.  That's all LGBT wish to do.  If Christians can marry, so can they.   Prayer is not a civil right. Marriage is.   Civil Unions instead of marriage for gays is PATENTLY illegal, as you've been told before, because you are claiming separate but equal.
> 
> Since some states are eliminating civil unions, why would we rewrite laws to pacify a few people?  Over 68 percent agree with SSM in the US.   As marriage.  Why should someone who's LGBT have to keep their marriage silent, when a Christian or straight does not?  That too would be separate laws based on sexual orientation. Why can't you grasp the fact that a religious marriage is called Holy Matrimony, and Marriage is a civil term that's been used for over 10,000 years, prior to christianity, and referred to both SSM and straight marriages?  Hmmm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 1. Are you even reading my messages? I already said repeatedly I agree to strike down Doma and other bans as unconstitutional. Why are you arguing about this again, no matter how many times I explain I agree with you the government is right to strike those down!
> 
> 2. The marriage laws were always in violation of separation of church and state. But people didn't challenge them until now. So now they have to be changed.
> 
> If states struck down civil unions and can't agree then maybe we should remove all social benefits and divide these by party.
> 
> It's like religion. If Muslims and Hindus or if catholics and protestants agree on laws, they can pass them if everyone consents. .but if not then agree to separate beliefs in private and only keep the common laws in public that don't conflict with anyone's beliefs.
> 
> 3. How is it you want to blame the cost on one side? If only 4% of the population is pushing the change, and that's considered justified, why not accept the cost of the changes?
> 
> If 100% of the people can all practice their own way by reducing states to just civil unions and keeping benefits decided by individuals or parties
> A. Isn't that equal protection of both sides from each other
> B. Won't it reduce costs by stopping lawsuits and legislative battles by investing in separate programs
> 
> 4. I hope you understand I do support gay marriage but not by imposing it through govt. If it's better to separate programs by party that's more cost effective and equally inclusive to let members of each party fund their own benefits programs and get tax credit and experience for self govt.
> 
> *NOT trying to be "rude" at all, but the opposite, trying to "bend over backwards" to include ALL beliefs equally, both for and against gay marriage.
> 
> the money saved by separating beliefs by party would affect and resolve other issues as well, from the death penalty to abortion issues. So the cost benefit would be comprehensive, in investing resources in local solutions and quit fighting politically and overburdening courts and govt with issues that can be resolved by separating them.*
Click to expand...

Yep, I've read them, and I'm still shaking my head.  Marriage laws did not violate the first amendment separation.   They violated primarily the 14th amendment.  

Read, read, read.  Read why they are eliminating civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. NO NEED FOR THEM AT ALL.   

Leave religion out of this.  No one but you has continually blathered on about religious marriages. The rest of us are talking about CIVIL MARRIAGE ONLY.  

Using your math, 95 percent (saying that 5 percent are LGBT)  wants different terms.   Then of course they would pay for it....except that it's BLATANTLY ILLEGAL.  Read up on it!  Contact an attorney, because you fail to grasp that point of law.  There's no legislative fights.  That's flat out lying.   Marriage is on the books in all 50 states.  Why would I want to pay billions of dollars changing the laws from Marriage to Civil Unions?  Don't you grasp that after that church "marriage", the couple would still then have to get a "civil union", or their children, spouses, etc have NO RIGHTS?  You aren't bending over backwards.  You are not reading what I'm writing, and you aren't grasping points of law.  Money wouldn't be saved, it would cost BILLIONS more.  I'd rather spend billions on something else - so would all the other tax payers.  Please share with me what state courts are fighting SSM?   Obergegell overturned it, now just a few old white men that will not get re-elected are refusing to marry anyone whatsoever (not just SSM, but ALL people).  

Sorry, all people deserve the same rights.  You wish to have different rights based on sexual orientation.  Doesn't work that way.  You wish to have different rights based on whether you get married in a church v a court house.  Doesn't work that way.  I suggest you read this paragraph for the next hour until it becomes clear.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.
> 
> Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> Everyone has the right to Prayer
> but that doesn't mean that the practice of prayers should be endorsed through govt.
> 
> Civil unions can be incorporated and cover all cases. Marriage like prayer can be practiced in private and doesn't need to be connected with govt.
> 
> All social benefits can be done through civil unions and contracts and not attempt to define or regulate terms of marriage that remain free to people to choose just like how we pray or meditate.
> 
> If we don't agree on terms of social benefits or marriage, that can be done collectively through organizations of free choice, similar to choice of religious programs and practice. It doesn't have to be done through govt which can be reserved to just the secular issues of managing contracts for legal guardianship, custody, Estates etc as civil business contracts independent of beliefs about social relationships between people spiritually which govt should not be abused to regulate or endorse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is about marriage, not prayer. One glaring difference, the state sanctions marriage but not prayer. Given the state sanctions marriage, they have to do so equally for all except for in cases where compelling interests prevail, such as certain age restrictions.
> 
> That it offends Christians is not a compelling interest. It could be if it forced Christians to marry folks of their same gender, but that is not the case.
> 
> So there is no compelling interest in this case to let gays marry the person of their choise, like straight folks can, but then not call it "marriage."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. What marriage and prayer have in common is they both fall under religious freedom. Do you not get that?
> 
> Buddhism is not the same as Christianity but they are both covered equally under religious freedom.
> 
> Are you saying we need a separate law for Buddhism, for Christianity, for atheists for secular humanists for Muslims?
> 
> Do prayer and marriage have to be the same thing before a law applies to both?
> 
> What are you saying?
> 
> 2.
> If you unable to separate the social benefits of marriage from civil unions, and only keep the civil unions through govt:
> 
> Who are you to expect other people to separate their religious beliefs about marriage from the civil contracts under govt?
> 
> If you can't do it either, that's even More reason to separate marriage from govt.
> If neither side can keep their beliefs out of marriage, it is truly a religious issue.
> And govt should not touch or regulate anything that is such a religious matter!
> 
> You prove that argument even more.
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is a civil right.  Prayer is a religious right.   If I'm atheist, I don't pray.  Doesn't mean I can't be married.  They are completely different, as Faun so eloquently put it to you.   No one is saying we need separate laws for each religion, except you yourself.   Oranges are citrus.  Apples are not.   Do they have to be the same fruit before I can juice them?  No.  Prayer is a religious right, provided it doesn't impact the general public.  Marriage is a civil right, and with few exceptions, everyone now can get married.   You still can't have prayer in school, however, but two people of the same or opposite sexes can get married.
> 
> I think ministers have done a fine job for over 200 plus years.  Not sure why you think they can't separate it now.  All along, they actually have to perform a secular (non-religious) duty, for the person to be recognized by the state and federal governments.  If they don't remove their religious hat, and put on their secular hat, then your marriage is not recognized by anything BUT the church.   No 1138 rights, including inheritance, taxes, children, you name it.   Marriage is NOT a religious issue.  The actual marriage portion is a secular one.   You are playing a semantics game, but fail to grasp you are talking that there is actually Holy Matrimony (religious), and at the end, Marriage (secualr) where the priest/minister signs as a representative of the STATE that these people are actually married.  No need to call it a civil union, when marriage is a civil contract.  When a religious entity is involved, then Holy Matrimony occurs as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 1. you sound like the right to life people who believe the babies right to life is civil and protected by law.
> That's fine but the LAWS defending that right have to be Constitutionally inclusive and not biased by faith based arguments.
> 
> 2. If you are saying laws should not be changed if they've been in place,
> then why argue to change marriage laws to include same sex couples?
> 
> If you are asking for this recognition of "marriage as a right", why not accept the responsibility that comes with it?
> 
> It seems to me you are blaming other people for the changes it takes to accommodate beliefs you have.
> 
> 3. Anyone can practice marriage beliefs just like any other cultural practice.
> 
> The part that we can all AGREE in being managed by the state is civil unions.
> If we can't agree on that, then the social benefits can be divided by party also
> so even the people of each state don't have to agree with each other to access
> the same benefits.
> 
> Just accept responsibility for their own beliefs about
> * marriage
> * health care
> * abortion
> * drug legalization
> and quit trying to impose beliefs biased by religion or party
> on other people of different religious or political beliefs.
> 
> Isn't that fair and all inclusive, treating people of all creeds equally?
> If none of them can be forced to pay for creeds of other people,
> but each is equally free to fund benefits for members who agree
> to the same terms to fund and be under?
> 
> Again, Not trying to be "rude" at all but fair and equal to all
> without imposing any one set of beliefs onto anyone else who disagrees
> with a policy that would violate their beliefs.
Click to expand...

You are so off topic I refuse to address any of this.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> 2. LGBT is not a free choice.  Why do you claim it is?  You can't just change it, that's been proven literally thousands if not millions of times.  ex-gays become people that are still gay, not having sex, or sneaking around having same sex behind the back of their opposite sex partner.  Seen it happen too many times.
> 3.  What's wrong with "colored only" drinking fountains, entrances, restaurants, etc?  Did you really ask?   Different religious beliefs and political parties do not meet the criteria for separate but equal.  Add that to your list of questions to ask an attorney.
> Who are you asking about Catholic v Lutheran offensiveness?   It has nothing to do with separate but equal, either.   Really not cool.



Okay Sneekin lets' start with these two points which may explain why you think I am being rude or offensive
RE: 2. regarding free choice
A. Some people CAN and HAVE changed their orientation.
Others cannot.
So it's more like religious or political beliefs,
where some people are naturally that way all their life and cannot change how they identify, think or believe
and express their values.
It's less like race, which cannot be changed and is genetically determined.
B. Beliefs that LGBT/homosexual/transgender identity/oriention
are either 'Natural" or "unnatural" or "can change" or "cannot"
are BOTH FAITH BASED, none proven by science.

It is faith based if people like the NYC mayor's wife USED to identify as Lesbian
but now does not. It is faith based if she is bisexual, if she used to be lesbian but
"changed" to heterosexual, or if she was always heterosexual and the lesbian lifestyle was a passing phase or false/unnatural.

There are whole groups of "ex gays" and "former gays" who
believe they were always heterosexual and the homosexual conditions were temporary,unnatural and false for them.

So to them and their experiences, homosexuality is a choice to change,
and they don't believe in endorsing or promoting it as "natural."
That's their faith based belief which is equally valid as
beliefs that homosexuality IS natural for others, too.

I have found there are both going on.
Some are natural some are unnatural.
Some can change, some cannot.

RE 3. separate but equal

With the religions I am comparing recognizing different terms of
services like differences in recognizing communions and baptisms
and comparing these with differences in marriage.

If it is not offensives as 'separate but equal" to have Catholics
practice different terms of marriage and communions than
Protestants or Lutherans do,
then why is it offensive to have separate but equal marriage
practices?

Again, why can't the SECULAR civil unions be under the govt,
and the parts people disagree on be left to personal and private choice.

I think the other two parts we're getting stuck on
A. you don't see a problem with using the term marriage to mean the civil union
secular civil marriage, but I do see people of different beliefs having a problem
with this, so I am saying to be fair and accommodate them the same way
crosses are removed off public buildings to accommodate atheists
who believe it violates "separation of church and state."
In this case, people argue federal recognition of "right to marriage"
violates "separation of federal govt from states rights"

B. also you have a fear that separating benefits by party,
or some other means to prevent imposing beliefs about marriage
through govt, 
1. either will cost too much
2. can't be done
3. or is offensive as separate but equal similar to racial segregation

I'm saying it's natural to separate practices by religious denomination
which has been going on. So I see this as a solution not only to the
conflicts over marriage laws, but also health care, death penalty,
social benefits funding, and other areas where people don't want
to fund each other's beliefs but want to invest in their own.

So why not separate it by party the same way religions have
developed their own programs and don't expect govt to force
their policies on the public and make everyone fund it under that?

It seems natural to me, not offensive at all but
LIBERATION not to have to fight for what you believe against other people's beliefs
and
EMPOWERING to reserve and manage your own resources
and not depend on federal govt or other people agreeing with your beliefs
to be able to defend and practice them by funding them yourself.

I see this as positive while you see it as negative and rude.
Sorry I'm trying to be fair and protect all beliefs from imposing
on each other, whether religious or political, so everyone is
represented and included equally.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Emily, but it's not about BELIEFS.   You've been asked this before, and I don't remember your answer, so I'll ask again.  Hypothetically, let's say your faith or your intellect or your policies are against SSM.   The Government struck down (did not change the law, they struck down a law that violated the constitution, several amendments).   How is this asking you to change your beliefs?   Are you required to marry a woman?  No.  Is your church, group, intellect etc ordered by the government to change?  Absolutely not.  You are completely off base here.  It never violated your religious freedom.  You are still able to hate it or like it.   If it's against your religion, it's STILL against your religion, and you will note, the government itself says it cannot demand your religion change it's beliefs.
> 
> Your nonsense about prayers is different - praying out loud violates my rights if I'm not of the faith professed in the prayers - it violates MY freedom of religion.  Bring peace?  Seriously?  Try just reading what I said, and studying the matter.   You want to violate my rights, and that's acceptable.  I don't want to violate your rights, and that is unacceptable to you.  My suggestion?  Hire an attorney at this point, maybe at 200 an hour when the money actually changes hand will it sink in for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 1. I have stated consistently that the bans excluding gay marriage are equally unconstitutional *for the same reasons* and I agree that Doma and other faith based and biased laws DO need to be struck down
> 2. By that same standard, neither can govt pass laws that introduce Other Biases on marriage equally faith based, and relative to people's values and beliefs
> 3. I pointed out that Atheists are not "forced" to be or change to other beliefs to sue to Remove Crosses from public buildings. Where in the First Amendment does it require someone to be "forced" before they defend their freedom NOT to have govt establish a belief they don't share?
> 4. So I'm asking to be Consistent about the Principle of separating beliefs from govt.
> 
> If Christians are expected not to impose their beliefs about prayer and practice and expression in public institutions, it's only fair to treat LGBT beliefs expression and practice the same way.
> 
> Sneekin I'm also for supporting ALL beliefs to be allowed in public institutions if gay marriage is going to be recognized.
> 
> Why don't you and Faun treat prayer and marriage as equal free exercise of one's beliefs?
> 
> If it's because marriage involves social and financial benefits through govt, why can't that be done through civil contracts and unions for everyone? Why can't marriage be kept in private as a personal choice, and keep civil unions "for everyone" through the state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1, DOMA was struck down several years ago, Emily.  2.  The govt ruled that several states had ILLEGAL LAWS on the books that banned SSM.  That is not introducing bias.  Using your logic, I guess I'll go to the corner and buy me a slave?.  3. No one is forced to have a belief.  Please produce evidence that any Christian is required to perform, attend, endorse or agree with SSM. They most certainly aren't, and if you'd take the few minutes it would require for you to read Obergefell, you would understand that your concerns were SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED.  4.  There already is a separation of church and state.  You are really trying to see issues that don't exist, and you fail to grasp some basic concepts.   Christians CAN'T impose their prayer, practice and expressions in public places, it violates the first amendment.   LGBT is saying that they have the same rights as Christians to be married, and that state laws in some states illegally banned them.  SCOTUS invalidated those laws.   You keep babbling about all beliefs need to be exercised the same.  That's all LGBT wish to do.  If Christians can marry, so can they.   Prayer is not a civil right. Marriage is.   Civil Unions instead of marriage for gays is PATENTLY illegal, as you've been told before, because you are claiming separate but equal.
> 
> Since some states are eliminating civil unions, why would we rewrite laws to pacify a few people?  Over 68 percent agree with SSM in the US.   As marriage.  Why should someone who's LGBT have to keep their marriage silent, when a Christian or straight does not?  That too would be separate laws based on sexual orientation. Why can't you grasp the fact that a religious marriage is called Holy Matrimony, and Marriage is a civil term that's been used for over 10,000 years, prior to christianity, and referred to both SSM and straight marriages?  Hmmm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 1. Are you even reading my messages? I already said repeatedly I agree to strike down Doma and other bans as unconstitutional. Why are you arguing about this again, no matter how many times I explain I agree with you the government is right to strike those down!
> 
> 2. The marriage laws were always in violation of separation of church and state. But people didn't challenge them until now. So now they have to be changed.
> 
> If states struck down civil unions and can't agree then maybe we should remove all social benefits and divide these by party.
> 
> It's like religion. If Muslims and Hindus or if catholics and protestants agree on laws, they can pass them if everyone consents. .but if not then agree to separate beliefs in private and only keep the common laws in public that don't conflict with anyone's beliefs.
> 
> 3. How is it you want to blame the cost on one side? If only 4% of the population is pushing the change, and that's considered justified, why not accept the cost of the changes?
> 
> If 100% of the people can all practice their own way by reducing states to just civil unions and keeping benefits decided by individuals or parties
> A. Isn't that equal protection of both sides from each other
> B. Won't it reduce costs by stopping lawsuits and legislative battles by investing in separate programs
> 
> 4. I hope you understand I do support gay marriage but not by imposing it through govt. If it's better to separate programs by party that's more cost effective and equally inclusive to let members of each party fund their own benefits programs and get tax credit and experience for self govt.
> 
> *NOT trying to be "rude" at all, but the opposite, trying to "bend over backwards" to include ALL beliefs equally, both for and against gay marriage.
> 
> the money saved by separating beliefs by party would affect and resolve other issues as well, from the death penalty to abortion issues. So the cost benefit would be comprehensive, in investing resources in local solutions and quit fighting politically and overburdening courts and govt with issues that can be resolved by separating them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, I've read them, and I'm still shaking my head.  Marriage laws did not violate the first amendment separation.   They violated primarily the 14th amendment.
> 
> Read, read, read.  Read why they are eliminating civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. NO NEED FOR THEM AT ALL.
> 
> Leave religion out of this.  No one but you has continually blathered on about religious marriages. The rest of us are talking about CIVIL MARRIAGE ONLY.
> 
> Using your math, 95 percent (saying that 5 percent are LGBT)  wants different terms.   Then of course they would pay for it....except that it's BLATANTLY ILLEGAL.  Read up on it!  Contact an attorney, because you fail to grasp that point of law.  There's no legislative fights.  That's flat out lying.   Marriage is on the books in all 50 states.  Why would I want to pay billions of dollars changing the laws from Marriage to Civil Unions?  Don't you grasp that after that church "marriage", the couple would still then have to get a "civil union", or their children, spouses, etc have NO RIGHTS?  You aren't bending over backwards.  You are not reading what I'm writing, and you aren't grasping points of law.  Money wouldn't be saved, it would cost BILLIONS more.  I'd rather spend billions on something else - so would all the other tax payers.  Please share with me what state courts are fighting SSM?   Obergegell overturned it, now just a few old white men that will not get re-elected are refusing to marry anyone whatsoever (not just SSM, but ALL people).
> 
> Sorry, all people deserve the same rights.  You wish to have different rights based on sexual orientation.  Doesn't work that way.  You wish to have different rights based on whether you get married in a church v a court house.  Doesn't work that way.  I suggest you read this paragraph for the next hour until it becomes clear.
Click to expand...


Okay so we agree we are TALKING about civil marriage only.
So I am saying just use the term civil union and this would
keep religion out of it.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions.  The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution.   This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you.  Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers.  I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.
> 
> I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes).  You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution.  All men are created equal, not just old white men.
> 
> Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean_“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”. _
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
> 1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
> 2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority
> 
> The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.
> 
> Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief.  Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.
> 
> Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
> 
> Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, Emily, but it's not about BELIEFS.   You've been asked this before, and I don't remember your answer, so I'll ask again.  Hypothetically, let's say your faith or your intellect or your policies are against SSM.   The Government struck down (did not change the law, they struck down a law that violated the constitution, several amendments).   How is this asking you to change your beliefs?   Are you required to marry a woman?  No.  Is your church, group, intellect etc ordered by the government to change?  Absolutely not.  You are completely off base here.  It never violated your religious freedom.  You are still able to hate it or like it.   If it's against your religion, it's STILL against your religion, and you will note, the government itself says it cannot demand your religion change it's beliefs.
> 
> Your nonsense about prayers is different - praying out loud violates my rights if I'm not of the faith professed in the prayers - it violates MY freedom of religion.  Bring peace?  Seriously?  Try just reading what I said, and studying the matter.   You want to violate my rights, and that's acceptable.  I don't want to violate your rights, and that is unacceptable to you.  My suggestion?  Hire an attorney at this point, maybe at 200 an hour when the money actually changes hand will it sink in for you.
Click to expand...

Dear Sneekin
1. I have stated consistently that the bans excluding gay marriage are equally unconstitutional *for the same reasons* and I agree that Doma and other faith based and biased laws DO need to be struck down
2. By that same standard, neither can govt pass laws that introduce Other Biases on marriage equally faith based, and relative to people's values and beliefs
3. I pointed out that Atheists are not "forced" to be or change to other beliefs to sue to Remove Crosses from public buildings. Where in the First Amendment does it require someone to be "forced" 
It's by principle alone, on the left this principle is called separation of church and state, on the right it's called separation of federal jurisdiction from states rights
4. Yes it's about Political Beliefs.

The belief about LGBT orientation/identity/relations are NOT proven scientifically but remain FAITH based. It's a Spiritual belief if this is natural or unnatural, if it's a choice of behavior that can change or NOT a choice.

The Belief that marriage is a Constitutional right or a practice under free exercise of religion that belongs to people or states is a Political Belief.

While I agree with you that you and anyone has the right to your belief it is a civil natural right for gay couples equally, not everyone shares this belief. Since it is faith based, it's only fair not to impose it by govt against beliefs of others.

So Sneekin and also Faun 
I propose to you to pass a Constitutional Amendment on recognizing Political Beliefs such as right to marriage that is faith based, so it is Constitutional and passed by consent of people and States; and in order to make it fair where people of all political beliefs support its passage, include ALL political beliefs such as the right to life protected at conception which is also faith based.

Then write this Amendment that allows free choice to recognize and fund political beliefs separately by party so it does not impose on taxpayers of other beliefs. That would be fair to people of all beliefs.

5. Lastly I'm sorry you don't get that your belief in marriage as a right is a belief. Neither do Christians who believe right to life is natural from conception.

There are many non-Christians and even gay people and gay couples who do NOT believe in gay marriage through govt!

So this matter of preference of belief is spiritual and or political, it's a free choice, it's not about discriminating against a class of people because even that is faith based, not proven, and a choice to believe it's a born trait or why or how and whether it can change.

I believe it is spiritual, so beliefs are protected individually and can't be mandated by govt.

I believe we can form a consensus on law that respects free choice ie is not mandated through govt without consent of the public

The same way you Obama and others choose to recognize and support gay marriage, it should remain a free choice. No law forced you or Obama, you chose freely. So please recognize the same right of ALL Americans to choose freely.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. LGBT is not a free choice.  Why do you claim it is?  You can't just change it, that's been proven literally thousands if not millions of times.  ex-gays become people that are still gay, not having sex, or sneaking around having same sex behind the back of their opposite sex partner.  Seen it happen too many times.
> 3.  What's wrong with "colored only" drinking fountains, entrances, restaurants, etc?  Did you really ask?   Different religious beliefs and political parties do not meet the criteria for separate but equal.  Add that to your list of questions to ask an attorney.
> Who are you asking about Catholic v Lutheran offensiveness?   It has nothing to do with separate but equal, either.   Really not cool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay Sneekin lets' start with these two points which may explain why you think I am being rude or offensive
> RE: 2. regarding free choice
> A. Some people CAN and HAVE changed their orientation.
> Others cannot.
> So it's more like religious or political beliefs,
> where some people are naturally that way all their life and cannot change how they identify, think or believe
> and express their values.
> It's less like race, which cannot be changed and is genetically determined.
> B. Beliefs that LGBT/homosexual/transgender identity/oriention
> are either 'Natural" or "unnatural" or "can change" or "cannot"
> are BOTH FAITH BASED, none proven by science.
> 
> It is faith based if people like the NYC mayor's wife USED to identify as Lesbian
> but now does not. It is faith based if she is bisexual, if she used to be lesbian but
> "changed" to heterosexual, or if she was always heterosexual and the lesbian lifestyle was a passing phase or false/unnatural.
> 
> There are whole groups of "ex gays" and "former gays" who
> believe they were always heterosexual and the homosexual conditions were temporary,unnatural and false for them.
> 
> So to them and their experiences, homosexuality is a choice to change,
> and they don't believe in endorsing or promoting it as "natural."
> That's their faith based belief which is equally valid as
> beliefs that homosexuality IS natural for others, too.
> 
> I have found there are both going on.
> Some are natural some are unnatural.
> Some can change, some cannot.
> 
> RE 3. separate but equal
> 
> With the religions I am comparing recognizing different terms of
> services like differences in recognizing communions and baptisms
> and comparing these with differences in marriage.
> 
> If it is not offensives as 'separate but equal" to have Catholics
> practice different terms of marriage and communions than
> Protestants or Lutherans do,
> then why is it offensive to have separate but equal marriage
> practices?
> 
> Again, why can't the SECULAR civil unions be under the govt,
> and the parts people disagree on be left to personal and private choice.
> 
> I think the other two parts we're getting stuck on
> A. you don't see a problem with using the term marriage to mean the civil union
> secular civil marriage, but I do see people of different beliefs having a problem
> with this, so I am saying to be fair and accommodate them the same way
> crosses are removed off public buildings to accommodate atheists
> who believe it violates "separation of church and state."
> In this case, people argue federal recognition of "right to marriage"
> violates "separation of federal govt from states rights"
> 
> B. also you have a fear that separating benefits by party,
> or some other means to prevent imposing beliefs about marriage
> through govt,
> 1. either will cost too much
> 2. can't be done
> 3. or is offensive as separate but equal similar to racial segregation
> 
> I'm saying it's natural to separate practices by religious denomination
> which has been going on. So I see this as a solution not only to the
> conflicts over marriage laws, but also health care, death penalty,
> social benefits funding, and other areas where people don't want
> to fund each other's beliefs but want to invest in their own.
> 
> So why not separate it by party the same way religions have
> developed their own programs and don't expect govt to force
> their policies on the public and make everyone fund it under that?
> 
> It seems natural to me, not offensive at all but
> LIBERATION not to have to fight for what you believe against other people's beliefs
> and
> EMPOWERING to reserve and manage your own resources
> and not depend on federal govt or other people agreeing with your beliefs
> to be able to defend and practice them by funding them yourself.
> 
> I see this as positive while you see it as negative and rude.
> Sorry I'm trying to be fair and protect all beliefs from imposing
> on each other, whether religious or political, so everyone is
> represented and included equally.
Click to expand...

No, the facts are there.  People have refused to have sex with same sex, or people in prison have had same sex relations, that is simply NOT changing their sexual orientation.  Psychologists and Psychiatrists have proven it.  You are wrong on changing orientations.
It's not faith based, and in studies of twins, it's been proven that there are differences in brain patterns.  You are wrong on it being faith based.
Look up the definition of bisexual.  If I was bisexual, and never had sex with a same sex partner, it wouldn't make me straight, and if I had sex with a male then it wouldn't make me gay.  You are discredited.  No one has EVER changed their orientation.  They've only repressed it, and 99 percent of those get caught with their trousers down.   And counting experimentation with SSM or straight sex while a youth is discredited as to identifying their gender preference - talk to the APA's.
Separate but equal - religion is a pathetic excuse.  Try reading up on it - you embarrass yourself when you use that as an example, because it's apples and a rock you are comparing.  Can't eat them both.
Why are you so hell bent on changing civil marriage to another name?  Laws are written.  It's over. Move on. You are wrong, admit it. 
You have yet to address the issue of SSM in church, which would be a marriage, and my daughter in front of a JP, which you claim would be civil unions, and she would not be entitled to 1138 benefits. That is the most asinine statement you made to date - separate, and not equal, unless one pays thousands of dollars. WRONG.  Courts ruled on it, you are still WRONG.  Everything you say (death benefits et al) are not under civil unions, and would require millions or billions of dollars  to legislate - and you haven't addressed what happens when we have the same 13 hold out states. So no, we are leaving things as is.  
You go through the expenses - do the math. Google the 1138 benefits, contact an attorney, work up a price list, and then come back and tell us.  Not changing.  Realize that the SCOTUS didn't legalize gay marriage.  They upheld the fact that it's illegal to deny someone a constitutional right.   The states have their own marriage laws.   Just one  sentence, that it was between opposite sex people, violated the US constitution.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions.  The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution.   This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you.  Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers.  I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.
> 
> I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes).  You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution.  All men are created equal, not just old white men.
> 
> Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean_“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”. _
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
> 1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
> 2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority
> 
> The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.
> 
> Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief.  Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.
> 
> Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
> 
> Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, Emily, but it's not about BELIEFS.   You've been asked this before, and I don't remember your answer, so I'll ask again.  Hypothetically, let's say your faith or your intellect or your policies are against SSM.   The Government struck down (did not change the law, they struck down a law that violated the constitution, several amendments).   How is this asking you to change your beliefs?   Are you required to marry a woman?  No.  Is your church, group, intellect etc ordered by the government to change?  Absolutely not.  You are completely off base here.  It never violated your religious freedom.  You are still able to hate it or like it.   If it's against your religion, it's STILL against your religion, and you will note, the government itself says it cannot demand your religion change it's beliefs.
> 
> Your nonsense about prayers is different - praying out loud violates my rights if I'm not of the faith professed in the prayers - it violates MY freedom of religion.  Bring peace?  Seriously?  Try just reading what I said, and studying the matter.   You want to violate my rights, and that's acceptable.  I don't want to violate your rights, and that is unacceptable to you.  My suggestion?  Hire an attorney at this point, maybe at 200 an hour when the money actually changes hand will it sink in for you.
Click to expand...

Dear Sneekin
1. I have stated consistently that the bans excluding gay marriage are equally unconstitutional *for the same reasons* and I agree that Doma and other faith based and biased laws DO need to be struck down
2. By that same standard, neither can govt pass laws that introduce Other Biases on marriage equally faith based, and relative to people's values and beliefs
3. I pointed out that Atheists are not "forced" to be or change to other beliefs to sue to Remove Crosses from public buildings. Where in the First Amendment does it require someone to be "forced" 
It's by principle alone, on the left this principle is called separation of church and state, on the right it's called separation of federal jurisdiction from states rights
4. Yes it's about Political Beliefs.

The belief about LGBT orientation/identity/relations are NOT proven scientifically but remain FAITH based. It's a Spiritual belief if this is natural or unnatural, if it's a choice of behavior that can change or NOT a choice.

The Belief that marriage is a Constitutional right or a practice under free exercise of religion that belongs to people or states is a Political Belief.

While I agree with you that you and anyone has the right to your belief it is a civil natural right for gay couples equally, not everyone shares this belief. Since it is faith based, it's only fair not to impose it by govt against beliefs of others.

So Sneekin and also Faun 
I propose to you to pass a Constitutional Amendment on recognizing Political Beliefs such as right to marriage that is faith based, so it is Constitutional and passed by consent of people and States; and in order to make it fair where people of all political beliefs support its passage, include ALL political beliefs such as the right to life protected at conception which is also faith based.

Then write this Amendment that allows free choice to recognize and fund political beliefs separately by party so it does not impose on taxpayers of other beliefs. That would be fair to people of all beliefs.

5. Lastly I'm sorry you don't get that your belief in marriage as a right is a belief. Neither do Christians who believe right to life is natural from conception.

There are many non-Christians and even gay people and gay couples who do NOT believe in gay marriage through govt!

So this matter of preference of belief is spiritual and or political, it's a free choice, it's not about discriminating against a class of people because even that is faith based, not proven, and a choice to believe it's a born trait or why or how and whether it can change.

I believe it is spiritual, so beliefs are protected individually and can't be mandated by govt.

I believe we can form a consensus on law that respects free choice ie is not mandated through govt without consent of the public

The same way you Obama and others choose to recognize and support gay marriage, it should remain a free choice. No law forced you or Obama, you chose freely. So please recognize the same right of ALL Americans to choose freely. 

PS as for cost of lawyers
This is also in violation of my Constitutional beliefs in due process and the right to petition for redress of grievances. Why should mistakes made in passing unconstitutional laws such as DOMA and ACA be charged to the contesters to correct the problem? The cost and burden should be on the proponents.

I have proposed to sue members and leaders of the Democratic Party to cover the legal costs as part of the damage.

I could not find a lawyer wiling to take this on before because the work exceeds the ability to bankroll it on comtigency. But Sneekin that is part of the tactics of legal abuse and monopoly. If lawyers control the cost and the game, no laws can be challenged without resources.

So these are not inalienable rights, but depending on political lobbying and or money.

Now however, there may be enough support to demand Democrats responsible for passing biased faith based laws and rulings pay the costs of correcting these to be Constitutional instead of imposing that cost on people who argued it wasn't Constitutional to begin with.

One person suggested having a vote in Congress on whether a bill is Constitutional or not Before proposing and voting on it through the House and Senate, so we agree up front does this require an Amendment to expand and authorize federal government to make such a law. That would save time and money fighting over states rights and religious freedom or bias in laws.

Sorry if you don't see this as compelling interest. But I see the bigger pattern of political beliefs that should be managed by conflict resolution and consensus on laws that reflects the will and consent of all people regardless of creed and which side they're on

I believe that is natural law, Constitutional duty and Government Ethics. See www.ethics-commission.net


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Emily, but it's not about BELIEFS.   You've been asked this before, and I don't remember your answer, so I'll ask again.  Hypothetically, let's say your faith or your intellect or your policies are against SSM.   The Government struck down (did not change the law, they struck down a law that violated the constitution, several amendments).   How is this asking you to change your beliefs?   Are you required to marry a woman?  No.  Is your church, group, intellect etc ordered by the government to change?  Absolutely not.  You are completely off base here.  It never violated your religious freedom.  You are still able to hate it or like it.   If it's against your religion, it's STILL against your religion, and you will note, the government itself says it cannot demand your religion change it's beliefs.
> 
> Your nonsense about prayers is different - praying out loud violates my rights if I'm not of the faith professed in the prayers - it violates MY freedom of religion.  Bring peace?  Seriously?  Try just reading what I said, and studying the matter.   You want to violate my rights, and that's acceptable.  I don't want to violate your rights, and that is unacceptable to you.  My suggestion?  Hire an attorney at this point, maybe at 200 an hour when the money actually changes hand will it sink in for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 1. I have stated consistently that the bans excluding gay marriage are equally unconstitutional *for the same reasons* and I agree that Doma and other faith based and biased laws DO need to be struck down
> 2. By that same standard, neither can govt pass laws that introduce Other Biases on marriage equally faith based, and relative to people's values and beliefs
> 3. I pointed out that Atheists are not "forced" to be or change to other beliefs to sue to Remove Crosses from public buildings. Where in the First Amendment does it require someone to be "forced" before they defend their freedom NOT to have govt establish a belief they don't share?
> 4. So I'm asking to be Consistent about the Principle of separating beliefs from govt.
> 
> If Christians are expected not to impose their beliefs about prayer and practice and expression in public institutions, it's only fair to treat LGBT beliefs expression and practice the same way.
> 
> Sneekin I'm also for supporting ALL beliefs to be allowed in public institutions if gay marriage is going to be recognized.
> 
> Why don't you and Faun treat prayer and marriage as equal free exercise of one's beliefs?
> 
> If it's because marriage involves social and financial benefits through govt, why can't that be done through civil contracts and unions for everyone? Why can't marriage be kept in private as a personal choice, and keep civil unions "for everyone" through the state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1, DOMA was struck down several years ago, Emily.  2.  The govt ruled that several states had ILLEGAL LAWS on the books that banned SSM.  That is not introducing bias.  Using your logic, I guess I'll go to the corner and buy me a slave?.  3. No one is forced to have a belief.  Please produce evidence that any Christian is required to perform, attend, endorse or agree with SSM. They most certainly aren't, and if you'd take the few minutes it would require for you to read Obergefell, you would understand that your concerns were SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED.  4.  There already is a separation of church and state.  You are really trying to see issues that don't exist, and you fail to grasp some basic concepts.   Christians CAN'T impose their prayer, practice and expressions in public places, it violates the first amendment.   LGBT is saying that they have the same rights as Christians to be married, and that state laws in some states illegally banned them.  SCOTUS invalidated those laws.   You keep babbling about all beliefs need to be exercised the same.  That's all LGBT wish to do.  If Christians can marry, so can they.   Prayer is not a civil right. Marriage is.   Civil Unions instead of marriage for gays is PATENTLY illegal, as you've been told before, because you are claiming separate but equal.
> 
> Since some states are eliminating civil unions, why would we rewrite laws to pacify a few people?  Over 68 percent agree with SSM in the US.   As marriage.  Why should someone who's LGBT have to keep their marriage silent, when a Christian or straight does not?  That too would be separate laws based on sexual orientation. Why can't you grasp the fact that a religious marriage is called Holy Matrimony, and Marriage is a civil term that's been used for over 10,000 years, prior to christianity, and referred to both SSM and straight marriages?  Hmmm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 1. Are you even reading my messages? I already said repeatedly I agree to strike down Doma and other bans as unconstitutional. Why are you arguing about this again, no matter how many times I explain I agree with you the government is right to strike those down!
> 
> 2. The marriage laws were always in violation of separation of church and state. But people didn't challenge them until now. So now they have to be changed.
> 
> If states struck down civil unions and can't agree then maybe we should remove all social benefits and divide these by party.
> 
> It's like religion. If Muslims and Hindus or if catholics and protestants agree on laws, they can pass them if everyone consents. .but if not then agree to separate beliefs in private and only keep the common laws in public that don't conflict with anyone's beliefs.
> 
> 3. How is it you want to blame the cost on one side? If only 4% of the population is pushing the change, and that's considered justified, why not accept the cost of the changes?
> 
> If 100% of the people can all practice their own way by reducing states to just civil unions and keeping benefits decided by individuals or parties
> A. Isn't that equal protection of both sides from each other
> B. Won't it reduce costs by stopping lawsuits and legislative battles by investing in separate programs
> 
> 4. I hope you understand I do support gay marriage but not by imposing it through govt. If it's better to separate programs by party that's more cost effective and equally inclusive to let members of each party fund their own benefits programs and get tax credit and experience for self govt.
> 
> *NOT trying to be "rude" at all, but the opposite, trying to "bend over backwards" to include ALL beliefs equally, both for and against gay marriage.
> 
> the money saved by separating beliefs by party would affect and resolve other issues as well, from the death penalty to abortion issues. So the cost benefit would be comprehensive, in investing resources in local solutions and quit fighting politically and overburdening courts and govt with issues that can be resolved by separating them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, I've read them, and I'm still shaking my head.  Marriage laws did not violate the first amendment separation.   They violated primarily the 14th amendment.
> 
> Read, read, read.  Read why they are eliminating civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. NO NEED FOR THEM AT ALL.
> 
> Leave religion out of this.  No one but you has continually blathered on about religious marriages. The rest of us are talking about CIVIL MARRIAGE ONLY.
> 
> Using your math, 95 percent (saying that 5 percent are LGBT)  wants different terms.   Then of course they would pay for it....except that it's BLATANTLY ILLEGAL.  Read up on it!  Contact an attorney, because you fail to grasp that point of law.  There's no legislative fights.  That's flat out lying.   Marriage is on the books in all 50 states.  Why would I want to pay billions of dollars changing the laws from Marriage to Civil Unions?  Don't you grasp that after that church "marriage", the couple would still then have to get a "civil union", or their children, spouses, etc have NO RIGHTS?  You aren't bending over backwards.  You are not reading what I'm writing, and you aren't grasping points of law.  Money wouldn't be saved, it would cost BILLIONS more.  I'd rather spend billions on something else - so would all the other tax payers.  Please share with me what state courts are fighting SSM?   Obergegell overturned it, now just a few old white men that will not get re-elected are refusing to marry anyone whatsoever (not just SSM, but ALL people).
> 
> Sorry, all people deserve the same rights.  You wish to have different rights based on sexual orientation.  Doesn't work that way.  You wish to have different rights based on whether you get married in a church v a court house.  Doesn't work that way.  I suggest you read this paragraph for the next hour until it becomes clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay so we agree we are TALKING about civil marriage only.
> So I am saying just use the term civil union and this would
> keep religion out of it.
Click to expand...

Civil marriage (only) already has religion out of it - you are the only one trying to cram it in.   If it's religious, it's Matrimony.Holy Matrimony. Read a book.  Civil union is NOT the same, never was.  Would require millions or billions just to make YOU and a handful of fundamentalist Christians happy - and not all fundies are against it either.   Move on, find a new cause, this one is ruled on.  Why not call it free flying frog jumping, hog rassling, or any other nonsensical name.   You still failed to grasp the legal concept of separate but equal, and why it is illegal.  Opened your white only lunch counter?   Put up those "no coloreds allowed" signs?  That is separate but equal.  That is patently illegal, be it white only, black only, muslim only, LGBT only, Straight only, ages 25-30 only, etc. ILLEGAL....


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. LGBT is not a free choice.  Why do you claim it is?  You can't just change it, that's been proven literally thousands if not millions of times.  ex-gays become people that are still gay, not having sex, or sneaking around having same sex behind the back of their opposite sex partner.  Seen it happen too many times.
> 3.  What's wrong with "colored only" drinking fountains, entrances, restaurants, etc?  Did you really ask?   Different religious beliefs and political parties do not meet the criteria for separate but equal.  Add that to your list of questions to ask an attorney.
> Who are you asking about Catholic v Lutheran offensiveness?   It has nothing to do with separate but equal, either.   Really not cool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay Sneekin lets' start with these two points which may explain why you think I am being rude or offensive
> RE: 2. regarding free choice
> A. Some people CAN and HAVE changed their orientation.
> Others cannot.
> So it's more like religious or political beliefs,
> where some people are naturally that way all their life and cannot change how they identify, think or believe
> and express their values.
> It's less like race, which cannot be changed and is genetically determined.
> B. Beliefs that LGBT/homosexual/transgender identity/oriention
> are either 'Natural" or "unnatural" or "can change" or "cannot"
> are BOTH FAITH BASED, none proven by science.
> 
> It is faith based if people like the NYC mayor's wife USED to identify as Lesbian
> but now does not. It is faith based if she is bisexual, if she used to be lesbian but
> "changed" to heterosexual, or if she was always heterosexual and the lesbian lifestyle was a passing phase or false/unnatural.
> 
> There are whole groups of "ex gays" and "former gays" who
> believe they were always heterosexual and the homosexual conditions were temporary,unnatural and false for them.
> 
> So to them and their experiences, homosexuality is a choice to change,
> and they don't believe in endorsing or promoting it as "natural."
> That's their faith based belief which is equally valid as
> beliefs that homosexuality IS natural for others, too.
> 
> I have found there are both going on.
> Some are natural some are unnatural.
> Some can change, some cannot.
> 
> RE 3. separate but equal
> 
> With the religions I am comparing recognizing different terms of
> services like differences in recognizing communions and baptisms
> and comparing these with differences in marriage.
> 
> If it is not offensives as 'separate but equal" to have Catholics
> practice different terms of marriage and communions than
> Protestants or Lutherans do,
> then why is it offensive to have separate but equal marriage
> practices?
> 
> Again, why can't the SECULAR civil unions be under the govt,
> and the parts people disagree on be left to personal and private choice.
> 
> I think the other two parts we're getting stuck on
> A. you don't see a problem with using the term marriage to mean the civil union
> secular civil marriage, but I do see people of different beliefs having a problem
> with this, so I am saying to be fair and accommodate them the same way
> crosses are removed off public buildings to accommodate atheists
> who believe it violates "separation of church and state."
> In this case, people argue federal recognition of "right to marriage"
> violates "separation of federal govt from states rights"
> 
> B. also you have a fear that separating benefits by party,
> or some other means to prevent imposing beliefs about marriage
> through govt,
> 1. either will cost too much
> 2. can't be done
> 3. or is offensive as separate but equal similar to racial segregation
> 
> I'm saying it's natural to separate practices by religious denomination
> which has been going on. So I see this as a solution not only to the
> conflicts over marriage laws, but also health care, death penalty,
> social benefits funding, and other areas where people don't want
> to fund each other's beliefs but want to invest in their own.
> 
> So why not separate it by party the same way religions have
> developed their own programs and don't expect govt to force
> their policies on the public and make everyone fund it under that?
> 
> It seems natural to me, not offensive at all but
> LIBERATION not to have to fight for what you believe against other people's beliefs
> and
> EMPOWERING to reserve and manage your own resources
> and not depend on federal govt or other people agreeing with your beliefs
> to be able to defend and practice them by funding them yourself.
> 
> I see this as positive while you see it as negative and rude.
> Sorry I'm trying to be fair and protect all beliefs from imposing
> on each other, whether religious or political, so everyone is
> represented and included equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the facts are there.  People have refused to have sex with same sex, or people in prison have had same sex relations, that is simply NOT changing their sexual orientation.  Psychologists and Psychiatrists have proven it.  You are wrong on changing orientations.
> It's not faith based, and in studies of twins, it's been proven that there are differences in brain patterns.  You are wrong on it being faith based.
> Look up the definition of bisexual.  If I was bisexual, and never had sex with a same sex partner, it wouldn't make me straight, and if I had sex with a male then it wouldn't make me gay.  You are discredited.  No one has EVER changed their orientation.  They've only repressed it, and 99 percent of those get caught with their trousers down.   And counting experimentation with SSM or straight sex while a youth is discredited as to identifying their gender preference - talk to the APA's.
> Separate but equal - religion is a pathetic excuse.  Try reading up on it - you embarrass yourself when you use that as an example, because it's apples and a rock you are comparing.  Can't eat them both.
> Why are you so hell bent on changing civil marriage to another name?  Laws are written.  It's over. Move on. You are wrong, admit it.
> You have yet to address the issue of SSM in church, which would be a marriage, and my daughter in front of a JP, which you claim would be civil unions, and she would not be entitled to 1138 benefits. That is the most asinine statement you made to date - separate, and not equal, unless one pays thousands of dollars. WRONG.  Courts ruled on it, you are still WRONG.  Everything you say (death benefits et al) are not under civil unions, and would require millions or billions of dollars  to legislate - and you haven't addressed what happens when we have the same 13 hold out states. So no, we are leaving things as is.
> You go through the expenses - do the math. Google the 1138 benefits, contact an attorney, work up a price list, and then come back and tell us.  Not changing.  Realize that the SCOTUS didn't legalize gay marriage.  They upheld the fact that it's illegal to deny someone a constitutional right.   The states have their own marriage laws.   Just one  sentence, that it was between opposite sex people, violated the US constitution.
Click to expand...

Dear Sneekin
1. I understand that there are differences in the brain such as the size of certain parts that are bigger in female brains and smaller in males.
However there are people who have either come out as homosexual or come out as heterosexual after going through spiritual healing.
I'm totally in support of research if you want to prove that ALL people coming out straight have the default brain patterns of straight people so they have not changed but restored their natural born default status.
I agree if this can be proven scientifically then it can be shown it is a given condition and not a choice of behavior.
It would also prove the cases that have changed orientation instead of excluding those politically.
2. Christians should also welcome this proposal to prove spiritual healing works naturally.

The same spiritual healing would also heal the conflicts dividing people on this issue and others, because it is based on forgiveness and healing relations between people, in addition to healing individual mind body and spirit.

Congratulations  Sneekin You've found another point we agree on. Yes I totally agree that consensus can be reached by research to prove what's going on


Good Job on this. Let's do it!

This research Will take the faith based issues out of the equation and correct the problems. It will also resolve political conflicts and bring consensus on laws. So yes I agree to full research on this that will include what both sides have been arguing. Thank you!!

We have a WINNER!!


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
> 1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
> 2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority
> 
> The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.
> 
> Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief.  Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.
> 
> Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .
> 
> 
> 
> Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
> 
> Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, Emily, but it's not about BELIEFS.   You've been asked this before, and I don't remember your answer, so I'll ask again.  Hypothetically, let's say your faith or your intellect or your policies are against SSM.   The Government struck down (did not change the law, they struck down a law that violated the constitution, several amendments).   How is this asking you to change your beliefs?   Are you required to marry a woman?  No.  Is your church, group, intellect etc ordered by the government to change?  Absolutely not.  You are completely off base here.  It never violated your religious freedom.  You are still able to hate it or like it.   If it's against your religion, it's STILL against your religion, and you will note, the government itself says it cannot demand your religion change it's beliefs.
> 
> Your nonsense about prayers is different - praying out loud violates my rights if I'm not of the faith professed in the prayers - it violates MY freedom of religion.  Bring peace?  Seriously?  Try just reading what I said, and studying the matter.   You want to violate my rights, and that's acceptable.  I don't want to violate your rights, and that is unacceptable to you.  My suggestion?  Hire an attorney at this point, maybe at 200 an hour when the money actually changes hand will it sink in for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 1. I have stated consistently that the bans excluding gay marriage are equally unconstitutional *for the same reasons* and I agree that Doma and other faith based and biased laws DO need to be struck down
> 2. By that same standard, neither can govt pass laws that introduce Other Biases on marriage equally faith based, and relative to people's values and beliefs
> 3. I pointed out that Atheists are not "forced" to be or change to other beliefs to sue to Remove Crosses from public buildings. Where in the First Amendment does it require someone to be "forced"
> It's by principle alone, on the left this principle is called separation of church and state, on the right it's called separation of federal jurisdiction from states rights
> 4. Yes it's about Political Beliefs.
> 
> The belief about LGBT orientation/identity/relations are NOT proven scientifically but remain FAITH based. It's a Spiritual belief if this is natural or unnatural, if it's a choice of behavior that can change or NOT a choice.
> 
> The Belief that marriage is a Constitutional right or a practice under free exercise of religion that belongs to people or states is a Political Belief.
> 
> While I agree with you that you and anyone has the right to your belief it is a civil natural right for gay couples equally, not everyone shares this belief. Since it is faith based, it's only fair not to impose it by govt against beliefs of others.
> 
> So Sneekin and also Faun
> I propose to you to pass a Constitutional Amendment on recognizing Political Beliefs such as right to marriage that is faith based, so it is Constitutional and passed by consent of people and States; and in order to make it fair where people of all political beliefs support its passage, include ALL political beliefs such as the right to life protected at conception which is also faith based.
> 
> Then write this Amendment that allows free choice to recognize and fund political beliefs separately by party so it does not impose on taxpayers of other beliefs. That would be fair to people of all beliefs.
> 
> 5. Lastly I'm sorry you don't get that your belief in marriage as a right is a belief. Neither do Christians who believe right to life is natural from conception.
> 
> There are many non-Christians and even gay people and gay couples who do NOT believe in gay marriage through govt!
> 
> So this matter of preference of belief is spiritual and or political, it's a free choice, it's not about discriminating against a class of people because even that is faith based, not proven, and a choice to believe it's a born trait or why or how and whether it can change.
> 
> I believe it is spiritual, so beliefs are protected individually and can't be mandated by govt.
> 
> I believe we can form a consensus on law that respects free choice ie is not mandated through govt without consent of the public
> 
> The same way you Obama and others choose to recognize and support gay marriage, it should remain a free choice. No law forced you or Obama, you chose freely. So please recognize the same right of ALL Americans to choose freely.
> 
> PS as for cost of lawyers
> This is also in violation of my Constitutional beliefs in due process and the right to petition for redress of grievances. Why should mistakes made in passing unconstitutional laws such as DOMA and ACA be charged to the contesters to correct the problem? The cost and burden should be on the proponents.
> 
> I have proposed to sue members and leaders of the Democratic Party to cover the legal costs as part of the damage.
> 
> I could not find a lawyer wiling to take this on before because the work exceeds the ability to bankroll it on comtigency. But Sneekin that is part of the tactics of legal abuse and monopoly. If lawyers control the cost and the game, no laws can be challenged without resources.
> 
> So these are not inalienable rights, but depending on political lobbying and or money.
> 
> Now however, there may be enough support to demand Democrats responsible for passing biased faith based laws and rulings pay the costs of correcting these to be Constitutional instead of imposing that cost on people who argued it wasn't Constitutional to begin with.
> 
> One person suggested having a vote in Congress on whether a bill is Constitutional or not Before proposing and voting on it through the House and Senate, so we agree up front does this require an Amendment to expand and authorize federal government to make such a law. That would save time and money fighting over states rights and religious freedom or bias in laws.
> 
> Sorry if you don't see this as compelling interest. But I see the bigger pattern of political beliefs that should be managed by conflict resolution and consensus on laws that reflects the will and consent of all people regardless of creed and which side they're on
> 
> I believe that is natural law, Constitutional duty and Government Ethics. See www.ethics-commission.net
Click to expand...

There are a handful of gays that don't believe in it.  They, like you, fail to grasp the concept that civil marriage doesn't fall under separation of church and state.  Already been ruled on.  Read the Iowa Supreme Court decision that repeatedly upheld lower court rulings in Iowa that SSM on it's face, because it violates the 14th amendment of the US constitution, as well as other federal and State amendments.Gay marriage has technically been legal since the passage of the 14th amendment, try and grasp that concept.  It's not faith based law.  You continue to claim states can have laws on the books that grant people of separate race, sexual preference, etc different rights based on who they want to marry.  Read Loving, even watch the movie - there are enough facts in the movie for you to grasp. Your religion can refuse to marry two people.  It doesn't stop those people from going  to a different church, city hall, or a justice of the peace and getting married.  Focus, Emily, grasp the concept it's not 1st amendment.  Lawyers aren't controlling the costs, you are. You are claiming LGBT needs to have different laws written for them than heterosexuals need, and that simply is not true.  Laws are in place.   You don't seem to comprehend that at this point, it would take a constitutional amendment.  38 states are NOT going to vote for an amendment to take away a civil right - because they know it would be challenged any way, and it would never pass, just as passing an amendment to not allow interracial couples to be able to marry would not pass. THINK.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
> 
> Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, Emily, but it's not about BELIEFS.   You've been asked this before, and I don't remember your answer, so I'll ask again.  Hypothetically, let's say your faith or your intellect or your policies are against SSM.   The Government struck down (did not change the law, they struck down a law that violated the constitution, several amendments).   How is this asking you to change your beliefs?   Are you required to marry a woman?  No.  Is your church, group, intellect etc ordered by the government to change?  Absolutely not.  You are completely off base here.  It never violated your religious freedom.  You are still able to hate it or like it.   If it's against your religion, it's STILL against your religion, and you will note, the government itself says it cannot demand your religion change it's beliefs.
> 
> Your nonsense about prayers is different - praying out loud violates my rights if I'm not of the faith professed in the prayers - it violates MY freedom of religion.  Bring peace?  Seriously?  Try just reading what I said, and studying the matter.   You want to violate my rights, and that's acceptable.  I don't want to violate your rights, and that is unacceptable to you.  My suggestion?  Hire an attorney at this point, maybe at 200 an hour when the money actually changes hand will it sink in for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 1. I have stated consistently that the bans excluding gay marriage are equally unconstitutional *for the same reasons* and I agree that Doma and other faith based and biased laws DO need to be struck down
> 2. By that same standard, neither can govt pass laws that introduce Other Biases on marriage equally faith based, and relative to people's values and beliefs
> 3. I pointed out that Atheists are not "forced" to be or change to other beliefs to sue to Remove Crosses from public buildings. Where in the First Amendment does it require someone to be "forced"
> It's by principle alone, on the left this principle is called separation of church and state, on the right it's called separation of federal jurisdiction from states rights
> 4. Yes it's about Political Beliefs.
> 
> The belief about LGBT orientation/identity/relations are NOT proven scientifically but remain FAITH based. It's a Spiritual belief if this is natural or unnatural, if it's a choice of behavior that can change or NOT a choice.
> 
> The Belief that marriage is a Constitutional right or a practice under free exercise of religion that belongs to people or states is a Political Belief.
> 
> While I agree with you that you and anyone has the right to your belief it is a civil natural right for gay couples equally, not everyone shares this belief. Since it is faith based, it's only fair not to impose it by govt against beliefs of others.
> 
> So Sneekin and also Faun
> I propose to you to pass a Constitutional Amendment on recognizing Political Beliefs such as right to marriage that is faith based, so it is Constitutional and passed by consent of people and States; and in order to make it fair where people of all political beliefs support its passage, include ALL political beliefs such as the right to life protected at conception which is also faith based.
> 
> Then write this Amendment that allows free choice to recognize and fund political beliefs separately by party so it does not impose on taxpayers of other beliefs. That would be fair to people of all beliefs.
> 
> 5. Lastly I'm sorry you don't get that your belief in marriage as a right is a belief. Neither do Christians who believe right to life is natural from conception.
> 
> There are many non-Christians and even gay people and gay couples who do NOT believe in gay marriage through govt!
> 
> So this matter of preference of belief is spiritual and or political, it's a free choice, it's not about discriminating against a class of people because even that is faith based, not proven, and a choice to believe it's a born trait or why or how and whether it can change.
> 
> I believe it is spiritual, so beliefs are protected individually and can't be mandated by govt.
> 
> I believe we can form a consensus on law that respects free choice ie is not mandated through govt without consent of the public
> 
> The same way you Obama and others choose to recognize and support gay marriage, it should remain a free choice. No law forced you or Obama, you chose freely. So please recognize the same right of ALL Americans to choose freely.
> 
> PS as for cost of lawyers
> This is also in violation of my Constitutional beliefs in due process and the right to petition for redress of grievances. Why should mistakes made in passing unconstitutional laws such as DOMA and ACA be charged to the contesters to correct the problem? The cost and burden should be on the proponents.
> 
> I have proposed to sue members and leaders of the Democratic Party to cover the legal costs as part of the damage.
> 
> I could not find a lawyer wiling to take this on before because the work exceeds the ability to bankroll it on comtigency. But Sneekin that is part of the tactics of legal abuse and monopoly. If lawyers control the cost and the game, no laws can be challenged without resources.
> 
> So these are not inalienable rights, but depending on political lobbying and or money.
> 
> Now however, there may be enough support to demand Democrats responsible for passing biased faith based laws and rulings pay the costs of correcting these to be Constitutional instead of imposing that cost on people who argued it wasn't Constitutional to begin with.
> 
> One person suggested having a vote in Congress on whether a bill is Constitutional or not Before proposing and voting on it through the House and Senate, so we agree up front does this require an Amendment to expand and authorize federal government to make such a law. That would save time and money fighting over states rights and religious freedom or bias in laws.
> 
> Sorry if you don't see this as compelling interest. But I see the bigger pattern of political beliefs that should be managed by conflict resolution and consensus on laws that reflects the will and consent of all people regardless of creed and which side they're on
> 
> I believe that is natural law, Constitutional duty and Government Ethics. See www.ethics-commission.net
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a handful of gays that don't believe in it.  They, like you, fail to grasp the concept that civil marriage doesn't fall under separation of church and state.  Already been ruled on.  Read the Iowa Supreme Court decision that repeatedly upheld lower court rulings in Iowa that SSM on it's face, because it violates the 14th amendment of the US constitution, as well as other federal and State amendments.Gay marriage has technically been legal since the passage of the 14th amendment, try and grasp that concept.  It's not faith based law.  You continue to claim states can have laws on the books that grant people of separate race, sexual preference, etc different rights based on who they want to marry.  Read Loving, even watch the movie - there are enough facts in the movie for you to grasp. Your religion can refuse to marry two people.  It doesn't stop those people from going  to a different church, city hall, or a justice of the peace and getting married.  Focus, Emily, grasp the concept it's not 1st amendment.  Lawyers aren't controlling the costs, you are. You are claiming LGBT needs to have different laws written for them than heterosexuals need, and that simply is not true.  Laws are in place.   You don't seem to comprehend that at this point, it would take a constitutional amendment.  38 states are NOT going to vote for an amendment to take away a civil right - because they know it would be challenged any way, and it would never pass, just as passing an amendment to not allow interracial couples to be able to marry would not pass. THINK.
Click to expand...

Not to worry Sneekin
By proving spiritual healing works effectively to restore people's natural default status, that will solve both problems.

Once people get that spiritual healing is natural, and what is going on when people change orientation, that will solve both the faith based issue of how much is a choice spiritually and also resolve the conflicts between people over Natural rights and laws so we can reach a consensus by free choice!

Very good, I agree research to prove how orientation and spiritual healing works will solve multiple levels of conflicts and will result in consensus the right way by free choice not forced by govt.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
> 1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
> 2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority
> 
> The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.
> 
> Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief.  Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.
> 
> Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .
> 
> 
> 
> Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
> 
> Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, Emily, but it's not about BELIEFS.   You've been asked this before, and I don't remember your answer, so I'll ask again.  Hypothetically, let's say your faith or your intellect or your policies are against SSM.   The Government struck down (did not change the law, they struck down a law that violated the constitution, several amendments).   How is this asking you to change your beliefs?   Are you required to marry a woman?  No.  Is your church, group, intellect etc ordered by the government to change?  Absolutely not.  You are completely off base here.  It never violated your religious freedom.  You are still able to hate it or like it.   If it's against your religion, it's STILL against your religion, and you will note, the government itself says it cannot demand your religion change it's beliefs.
> 
> Your nonsense about prayers is different - praying out loud violates my rights if I'm not of the faith professed in the prayers - it violates MY freedom of religion.  Bring peace?  Seriously?  Try just reading what I said, and studying the matter.   You want to violate my rights, and that's acceptable.  I don't want to violate your rights, and that is unacceptable to you.  My suggestion?  Hire an attorney at this point, maybe at 200 an hour when the money actually changes hand will it sink in for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 1. I have stated consistently that the bans excluding gay marriage are equally unconstitutional *for the same reasons* and I agree that Doma and other faith based and biased laws DO need to be struck down
> 2. By that same standard, neither can govt pass laws that introduce Other Biases on marriage equally faith based, and relative to people's values and beliefs
> 3. I pointed out that Atheists are not "forced" to be or change to other beliefs to sue to Remove Crosses from public buildings. Where in the First Amendment does it require someone to be "forced"
> It's by principle alone, on the left this principle is called separation of church and state, on the right it's called separation of federal jurisdiction from states rights
> 4. Yes it's about Political Beliefs.
> 
> The belief about LGBT orientation/identity/relations are NOT proven scientifically but remain FAITH based. It's a Spiritual belief if this is natural or unnatural, if it's a choice of behavior that can change or NOT a choice.
> 
> The Belief that marriage is a Constitutional right or a practice under free exercise of religion that belongs to people or states is a Political Belief.
> 
> While I agree with you that you and anyone has the right to your belief it is a civil natural right for gay couples equally, not everyone shares this belief. Since it is faith based, it's only fair not to impose it by govt against beliefs of others.
> 
> So Sneekin and also Faun
> I propose to you to pass a Constitutional Amendment on recognizing Political Beliefs such as right to marriage that is faith based, so it is Constitutional and passed by consent of people and States; and in order to make it fair where people of all political beliefs support its passage, include ALL political beliefs such as the right to life protected at conception which is also faith based.
> 
> Then write this Amendment that allows free choice to recognize and fund political beliefs separately by party so it does not impose on taxpayers of other beliefs. That would be fair to people of all beliefs.
> 
> 5. Lastly I'm sorry you don't get that your belief in marriage as a right is a belief. Neither do Christians who believe right to life is natural from conception.
> 
> There are many non-Christians and even gay people and gay couples who do NOT believe in gay marriage through govt!
> 
> So this matter of preference of belief is spiritual and or political, it's a free choice, it's not about discriminating against a class of people because even that is faith based, not proven, and a choice to believe it's a born trait or why or how and whether it can change.
> 
> I believe it is spiritual, so beliefs are protected individually and can't be mandated by govt.
> 
> I believe we can form a consensus on law that respects free choice ie is not mandated through govt without consent of the public
> 
> The same way you Obama and others choose to recognize and support gay marriage, it should remain a free choice. No law forced you or Obama, you chose freely. So please recognize the same right of ALL Americans to choose freely.
> 
> PS as for cost of lawyers
> This is also in violation of my Constitutional beliefs in due process and the right to petition for redress of grievances. Why should mistakes made in passing unconstitutional laws such as DOMA and ACA be charged to the contesters to correct the problem? The cost and burden should be on the proponents.
> 
> I have proposed to sue members and leaders of the Democratic Party to cover the legal costs as part of the damage.
> 
> I could not find a lawyer wiling to take this on before because the work exceeds the ability to bankroll it on comtigency. But Sneekin that is part of the tactics of legal abuse and monopoly. If lawyers control the cost and the game, no laws can be challenged without resources.
> 
> So these are not inalienable rights, but depending on political lobbying and or money.
> 
> Now however, there may be enough support to demand Democrats responsible for passing biased faith based laws and rulings pay the costs of correcting these to be Constitutional instead of imposing that cost on people who argued it wasn't Constitutional to begin with.
> 
> One person suggested having a vote in Congress on whether a bill is Constitutional or not Before proposing and voting on it through the House and Senate, so we agree up front does this require an Amendment to expand and authorize federal government to make such a law. That would save time and money fighting over states rights and religious freedom or bias in laws.
> 
> Sorry if you don't see this as compelling interest. But I see the bigger pattern of political beliefs that should be managed by conflict resolution and consensus on laws that reflects the will and consent of all people regardless of creed and which side they're on
> 
> I believe that is natural law, Constitutional duty and Government Ethics. See www.ethics-commission.net
Click to expand...

Good luck, Emily, passing an amendment claiming marriage is faith based.  I'll check back in 8 years and see how you are doing with that.  Wait - it will fail.  
My belief that marriage is a right is a fact.  Courts ruled last year - did you forget already?
You are trying to legislate religion into the constitution, and I resent that.  Your constant babble about having to vote on civil and constitutional rights is tiring.  Move on. 
To address abortion (I believe it was answered to you several times, and I refused to repeat it, but....)
You claims regarding abortion are all religious based.   Roe v Wade was decided on the same ground as Obergefell, Lawrence v Texas, etc.  RIght to privacy, and equal rights for all.  You can be pro-life (in fact, those that believe in abortion are pro-life as well), pro-abortion, or whatever.  Your church can be against it.  It still does not give anyone the right to be refused, at least under certain scenarios.  Learn the difference, read the decisions, and make sure you understand what the foundation was for the court decisions.  You've been wrong on everything I've seen.  And no, there is still not a large number of gays that are against themselves and / or friends being able to get married.   Most of the people you refer to are against the courts forcing religions to perform SSM, which would be patently ILLEGAL.  Again, you simply could have read Windsor, Obergefell, and had your eyes opened.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
> 
> Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, Emily, but it's not about BELIEFS.   You've been asked this before, and I don't remember your answer, so I'll ask again.  Hypothetically, let's say your faith or your intellect or your policies are against SSM.   The Government struck down (did not change the law, they struck down a law that violated the constitution, several amendments).   How is this asking you to change your beliefs?   Are you required to marry a woman?  No.  Is your church, group, intellect etc ordered by the government to change?  Absolutely not.  You are completely off base here.  It never violated your religious freedom.  You are still able to hate it or like it.   If it's against your religion, it's STILL against your religion, and you will note, the government itself says it cannot demand your religion change it's beliefs.
> 
> Your nonsense about prayers is different - praying out loud violates my rights if I'm not of the faith professed in the prayers - it violates MY freedom of religion.  Bring peace?  Seriously?  Try just reading what I said, and studying the matter.   You want to violate my rights, and that's acceptable.  I don't want to violate your rights, and that is unacceptable to you.  My suggestion?  Hire an attorney at this point, maybe at 200 an hour when the money actually changes hand will it sink in for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 1. I have stated consistently that the bans excluding gay marriage are equally unconstitutional *for the same reasons* and I agree that Doma and other faith based and biased laws DO need to be struck down
> 2. By that same standard, neither can govt pass laws that introduce Other Biases on marriage equally faith based, and relative to people's values and beliefs
> 3. I pointed out that Atheists are not "forced" to be or change to other beliefs to sue to Remove Crosses from public buildings. Where in the First Amendment does it require someone to be "forced"
> It's by principle alone, on the left this principle is called separation of church and state, on the right it's called separation of federal jurisdiction from states rights
> 4. Yes it's about Political Beliefs.
> 
> The belief about LGBT orientation/identity/relations are NOT proven scientifically but remain FAITH based. It's a Spiritual belief if this is natural or unnatural, if it's a choice of behavior that can change or NOT a choice.
> 
> The Belief that marriage is a Constitutional right or a practice under free exercise of religion that belongs to people or states is a Political Belief.
> 
> While I agree with you that you and anyone has the right to your belief it is a civil natural right for gay couples equally, not everyone shares this belief. Since it is faith based, it's only fair not to impose it by govt against beliefs of others.
> 
> So Sneekin and also Faun
> I propose to you to pass a Constitutional Amendment on recognizing Political Beliefs such as right to marriage that is faith based, so it is Constitutional and passed by consent of people and States; and in order to make it fair where people of all political beliefs support its passage, include ALL political beliefs such as the right to life protected at conception which is also faith based.
> 
> Then write this Amendment that allows free choice to recognize and fund political beliefs separately by party so it does not impose on taxpayers of other beliefs. That would be fair to people of all beliefs.
> 
> 5. Lastly I'm sorry you don't get that your belief in marriage as a right is a belief. Neither do Christians who believe right to life is natural from conception.
> 
> There are many non-Christians and even gay people and gay couples who do NOT believe in gay marriage through govt!
> 
> So this matter of preference of belief is spiritual and or political, it's a free choice, it's not about discriminating against a class of people because even that is faith based, not proven, and a choice to believe it's a born trait or why or how and whether it can change.
> 
> I believe it is spiritual, so beliefs are protected individually and can't be mandated by govt.
> 
> I believe we can form a consensus on law that respects free choice ie is not mandated through govt without consent of the public
> 
> The same way you Obama and others choose to recognize and support gay marriage, it should remain a free choice. No law forced you or Obama, you chose freely. So please recognize the same right of ALL Americans to choose freely.
> 
> PS as for cost of lawyers
> This is also in violation of my Constitutional beliefs in due process and the right to petition for redress of grievances. Why should mistakes made in passing unconstitutional laws such as DOMA and ACA be charged to the contesters to correct the problem? The cost and burden should be on the proponents.
> 
> I have proposed to sue members and leaders of the Democratic Party to cover the legal costs as part of the damage.
> 
> I could not find a lawyer wiling to take this on before because the work exceeds the ability to bankroll it on comtigency. But Sneekin that is part of the tactics of legal abuse and monopoly. If lawyers control the cost and the game, no laws can be challenged without resources.
> 
> So these are not inalienable rights, but depending on political lobbying and or money.
> 
> Now however, there may be enough support to demand Democrats responsible for passing biased faith based laws and rulings pay the costs of correcting these to be Constitutional instead of imposing that cost on people who argued it wasn't Constitutional to begin with.
> 
> One person suggested having a vote in Congress on whether a bill is Constitutional or not Before proposing and voting on it through the House and Senate, so we agree up front does this require an Amendment to expand and authorize federal government to make such a law. That would save time and money fighting over states rights and religious freedom or bias in laws.
> 
> Sorry if you don't see this as compelling interest. But I see the bigger pattern of political beliefs that should be managed by conflict resolution and consensus on laws that reflects the will and consent of all people regardless of creed and which side they're on
> 
> I believe that is natural law, Constitutional duty and Government Ethics. See www.ethics-commission.net
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a handful of gays that don't believe in it.  They, like you, fail to grasp the concept that civil marriage doesn't fall under separation of church and state.  Already been ruled on.  Read the Iowa Supreme Court decision that repeatedly upheld lower court rulings in Iowa that SSM on it's face, because it violates the 14th amendment of the US constitution, as well as other federal and State amendments.Gay marriage has technically been legal since the passage of the 14th amendment, try and grasp that concept.  It's not faith based law.  You continue to claim states can have laws on the books that grant people of separate race, sexual preference, etc different rights based on who they want to marry.  Read Loving, even watch the movie - there are enough facts in the movie for you to grasp. Your religion can refuse to marry two people.  It doesn't stop those people from going  to a different church, city hall, or a justice of the peace and getting married.  Focus, Emily, grasp the concept it's not 1st amendment.  Lawyers aren't controlling the costs, you are. You are claiming LGBT needs to have different laws written for them than heterosexuals need, and that simply is not true.  Laws are in place.   You don't seem to comprehend that at this point, it would take a constitutional amendment.  38 states are NOT going to vote for an amendment to take away a civil right - because they know it would be challenged any way, and it would never pass, just as passing an amendment to not allow interracial couples to be able to marry would not pass. THINK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to worry Sneekin
> By proving spiritual healing works effectively to restore people's natural default status, that will solve both problems.
> 
> Once people get that spiritual healing is natural, and what is going on when people change orientation, that will solve both the faith based issue of how much is a choice spiritually and also resolve the conflicts between people over Natural rights and laws so we can reach a consensus by free choice!
> 
> Very good, I agree research to prove how orientation and spiritual healing works will solve multiple levels of conflicts and will result in consensus the right way by free choice not forced by govt.
Click to expand...

People don't change their orientation.  They suppress it.   When confronted with choice, 99 percent stop suppression.   Try reading the medical journals.  It blows up any thoughts about "spiritual healing" changing someone's sexual orientation.   Even those practicing conversion therapy these days will tell you they don't change the orientation, they show one how to suppress their attraction and feelings.   READ.


----------



## LuckyDuck

IndependantAce said:


> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.


Uhh, the last I checked, marriage was actually about.......(drum roll).......love.
There are plenty of people who fall in love, want to live with each other and cement their bond with a marriage, yet don't want children and thus use contraception to avoid the pesky business of having to put up with kids in their lives. 
As for the Supreme Court's ruling, it was decided on the basis of "equal protection," not, separate but equal.
Gays and lesbians aren't harming you, me, or anyone else.  Their getting married does not destroy marriage, as you, me and other heterosexuals are perfectly free to marry women.
All you have to do, is go on about your life and focus on your job, family and next vacation you may be planning on.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> PS thanks Faun for trying to talk through this, reason and understand it. Especially where it doesn't affect you, if it doesn't matter to you if secular laws use the word Marriage to mean secular civil contracts, or states rights vs federal rulings don't affect you and your beliefs. They do affect others whose beliefs are violated.
> 
> To me, it's no big deal to use the term Jihadist to mean warmongering terrorists who worship Jihadist as War against the world.  But to Muslims this is co-opting their faith and terms for spiritual practice in abusive contradictory ways. So if we write public laws and statements, it is imposing on or establishing adverse beliefs to use language in ways that conflict with people of faith for which these terms mean sacred things.
> 
> I don't always get it either, when it seems secular to me too, but out of respect for those who have other beliefs I will try to include them and their limits.
> 
> So if my LGBT friends need public endorsement of certain policies to feel equally represented in laws, let's find a way to achieve that in ways that don't overreach, go too far, and end up indirectly unintentionally violating other beliefs and principles.
> 
> Similar to gun laws and prolife beliefs. Those laws need to be written and focused correctly where they don't incidentally infringe on other rights .
> 
> If you want people to respect your rights, it makes sense to respect other peoples.
> 
> If you want them to hear your objections and what you need for representation, then of course, we listen to theirs too.
> 
> Like you said, the marriage laws must account for everyone.
> 
> So why would you override the objections of others, then argue the laws should reflect everyone???
> 
> How can they reflect the public unless we include all people's consent and resolve all issues causing objection!


State sanctioned marriage in the U.S. has always been a civil contract and has always been called "marriage." We don't call marriage something else for certain folks because others find it offensive. Equal protection under the law supersedes Christians' feelings.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's like you're oblivous to what happened regarding Obergfell. Marriage laws are still written by the states. Obergfell did not write laws or create rights. Marriage is the union of two people. The race, creed, gender, or religion of them matters not in the eyes of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> Almost Faun You could promote Civil Unions as neutral contracts between people independent of social relationships.  But bringing in and using the term Marriage involves Beliefs about Marriage. You might see this as a neutral term. But it's not neutral for people with religious beliefs about Marriage. It's like using the term Shariah to mean secular laws, but this discriminates against people for which Shariah means spiritual duties and practice within their faith -- to them it's not a neutral secular term.
> 
> So that's what's going wrong.  These laws and rulings aren't staying secular as you intend and interpret. They cross lines into affecting areas of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.
> 
> Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> Everyone has the right to Prayer
> but that doesn't mean that the practice of prayers should be endorsed through govt.
> 
> Civil unions can be incorporated and cover all cases. Marriage like prayer can be practiced in private and doesn't need to be connected with govt.
> 
> All social benefits can be done through civil unions and contracts and not attempt to define or regulate terms of marriage that remain free to people to choose just like how we pray or meditate.
> 
> If we don't agree on terms of social benefits or marriage, that can be done collectively through organizations of free choice, similar to choice of religious programs and practice. It doesn't have to be done through govt which can be reserved to just the secular issues of managing contracts for legal guardianship, custody, Estates etc as civil business contracts independent of beliefs about social relationships between people spiritually which govt should not be abused to regulate or endorse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is about marriage, not prayer. One glaring difference, the state sanctions marriage but not prayer. Given the state sanctions marriage, they have to do so equally for all except for in cases where compelling interests prevail, such as certain age restrictions.
> 
> That it offends Christians is not a compelling interest. It could be if it forced Christians to marry folks of their same gender, but that is not the case.
> 
> So there is no compelling interest in this case to let gays marry the person of their choise, like straight folks can, but then not call it "marriage."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. What marriage and prayer have in common is they both fall under religious freedom. Do you not get that?
Click to expand...

Not true. Prayer is religious, state sanctioned marriage is not. Folks who desire a religious ceremony are free to do so according to the laws of their faith. There is no religious aspect to the state issuing marriage licenses so it has nothing to do with religious freedoms.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Boss and Tennyson can I please ask your help to review where I'm getting stuck with Faun.
> 
> I'm saying that where marriage involves people's beliefs it should NOT be federal govt that decides laws. At most the States could pass laws. But when I read Faun beliefs even that is not compatible with people who believe the govt should stop at civil unions and not micromanage social benefits based on beliefs about relationships.
> 
> what do you think? Are we heading for separate policies and benefits programs dividing tax representation by party? Would that allow people to choose whether to endorse
> * gay marriage and benefits or traditional marriage only
> * right to health care or free market
> * prochoice or prolife beliefs
> * gun regulations or gun rights
> * life imprisonment or death penalty
> * statism vs states rights
> 
> Would that solve more problems by allowing choice of partisan platform to pay taxes under. And only keep federal law and taxes for where all parties agree, and delegate the rest proportionally by party per state. So blue states that delegate more to federal can pay and get those benefits. While red states keep more taxes except blue party citizens can still pay taxes through blue programs and micromanage the social programs they choose to relegate collectively on a national level, while allowing red party members to opt out
> 
> Would that help where all states can get their representation and not have to have everyone agree to one way or one set of beliefs
> 
> pvsi


You're completely off base. Marriage laws are not decided by the federal government. They are decided by the states. In regard to same-sex marriage, the federal government did not write or create any laws. It protected the Constitutional rights of folks who were being denied their right to marry the person of their choice just like heterosexuals were able to do.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> That entire diatribe is misguided as same-sex marriage laws have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with equal protection under the law. If straight people have the liberty and right to marry the person they love and want to be legally married to, so can gay folks. We don't allow religious beliefs to deny people rights because religious people are offended.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no Faun
> Marriage laws should be passed by states; even after federal courts may strike down bad laws or bans as unconstitutional,  it's still up to states to revise their own laws through their legislatures.
> 
> As for equal protections, your beliefs are yours to follow.
> 
> The problem is that marriage already crosses the line between church and state. So once that is a faith based practice, then either policy, for traditional marriage, for same sex marriage, or both ALL involve beliefs that don't belong to federal government to dictate.
> 
> Fed court can strike down laws or bans as unconstitutional, but don't have authority to write laws or create rights.
> 
> That's the point people like you don't get.
> 
> You are like trying to defend govt replacing Christianity with Universal salvationism that includes more people for equal protection. Sorry but NONE of that belongs in govt unless everyone consents. Replacing it with a different policy doesn't change the fact that marriage already involves beliefs. So will the replacement policy involve beliefs. So that's what is causing the conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's like you're oblivous to what happened regarding Obergfell. Marriage laws are still written by the states. Obergfell did not write laws or create rights. Marriage is the union of two people. The race, creed, gender, or religion of them matters not in the eyes of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Almost Faun You could promote Civil Unions as neutral contracts between people independent of social relationships.  But bringing in and using the term Marriage involves Beliefs about Marriage. You might see this as a neutral term. But it's not neutral for people with religious beliefs about Marriage. It's like using the term Shariah to mean secular laws, but this discriminates against people for which Shariah means spiritual duties and practice within their faith -- to them it's not a neutral secular term.
> 
> So that's what's going wrong.  These laws and rulings aren't staying secular as you intend and interpret. They cross lines into affecting areas of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.
> 
> Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. Civil unions can be for everyone and avoid the issue of marriage beliefs not everyone shares. You are free to exercise, teach and practice your beliefs about marriage, but not to impose them through govt on people of other beliefs about marriage.
> 
> To be fair to all people of all beliefs, civil unions are universal and secular.
> 
> 2. If you want to impose further, that is like people who want prayer in schools to include Christian practice of invoking God through everyone joining in Christ Jesus name. I happen to understand GOD represents universal concepts that cover and include all people, but people do not agree on religious terms. It has to remain free choice where beliefs are involved.
> 
> Same with beliefs about marriage, not all people agree on religious terms, so out of respect for religious freedom it makes sense to stick with civil unions for the government to recognize as secular contracts and leave beliefs about marriage out of govt.
> 
> Again, if you believe otherwise, so do many Christians believe in integrating their beliefs through govt they believe are universal truth as well that includes all people.
> 
> 3. If you all agree to open the doors of govt to endorse and incorporate all manner of beliefs into laws and public institutions, then that's fair and you are including all people.
> 
> But it's discrimination to tell Christians that references to Crosses, prayers to God through Christ, and teaching creation through God all have to be Removed from public institutions while insisting that beliefs about gay marriage and homosexuality as natural must be included for tolerance even when it violates beliefs of others that these are not natural.
> 
> It's discriminating by creed, so it violates other laws.
> 
> Faun would you agree to a resolution allowing all Christian beliefs and practices to be endorsed and implemented in public policies and institutions, including Christian healing prayer and right to life for unborn and teaching creation in schools, in exchange for allowing beliefs in gate marriage?
> 
> I'm sure an agreement can be worked out if all beliefs are included equally as you are asking.
> 
> Are you willing to incorporate and include all beliefs equally as yours? Are only the beliefs you happen to agree with? Thanks Faun
> 
> Even if we cannot agree how to accommodate all beliefs equally, at least we tried.
Click to expand...

Wrong again, Emily. No one is imposing same-sex marriage upon anyone. Everyone is free to marry the person of their choice within legal restrictions, such as age restrictions and consent. No Christian who is opposed to same-sex marriage is forced to marry someone of the same sex. 

Regarding the remainder of your post about prayer ... Again, that's a different issue and has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Ps Faun the compelling interest is upholding laws consistently.
> 
> Civil unions for everyone would keep beliefs about marriage out of government and protect religious freedom of people on both sides equally.
> 
> Otherwise if one side pushes traditional marriage only or the other side imposes beliefs about marriage for everyone this violates
> * beliefs of people of the other group
> * beliefs of people who believe in states rights to decide either way
> *beliefs of Constitutionalists like me who believe both sides should get their way without imposing on the other
> *beliefs of people who believe the state should just recognize civil unions
> 
> So pushing gay marriages through govt violates beliefs of all these other people.
> 
> While sticking to just civil unions includes all of them and doesn't exclude one more than the other.
> Everyone can follow their own beliefs about marriage by recognizing civil unions, so that covers all beliefs equally while yours does not.


States are already free to abandon civil marriages for all within their respective borders. If states want to offer only civil unions for everyone, there would be no legal issue with that. But that was not the case prior to Obergefell. At that time, states decided marriage would be available; but some states decided only certain people would have the right to marry the person of their choice.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's like you're oblivous to what happened regarding Obergfell. Marriage laws are still written by the states. Obergfell did not write laws or create rights. Marriage is the union of two people. The race, creed, gender, or religion of them matters not in the eyes of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> Almost Faun You could promote Civil Unions as neutral contracts between people independent of social relationships.  But bringing in and using the term Marriage involves Beliefs about Marriage. You might see this as a neutral term. But it's not neutral for people with religious beliefs about Marriage. It's like using the term Shariah to mean secular laws, but this discriminates against people for which Shariah means spiritual duties and practice within their faith -- to them it's not a neutral secular term.
> 
> So that's what's going wrong.  These laws and rulings aren't staying secular as you intend and interpret. They cross lines into affecting areas of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.
> 
> Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. Civil unions can be for everyone and avoid the issue of marriage beliefs not everyone shares. You are free to exercise, teach and practice your beliefs about marriage, but not to impose them through govt on people of other beliefs about marriage.
> 
> To be fair to all people of all beliefs, civil unions are universal and secular.
> 
> 2. If you want to impose further, that is like people who want prayer in schools to include Christian practice of invoking God through everyone joining in Christ Jesus name. I happen to understand GOD represents universal concepts that cover and include all people, but people do not agree on religious terms. It has to remain free choice where beliefs are involved.
> 
> Same with beliefs about marriage, not all people agree on religious terms, so out of respect for religious freedom it makes sense to stick with civil unions for the government to recognize as secular contracts and leave beliefs about marriage out of govt.
> 
> Again, if you believe otherwise, so do many Christians believe in integrating their beliefs through govt they believe are universal truth as well that includes all people.
> 
> 3. If you all agree to open the doors of govt to endorse and incorporate all manner of beliefs into laws and public institutions, then that's fair and you are including all people.
> 
> But it's discrimination to tell Christians that references to Crosses, prayers to God through Christ, and teaching creation through God all have to be Removed from public institutions while insisting that beliefs about gay marriage and homosexuality as natural must be included for tolerance even when it violates beliefs of others that these are not natural.
> 
> It's discriminating by creed, so it violates other laws.
> 
> Faun would you agree to a resolution allowing all Christian beliefs and practices to be endorsed and implemented in public policies and institutions, including Christian healing prayer and right to life for unborn and teaching creation in schools, in exchange for allowing beliefs in gate marriage?
> 
> I'm sure an agreement can be worked out if all beliefs are included equally as you are asking.
> 
> Are you willing to incorporate and include all beliefs equally as yours? Are only the beliefs you happen to agree with? Thanks Faun
> 
> Even if we cannot agree how to accommodate all beliefs equally, at least we tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The courts already ruled on civil unions versus marriage.  Marriage is a civil contract between 2 persons.   civil unions are being eliminated in some states already.  You are using the concept of separate but equal, which, in and of itself is also grossly illegal.   Do you also agree we need different doors, restaurants, drinking fountains for minorities?  Because that's what you say when you demand  SSM must be called civil unions.  That's separate but equal, illegal, and already ruled upon by the SCOTUS YEARS AGO, Emily!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> If you say marriage is different from prayer, how can you say it is like public accommodations?
> 
> And orientation is not like race and racial segregation.
> 
> 1. Race is determined even before birth by the genetics of the two parents even before conception because their DNA is set. Orientation is spiritual either from birth by conditions in the womb, or environment such as homosexuality resulting from sexual or other abuse, or spiritual karma. Peope have changed their orientation similar to changing ones identity of faith, which can't be said of race which is fixed genetically.
> 
> 2. Why are you taking it as insulting to treat LGBT beliefs as other beliefs or creeds that are someone s free choice and right to exercise freely without discrimination?
> 
> What is wrong with separate but equal political parties or religions?
> Is it offensive to have Catholics practice closed communion and eucharist while Lutherans have open ones anyone can participate in?
Click to expand...

Orientation is irrelevant. Marriage is a fundamental right where people have the right to marry the person of their choice within certain legal restrictions which are uniformly imposed on everyone equally.


----------



## Sneekin

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ps Faun the compelling interest is upholding laws consistently.
> 
> Civil unions for everyone would keep beliefs about marriage out of government and protect religious freedom of people on both sides equally.
> 
> Otherwise if one side pushes traditional marriage only or the other side imposes beliefs about marriage for everyone this violates
> * beliefs of people of the other group
> * beliefs of people who believe in states rights to decide either way
> *beliefs of Constitutionalists like me who believe both sides should get their way without imposing on the other
> *beliefs of people who believe the state should just recognize civil unions
> 
> So pushing gay marriages through govt violates beliefs of all these other people.
> 
> While sticking to just civil unions includes all of them and doesn't exclude one more than the other.
> Everyone can follow their own beliefs about marriage by recognizing civil unions, so that covers all beliefs equally while yours does not.
> 
> 
> 
> States are already free to abandon civil marriages for all within their respective borders. If states want to offer only civil unions for everyone, there would be no legal issue with that. But that was not the case prior to Obergefell. At that time, states decided marriage would be available; but some states decided only certain people would have the right to marry the person of their choice.
Click to expand...

Emily / Faun, let me raise the following problems/points/issues, Emily, you are hard pressed to be able to answer this one, as marriage is currently at the state level, recognized interstate, and civil unions are not.....

Again, since civil unions are being proposed / if included for only gays or those married outside of church, then that would be separate but equal, which in and of itself is patently illegal.   If just dropping marriage, then there is a huge cost involved, as any state that would have civil unions already on the books would literally have to rewrite each and every law, to mirror the existing marriage laws.  This would then have to be voted on, at great cost.  One would also have to check the legality of it, as there are numerous laws at the federal level that hinge on marriage, and not civil unions.  Does that mean if your state is the only state wishing to eliminate marriage and replace it, your state would fit the bill?   Your state would still have to deal with marriage in two aspects anyway - each state recognizes the other 49 states in regards to marriage.   If I am married in State A, and your State B has only civil unions, you still have to have in full force and effect, laws in place to recognize my incoming marriage.   If you have just a civil union in your state B, somehow it would have to magically convert to a marriage in my state if you move here - which doesn't address the fact that I may still have my civil union laws on the books - in which case, there is a whole other can of worms opened.  In fact, your "marriage by another name" may be completely invalidated in another state - which currently cannot happen. Marriage laws interstate allow me to have marriage age at 14 in my state, 18 in your state,  21 in yet another, but the 14 year old who is married would have a valid marriage in all states.   Simply not true in the case of civil unions.  Who would pay?


----------



## The Great Goose

Gay marriage sux.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ps Faun the compelling interest is upholding laws consistently.
> 
> Civil unions for everyone would keep beliefs about marriage out of government and protect religious freedom of people on both sides equally.
> 
> Otherwise if one side pushes traditional marriage only or the other side imposes beliefs about marriage for everyone this violates
> * beliefs of people of the other group
> * beliefs of people who believe in states rights to decide either way
> *beliefs of Constitutionalists like me who believe both sides should get their way without imposing on the other
> *beliefs of people who believe the state should just recognize civil unions
> 
> So pushing gay marriages through govt violates beliefs of all these other people.
> 
> While sticking to just civil unions includes all of them and doesn't exclude one more than the other.
> Everyone can follow their own beliefs about marriage by recognizing civil unions, so that covers all beliefs equally while yours does not.
> 
> 
> 
> States are already free to abandon civil marriages for all within their respective borders. If states want to offer only civil unions for everyone, there would be no legal issue with that. But that was not the case prior to Obergefell. At that time, states decided marriage would be available; but some states decided only certain people would have the right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily / Faun, let me raise the following problems/points/issues, Emily, you are hard pressed to be able to answer this one, as marriage is currently at the state level, recognized interstate, and civil unions are not.....
> 
> Again, since civil unions are being proposed / if included for only gays or those married outside of church, then that would be separate but equal, which in and of itself is patently illegal.   If just dropping marriage, then there is a huge cost involved, as any state that would have civil unions already on the books would literally have to rewrite each and every law, to mirror the existing marriage laws.  This would then have to be voted on, at great cost.  One would also have to check the legality of it, as there are numerous laws at the federal level that hinge on marriage, and not civil unions.  Does that mean if your state is the only state wishing to eliminate marriage and replace it, your state would fit the bill?   Your state would still have to deal with marriage in two aspects anyway - each state recognizes the other 49 states in regards to marriage.   If I am married in State A, and your State B has only civil unions, you still have to have in full force and effect, laws in place to recognize my incoming marriage.   If you have just a civil union in your state B, somehow it would have to magically convert to a marriage in my state if you move here - which doesn't address the fact that I may still have my civil union laws on the books - in which case, there is a whole other can of worms opened.  In fact, your "marriage by another name" may be completely invalidated in another state - which currently cannot happen. Marriage laws interstate allow me to have marriage age at 14 in my state, 18 in your state,  21 in yet another, but the 14 year old who is married would have a valid marriage in all states.   Simply not true in the case of civil unions.  Who would pay?
Click to expand...

Dear Sneekin I see where you misunderstand me.

I'm saying ALL civil unions be treated the same for both traditional marriage and gay marriage, not for gay couples only. Since of course that isn't fair, then just recognize  civil unions for ALL. 

Who would pay: both marriage proponents who want to keep either gay marriage or traditional marriage and benefits on either a state or federal level. All people who want a solution and inclusion would figure out the best way to separate this and then deal with the costs.

I suggest keeping civil unions or domestic partnerships as the neutral contract on the secular got level. And if people can't agree on marriage or social benefits then separate that by state or by party which can still go national and not affect the other systems by state or by other parties that can still go national with separate terms 

The cost effectiveness of separation comes in separating ALL other areas of incompatible political beliefs so we solve several issues with one solution. And where it costs too much to separate, parties could make deals such as accepting marriage in govt  if prayers and creation can be in schools and textbooks. Or agreeing on solutions to faith based beliefs in  LGBT, global warming, or spiritual healing that can be proven by science.

Separate prolife taxpayers from prochoice where one pays for planned parenthood and the other pays for the nurturing network.
Separate funding for death penalty or alternative life imprisonment and rehab.
Separate funding for health care through federal mandates or free market.

Add to that credits to taxpayers for restitution from unauthorized abuses and expenditures of public dollars, such as assessing the cost of ACA handouts and unconstitutional mandates and refunding those as credits back to taxpayers to invest in the cost of reforming govt.

That's what I suggest. Have party reps , especially libertarians and vet party and Constitutionalists who believe in separating social programs from federal govt, research the least intrusive way of streamlining separating and reforming this so it meets Constitutional standards and incurs the least cost. If it really is the best solution, and a!reset everyone's concerns for equal representation of interests, the majority across different parties would sign on.

That's why I would include paying reimbursement to taxpayers for trillions in bad govt misspending as part of the plan. Each party has its laundry list of who owes what to taxpayers. Those credits can be assessed and applied toward creating jobs in reform to correct the root problems and stop the waste.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no Faun
> Marriage laws should be passed by states; even after federal courts may strike down bad laws or bans as unconstitutional,  it's still up to states to revise their own laws through their legislatures.
> 
> As for equal protections, your beliefs are yours to follow.
> 
> The problem is that marriage already crosses the line between church and state. So once that is a faith based practice, then either policy, for traditional marriage, for same sex marriage, or both ALL involve beliefs that don't belong to federal government to dictate.
> 
> Fed court can strike down laws or bans as unconstitutional, but don't have authority to write laws or create rights.
> 
> That's the point people like you don't get.
> 
> You are like trying to defend govt replacing Christianity with Universal salvationism that includes more people for equal protection. Sorry but NONE of that belongs in govt unless everyone consents. Replacing it with a different policy doesn't change the fact that marriage already involves beliefs. So will the replacement policy involve beliefs. So that's what is causing the conflict
> 
> 
> 
> It's like you're oblivous to what happened regarding Obergfell. Marriage laws are still written by the states. Obergfell did not write laws or create rights. Marriage is the union of two people. The race, creed, gender, or religion of them matters not in the eyes of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Almost Faun You could promote Civil Unions as neutral contracts between people independent of social relationships.  But bringing in and using the term Marriage involves Beliefs about Marriage. You might see this as a neutral term. But it's not neutral for people with religious beliefs about Marriage. It's like using the term Shariah to mean secular laws, but this discriminates against people for which Shariah means spiritual duties and practice within their faith -- to them it's not a neutral secular term.
> 
> So that's what's going wrong.  These laws and rulings aren't staying secular as you intend and interpret. They cross lines into affecting areas of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.
> 
> Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. Civil unions can be for everyone and avoid the issue of marriage beliefs not everyone shares. You are free to exercise, teach and practice your beliefs about marriage, but not to impose them through govt on people of other beliefs about marriage.
> 
> To be fair to all people of all beliefs, civil unions are universal and secular.
> 
> 2. If you want to impose further, that is like people who want prayer in schools to include Christian practice of invoking God through everyone joining in Christ Jesus name. I happen to understand GOD represents universal concepts that cover and include all people, but people do not agree on religious terms. It has to remain free choice where beliefs are involved.
> 
> Same with beliefs about marriage, not all people agree on religious terms, so out of respect for religious freedom it makes sense to stick with civil unions for the government to recognize as secular contracts and leave beliefs about marriage out of govt.
> 
> Again, if you believe otherwise, so do many Christians believe in integrating their beliefs through govt they believe are universal truth as well that includes all people.
> 
> 3. If you all agree to open the doors of govt to endorse and incorporate all manner of beliefs into laws and public institutions, then that's fair and you are including all people.
> 
> But it's discrimination to tell Christians that references to Crosses, prayers to God through Christ, and teaching creation through God all have to be Removed from public institutions while insisting that beliefs about gay marriage and homosexuality as natural must be included for tolerance even when it violates beliefs of others that these are not natural.
> 
> It's discriminating by creed, so it violates other laws.
> 
> Faun would you agree to a resolution allowing all Christian beliefs and practices to be endorsed and implemented in public policies and institutions, including Christian healing prayer and right to life for unborn and teaching creation in schools, in exchange for allowing beliefs in gate marriage?
> 
> I'm sure an agreement can be worked out if all beliefs are included equally as you are asking.
> 
> Are you willing to incorporate and include all beliefs equally as yours? Are only the beliefs you happen to agree with? Thanks Faun
> 
> Even if we cannot agree how to accommodate all beliefs equally, at least we tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again, Emily. No one is imposing same-sex marriage upon anyone. Everyone is free to marry the person of their choice within legal restrictions, such as age restrictions and consent. No Christian who is opposed to same-sex marriage is forced to marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> Regarding the remainder of your post about prayer ... Again, that's a different issue and has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

Dear Faun what's being imposed is the faith based belief that "marriage" should be the same for gay couple as traditional couples. That is still faith based.

When crosses are on public property these are not "forcing" a belief on anyone. 

But crosses have been removed on Principle alone.
And in one case, land was transferred to private entity to preserve the cross on a structure as is to resolve the conflict.

So here, marriage can be transfered to private institutions to remove it from govt.

And only keep civil unions for everyone so it's secular neutral and fair.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

You know, this entire discussion would involve far less sophistry if people would merely adopt the position that people should be allowed to do what they want to do when it does not harm others and be prevented from imposing their will when it does.

The devil is in the details, of course, but if people would actually try to construct a world view based upon principles instead of merely deciding what tribe they want to join, then discussions like these could proceed without all the bull shit.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

The Great Goose said:


> Gay marriage sux.




as well as nibbles, licks and thrusts if it's being done right.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS thanks Faun for trying to talk through this, reason and understand it. Especially where it doesn't affect you, if it doesn't matter to you if secular laws use the word Marriage to mean secular civil contracts, or states rights vs federal rulings don't affect you and your beliefs. They do affect others whose beliefs are violated.
> 
> To me, it's no big deal to use the term Jihadist to mean warmongering terrorists who worship Jihadist as War against the world.  But to Muslims this is co-opting their faith and terms for spiritual practice in abusive contradictory ways. So if we write public laws and statements, it is imposing on or establishing adverse beliefs to use language in ways that conflict with people of faith for which these terms mean sacred things.
> 
> I don't always get it either, when it seems secular to me too, but out of respect for those who have other beliefs I will try to include them and their limits.
> 
> So if my LGBT friends need public endorsement of certain policies to feel equally represented in laws, let's find a way to achieve that in ways that don't overreach, go too far, and end up indirectly unintentionally violating other beliefs and principles.
> 
> Similar to gun laws and prolife beliefs. Those laws need to be written and focused correctly where they don't incidentally infringe on other rights .
> 
> If you want people to respect your rights, it makes sense to respect other peoples.
> 
> If you want them to hear your objections and what you need for representation, then of course, we listen to theirs too.
> 
> Like you said, the marriage laws must account for everyone.
> 
> So why would you override the objections of others, then argue the laws should reflect everyone???
> 
> How can they reflect the public unless we include all people's consent and resolve all issues causing objection!
> 
> 
> 
> State sanctioned marriage in the U.S. has always been a civil contract and has always been called "marriage." We don't call marriage something else for certain folks because others find it offensive. Equal protection under the law supersedes Christians' feelings.
Click to expand...

Dear Faun I agree with your other post and will reply to focus on that where we agree.

For this, opponents argue similar as you do that LGBT are trying to change the definition of marriage. You insist that it only means the CIVIL marriage. But that's not what that means to other citizens who have equal right to how laws are worded. CIVIL unions and domestic contracts would solve this problem for more people. So I'd leave that to states to work out terms.

If you are going to reform and expand on meanings of terms, let's do the same for the word God instead of cutting that out from public institutions to please the minority.

Let's agree God can mean universal truth wisdom or collective knowledge, laws of nature, Greater Public Good, forces of life etc. Depending on context. Let's agree Jesus means universal justice with mercy or equal justice for all humanity. So we don't have to remove that term or change the wording.

If you are willing to trade out compromises in tolerating different beliefs, maybe those opposing specific marriage beliefs would agree to tolerate those in exchange for tolerating beliefs about creation, etc. In public institutions instead of insisting on removal.

Including beliefs about creation or prayer isn't forcing anyone to change to those, yet these are removed due to faith based beliefs that are relative and free choice.

Well so are beliefs about LGBT, marriage, orientation/identity as natural or unnatural (or both as I believe they're not all unnatural/changeable nor all natural/unchangeable but depend on spiritual conditions the govt can't define for people).

If everyone agrees to equal treatment of beliefs, then we could achieve mutual  tolerance on all sides.

It just can't be one sided, Faun, only pushing liberal beliefs calling them secular while rejecting the beliefs of others as religious when both are equally Faith based and remain equal choice until proven by science or accepted by free will not force of govt.


----------



## emilynghiem

LuckyDuck said:


> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Uhh, the last I checked, marriage was actually about.......(drum roll).......love.
> There are plenty of people who fall in love, want to live with each other and cement their bond with a marriage, yet don't want children and thus use contraception to avoid the pesky business of having to put up with kids in their lives.
> As for the Supreme Court's ruling, it was decided on the basis of "equal protection," not, separate but equal.
> Gays and lesbians aren't harming you, me, or anyone else.  Their getting married does not destroy marriage, as you, me and other heterosexuals are perfectly free to marry women.
> All you have to do, is go on about your life and focus on your job, family and next vacation you may be planning on.
Click to expand...

Dear LuckyDuck 
I'm saying to keep marriage out of government altogether. So nobody has to justify their beliefs or relationships to govt in the first place.

Keep secular contracts that deal with property, guardianship, estate etc under civil laws.

Any social relationships are not supposed to be regulated by govt in the first place, so get those out and we won't have this problem with clashing beliefs 

Nobody has to argue why they don't agree or believe in gay marriage.

Muslims don't owe anyone an explanation for refusing pork or Hindus refusing beef.

if people do not believe in marriage to mean civil marriage for gay couples, then simple, just don't impose that through govt.

It is just as wrong to exclude beliefs either for or against gay marriage. No imposition or justification of opposition is required to remove a faith based bias from laws similar to atheists suing to remove a cross or forcing the property to be transferred to private jurisdiction so it can be preserved as is but not on public property.

No explanation is required, just principle alone that not all the public shares the same faith based beliefs so these should be removed so govt is not endorsing a faith based bias.


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS thanks Faun for trying to talk through this, reason and understand it. Especially where it doesn't affect you, if it doesn't matter to you if secular laws use the word Marriage to mean secular civil contracts, or states rights vs federal rulings don't affect you and your beliefs. They do affect others whose beliefs are violated.
> 
> To me, it's no big deal to use the term Jihadist to mean warmongering terrorists who worship Jihadist as War against the world.  But to Muslims this is co-opting their faith and terms for spiritual practice in abusive contradictory ways. So if we write public laws and statements, it is imposing on or establishing adverse beliefs to use language in ways that conflict with people of faith for which these terms mean sacred things.
> 
> I don't always get it either, when it seems secular to me too, but out of respect for those who have other beliefs I will try to include them and their limits.
> 
> So if my LGBT friends need public endorsement of certain policies to feel equally represented in laws, let's find a way to achieve that in ways that don't overreach, go too far, and end up indirectly unintentionally violating other beliefs and principles.
> 
> Similar to gun laws and prolife beliefs. Those laws need to be written and focused correctly where they don't incidentally infringe on other rights .
> 
> If you want people to respect your rights, it makes sense to respect other peoples.
> 
> If you want them to hear your objections and what you need for representation, then of course, we listen to theirs too.
> 
> Like you said, the marriage laws must account for everyone.
> 
> So why would you override the objections of others, then argue the laws should reflect everyone???
> 
> How can they reflect the public unless we include all people's consent and resolve all issues causing objection!
> 
> 
> 
> State sanctioned marriage in the U.S. has always been a civil contract and has always been called "marriage." We don't call marriage something else for certain folks because others find it offensive. Equal protection under the law supersedes Christians' feelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun I agree with your other post and will reply to focus on that where we agree.
> 
> For this, opponents argue similar as you do that LGBT are trying to change the definition of marriage. You insist that it only means the CIVIL marriage. But that's not what that means to other citizens who have equal right to how laws are worded. CIVIL unions and domestic contracts would solve this problem for more people. So I'd leave that to states to work out terms.
> 
> If you are going to reform and expand on meanings of terms, let's do the same for the word God instead of cutting that out from public institutions to please the minority.
> 
> Let's agree God can mean universal truth wisdom or collective knowledge, laws of nature, Greater Public Good, forces of life etc. Depending on context. Let's agree Jesus means universal justice with mercy or equal justice for all humanity. So we don't have to remove that term or change the wording.
> 
> If you are willing to trade out compromises in tolerating different beliefs, maybe those opposing specific marriage beliefs would agree to tolerate those in exchange for tolerating beliefs about creation, etc. In public institutions instead of insisting on removal.
> 
> Including beliefs about creation or prayer isn't forcing anyone to change to those, yet these are removed due to faith based beliefs that are relative and free choice.
> 
> Well so are beliefs about LGBT, marriage, orientation/identity as natural or unnatural (or both as I believe they're not all unnatural/changeable nor all natural/unchangeable but depend on spiritual conditions the govt can't define for people).
> 
> If everyone agrees to equal treatment of beliefs, then we could achieve mutual  tolerance on all sides.
> 
> It just can't be one sided, Faun, only pushing liberal beliefs calling them secular while rejecting the beliefs of others as religious when both are equally Faith based and remain equal choice until proven by science or accepted by free will not force of govt.
Click to expand...

Your faith does not have to accept same sex marriage. You just can't force the government to not accept it based solely on your religion

You have to demonstrate a legitimate harm to society in order to get government to forbid it. Same sex marriage opponents have been unable to do that to the satisfaction f the courts.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost Faun You could promote Civil Unions as neutral contracts between people independent of social relationships.  But bringing in and using the term Marriage involves Beliefs about Marriage. You might see this as a neutral term. But it's not neutral for people with religious beliefs about Marriage. It's like using the term Shariah to mean secular laws, but this discriminates against people for which Shariah means spiritual duties and practice within their faith -- to them it's not a neutral secular term.
> 
> So that's what's going wrong.  These laws and rulings aren't staying secular as you intend and interpret. They cross lines into affecting areas of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.
> 
> Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> Everyone has the right to Prayer
> but that doesn't mean that the practice of prayers should be endorsed through govt.
> 
> Civil unions can be incorporated and cover all cases. Marriage like prayer can be practiced in private and doesn't need to be connected with govt.
> 
> All social benefits can be done through civil unions and contracts and not attempt to define or regulate terms of marriage that remain free to people to choose just like how we pray or meditate.
> 
> If we don't agree on terms of social benefits or marriage, that can be done collectively through organizations of free choice, similar to choice of religious programs and practice. It doesn't have to be done through govt which can be reserved to just the secular issues of managing contracts for legal guardianship, custody, Estates etc as civil business contracts independent of beliefs about social relationships between people spiritually which govt should not be abused to regulate or endorse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is about marriage, not prayer. One glaring difference, the state sanctions marriage but not prayer. Given the state sanctions marriage, they have to do so equally for all except for in cases where compelling interests prevail, such as certain age restrictions.
> 
> That it offends Christians is not a compelling interest. It could be if it forced Christians to marry folks of their same gender, but that is not the case.
> 
> So there is no compelling interest in this case to let gays marry the person of their choise, like straight folks can, but then not call it "marriage."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. What marriage and prayer have in common is they both fall under religious freedom. Do you not get that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. Prayer is religious, state sanctioned marriage is not. Folks who desire a religious ceremony are free to do so according to the laws of their faith. There is no religious aspect to the state issuing marriage licenses so it has nothing to do with religious freedoms.
Click to expand...

Dear Faun yes the "marriage" becomes biased by faith if you include conditions that gay couples and marriage be recognized the same way which is faith based.

And yes, so is marriage also faith based by interpreting it to mean traditional couples only.

Both are faith based.

Civil unions or domestic partnership 's would be the neutral secular term.


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS thanks Faun for trying to talk through this, reason and understand it. Especially where it doesn't affect you, if it doesn't matter to you if secular laws use the word Marriage to mean secular civil contracts, or states rights vs federal rulings don't affect you and your beliefs. They do affect others whose beliefs are violated.
> 
> To me, it's no big deal to use the term Jihadist to mean warmongering terrorists who worship Jihadist as War against the world.  But to Muslims this is co-opting their faith and terms for spiritual practice in abusive contradictory ways. So if we write public laws and statements, it is imposing on or establishing adverse beliefs to use language in ways that conflict with people of faith for which these terms mean sacred things.
> 
> I don't always get it either, when it seems secular to me too, but out of respect for those who have other beliefs I will try to include them and their limits.
> 
> So if my LGBT friends need public endorsement of certain policies to feel equally represented in laws, let's find a way to achieve that in ways that don't overreach, go too far, and end up indirectly unintentionally violating other beliefs and principles.
> 
> Similar to gun laws and prolife beliefs. Those laws need to be written and focused correctly where they don't incidentally infringe on other rights .
> 
> If you want people to respect your rights, it makes sense to respect other peoples.
> 
> If you want them to hear your objections and what you need for representation, then of course, we listen to theirs too.
> 
> Like you said, the marriage laws must account for everyone.
> 
> So why would you override the objections of others, then argue the laws should reflect everyone???
> 
> How can they reflect the public unless we include all people's consent and resolve all issues causing objection!
> 
> 
> 
> State sanctioned marriage in the U.S. has always been a civil contract and has always been called "marriage." We don't call marriage something else for certain folks because others find it offensive. Equal protection under the law supersedes Christians' feelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun I agree with your other post and will reply to focus on that where we agree.
> 
> For this, opponents argue similar as you do that LGBT are trying to change the definition of marriage. You insist that it only means the CIVIL marriage. But that's not what that means to other citizens who have equal right to how laws are worded. CIVIL unions and domestic contracts would solve this problem for more people. So I'd leave that to states to work out terms.
> 
> If you are going to reform and expand on meanings of terms, let's do the same for the word God instead of cutting that out from public institutions to please the minority.
> 
> Let's agree God can mean universal truth wisdom or collective knowledge, laws of nature, Greater Public Good, forces of life etc. Depending on context. Let's agree Jesus means universal justice with mercy or equal justice for all humanity. So we don't have to remove that term or change the wording.
> 
> If you are willing to trade out compromises in tolerating different beliefs, maybe those opposing specific marriage beliefs would agree to tolerate those in exchange for tolerating beliefs about creation, etc. In public institutions instead of insisting on removal.
> 
> Including beliefs about creation or prayer isn't forcing anyone to change to those, yet these are removed due to faith based beliefs that are relative and free choice.
> 
> Well so are beliefs about LGBT, marriage, orientation/identity as natural or unnatural (or both as I believe they're not all unnatural/changeable nor all natural/unchangeable but depend on spiritual conditions the govt can't define for people).
> 
> If everyone agrees to equal treatment of beliefs, then we could achieve mutual  tolerance on all sides.
> 
> It just can't be one sided, Faun, only pushing liberal beliefs calling them secular while rejecting the beliefs of others as religious when both are equally Faith based and remain equal choice until proven by science or accepted by free will not force of govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your faith does not have to accept same sex marriage. You just can't force the government to not accept it based solely on your religion
> 
> You have to demonstrate a legitimate harm to society in order to get government to forbid it. Same sex marriage opponents have been unable to do that to the satisfaction f the courts.
Click to expand...

Nope rightwinger
1. It's not about forbidding or banning it,
But keeping marriage beliefs in private
2. The harm is EITHER sides beliefs being established or endorsed by law against the Other beliefs without free choice and consent
3. The harm is discrimination by creed pitting one set of beliefs against the other instead of keeping both in private 

if states agree to include gay marriage as the solution fine, but if enough people in that state do not consent and believe it should be civil unions for everyone and keep marriage private, i would suggest either separating by party or possibly resolving the conflict by agreeing to tolerate God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer, and all other faith based expression in public institutions if LGBT beliefs and creeds are going to be endorsed by government as protected. Then all other creeds should have equal freedom to be exercised instead of removed from public institutions too!


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Boss and Tennyson can I please ask your help to review where I'm getting stuck with Faun.
> 
> I'm saying that where marriage involves people's beliefs it should NOT be federal govt that decides laws. At most the States could pass laws. But when I read Faun beliefs even that is not compatible with people who believe the govt should stop at civil unions and not micromanage social benefits based on beliefs about relationships.
> 
> what do you think? Are we heading for separate policies and benefits programs dividing tax representation by party? Would that allow people to choose whether to endorse
> * gay marriage and benefits or traditional marriage only
> * right to health care or free market
> * prochoice or prolife beliefs
> * gun regulations or gun rights
> * life imprisonment or death penalty
> * statism vs states rights
> 
> Would that solve more problems by allowing choice of partisan platform to pay taxes under. And only keep federal law and taxes for where all parties agree, and delegate the rest proportionally by party per state. So blue states that delegate more to federal can pay and get those benefits. While red states keep more taxes except blue party citizens can still pay taxes through blue programs and micromanage the social programs they choose to relegate collectively on a national level, while allowing red party members to opt out
> 
> Would that help where all states can get their representation and not have to have everyone agree to one way or one set of beliefs
> 
> pvsi
> 
> 
> 
> You're completely off base. Marriage laws are not decided by the federal government. They are decided by the states. In regard to same-sex marriage, the federal government did not write or create any laws. It protected the Constitutional rights of folks who were being denied their right to marry the person of their choice just like heterosexuals were able to do.
Click to expand...

^ Here is your post where we agree Faun ^
 yes I agree that although marriage is up to states and people, that federal government is correct in striking down laws or bans against gay marriage as unconstitutional -- but not because they discriminate against marriage as a Constitutional right but *Religious Freedom* as a Constitutional and natural right which includes beliefs on marriage.

Beliefs about marriage and relationships are naturally under free exercise of religion. And violating or regulating free exercise of beliefs violates 14th amendment equal protections to all persons independent of Creed.

Faun by this interpretation of marriage beliefs and rights under First amendment free exercise barring govt from either Establishing or Prohibiting
One belief or another
*Then BOTH sides beliefs are protected equally from each other!*

That interpretation is more universal, covers ALL cases, and includes ALL people regardless of beliefs on marriage and rights.

Now you and traditional interpretations of rulings and precedence keep adding conditions to this such as
* NOT treating religious beliefs and secular political beliefs the same and thus allowing LGBT beliefs to be endorsed by govt while excluding faith based beliefs in prayer or creation
* counting only the civil definition and use of the word marriage instead of seeking neutral terms
* not recognizing right to marriage as a faith based belief but treating it unequally as right to life and other faith based beliefs that other people argue are natural rights not beliefs

So this creates an environment of discrimination.

That's why I believe in recognizing political beliefs equally as faith based as religious beliefs.

I recognize this change requires free choice of people.

But if you and others insist that it requires govt to change it first, that's your belief. I will respect it for you, but for those who believe it should be free choice, I respect that as well.

I don't have money for a lawyer but willing to do a fundraiser to find one and/or call for a Constitutional conference on political beliefs. Recognizing some statists require govt to change laws before they feel they have those rights or choices legally. Recognizing some secularists require proof that is demonstrated or replicated before accepting to change beliefs. And recognizing some people cannot help or change their beliefs and can't be forced to by law.

I'm okay with all that in seeking a consensus on laws touching faith based beliefs, whether religious political or secular, and/or seeking cost effective fair ways to separate policies or funding which includes reimbursement of costs for past abuses of govt paid or credited back to taxpayers to invest in reforms needed to separate or reconcile policies.

Thank you Faun Sneekin etc all
This opens up the whole can of worms,
So let's go fishing for agreed solutions!


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's like you're oblivous to what happened regarding Obergfell. Marriage laws are still written by the states. Obergfell did not write laws or create rights. Marriage is the union of two people. The race, creed, gender, or religion of them matters not in the eyes of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> Almost Faun You could promote Civil Unions as neutral contracts between people independent of social relationships.  But bringing in and using the term Marriage involves Beliefs about Marriage. You might see this as a neutral term. But it's not neutral for people with religious beliefs about Marriage. It's like using the term Shariah to mean secular laws, but this discriminates against people for which Shariah means spiritual duties and practice within their faith -- to them it's not a neutral secular term.
> 
> So that's what's going wrong.  These laws and rulings aren't staying secular as you intend and interpret. They cross lines into affecting areas of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.
> 
> Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. Civil unions can be for everyone and avoid the issue of marriage beliefs not everyone shares. You are free to exercise, teach and practice your beliefs about marriage, but not to impose them through govt on people of other beliefs about marriage.
> 
> To be fair to all people of all beliefs, civil unions are universal and secular.
> 
> 2. If you want to impose further, that is like people who want prayer in schools to include Christian practice of invoking God through everyone joining in Christ Jesus name. I happen to understand GOD represents universal concepts that cover and include all people, but people do not agree on religious terms. It has to remain free choice where beliefs are involved.
> 
> Same with beliefs about marriage, not all people agree on religious terms, so out of respect for religious freedom it makes sense to stick with civil unions for the government to recognize as secular contracts and leave beliefs about marriage out of govt.
> 
> Again, if you believe otherwise, so do many Christians believe in integrating their beliefs through govt they believe are universal truth as well that includes all people.
> 
> 3. If you all agree to open the doors of govt to endorse and incorporate all manner of beliefs into laws and public institutions, then that's fair and you are including all people.
> 
> But it's discrimination to tell Christians that references to Crosses, prayers to God through Christ, and teaching creation through God all have to be Removed from public institutions while insisting that beliefs about gay marriage and homosexuality as natural must be included for tolerance even when it violates beliefs of others that these are not natural.
> 
> It's discriminating by creed, so it violates other laws.
> 
> Faun would you agree to a resolution allowing all Christian beliefs and practices to be endorsed and implemented in public policies and institutions, including Christian healing prayer and right to life for unborn and teaching creation in schools, in exchange for allowing beliefs in gate marriage?
> 
> I'm sure an agreement can be worked out if all beliefs are included equally as you are asking.
> 
> Are you willing to incorporate and include all beliefs equally as yours? Are only the beliefs you happen to agree with? Thanks Faun
> 
> Even if we cannot agree how to accommodate all beliefs equally, at least we tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again, Emily. No one is imposing same-sex marriage upon anyone. Everyone is free to marry the person of their choice within legal restrictions, such as age restrictions and consent. No Christian who is opposed to same-sex marriage is forced to marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> Regarding the remainder of your post about prayer ... Again, that's a different issue and has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun what's being imposed is the faith based belief that "marriage" should be the same for gay couple as traditional couples. That is still faith based.
> 
> When crosses are on public property these are not "forcing" a belief on anyone.
> 
> But crosses have been removed on Principle alone.
> And in one case, land was transferred to private entity to preserve the cross on a structure as is to resolve the conflict.
> 
> So here, marriage can be transfered to private institutions to remove it from govt.
> 
> And only keep civil unions for everyone so it's secular neutral and fair.
Click to expand...

You're still off base -- crosses have nothing to do with civil marriages.

You can't seem to defend your position without conflating it with praying, crosses, etc....


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS thanks Faun for trying to talk through this, reason and understand it. Especially where it doesn't affect you, if it doesn't matter to you if secular laws use the word Marriage to mean secular civil contracts, or states rights vs federal rulings don't affect you and your beliefs. They do affect others whose beliefs are violated.
> 
> To me, it's no big deal to use the term Jihadist to mean warmongering terrorists who worship Jihadist as War against the world.  But to Muslims this is co-opting their faith and terms for spiritual practice in abusive contradictory ways. So if we write public laws and statements, it is imposing on or establishing adverse beliefs to use language in ways that conflict with people of faith for which these terms mean sacred things.
> 
> I don't always get it either, when it seems secular to me too, but out of respect for those who have other beliefs I will try to include them and their limits.
> 
> So if my LGBT friends need public endorsement of certain policies to feel equally represented in laws, let's find a way to achieve that in ways that don't overreach, go too far, and end up indirectly unintentionally violating other beliefs and principles.
> 
> Similar to gun laws and prolife beliefs. Those laws need to be written and focused correctly where they don't incidentally infringe on other rights .
> 
> If you want people to respect your rights, it makes sense to respect other peoples.
> 
> If you want them to hear your objections and what you need for representation, then of course, we listen to theirs too.
> 
> Like you said, the marriage laws must account for everyone.
> 
> So why would you override the objections of others, then argue the laws should reflect everyone???
> 
> How can they reflect the public unless we include all people's consent and resolve all issues causing objection!
> 
> 
> 
> State sanctioned marriage in the U.S. has always been a civil contract and has always been called "marriage." We don't call marriage something else for certain folks because others find it offensive. Equal protection under the law supersedes Christians' feelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun I agree with your other post and will reply to focus on that where we agree.
> 
> For this, opponents argue similar as you do that LGBT are trying to change the definition of marriage. You insist that it only means the CIVIL marriage. But that's not what that means to other citizens who have equal right to how laws are worded. CIVIL unions and domestic contracts would solve this problem for more people. So I'd leave that to states to work out terms.
> 
> If you are going to reform and expand on meanings of terms, let's do the same for the word God instead of cutting that out from public institutions to please the minority.
> 
> Let's agree God can mean universal truth wisdom or collective knowledge, laws of nature, Greater Public Good, forces of life etc. Depending on context. Let's agree Jesus means universal justice with mercy or equal justice for all humanity. So we don't have to remove that term or change the wording.
> 
> If you are willing to trade out compromises in tolerating different beliefs, maybe those opposing specific marriage beliefs would agree to tolerate those in exchange for tolerating beliefs about creation, etc. In public institutions instead of insisting on removal.
> 
> Including beliefs about creation or prayer isn't forcing anyone to change to those, yet these are removed due to faith based beliefs that are relative and free choice.
> 
> Well so are beliefs about LGBT, marriage, orientation/identity as natural or unnatural (or both as I believe they're not all unnatural/changeable nor all natural/unchangeable but depend on spiritual conditions the govt can't define for people).
> 
> If everyone agrees to equal treatment of beliefs, then we could achieve mutual  tolerance on all sides.
> 
> It just can't be one sided, Faun, only pushing liberal beliefs calling them secular while rejecting the beliefs of others as religious when both are equally Faith based and remain equal choice until proven by science or accepted by free will not force of govt.
Click to expand...

Gay folks are not going to be denied access to their rights to marry the person of their choice (the same right enjoyed by straight folks) because some religious folks don't like that.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.
> 
> Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> Everyone has the right to Prayer
> but that doesn't mean that the practice of prayers should be endorsed through govt.
> 
> Civil unions can be incorporated and cover all cases. Marriage like prayer can be practiced in private and doesn't need to be connected with govt.
> 
> All social benefits can be done through civil unions and contracts and not attempt to define or regulate terms of marriage that remain free to people to choose just like how we pray or meditate.
> 
> If we don't agree on terms of social benefits or marriage, that can be done collectively through organizations of free choice, similar to choice of religious programs and practice. It doesn't have to be done through govt which can be reserved to just the secular issues of managing contracts for legal guardianship, custody, Estates etc as civil business contracts independent of beliefs about social relationships between people spiritually which govt should not be abused to regulate or endorse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is about marriage, not prayer. One glaring difference, the state sanctions marriage but not prayer. Given the state sanctions marriage, they have to do so equally for all except for in cases where compelling interests prevail, such as certain age restrictions.
> 
> That it offends Christians is not a compelling interest. It could be if it forced Christians to marry folks of their same gender, but that is not the case.
> 
> So there is no compelling interest in this case to let gays marry the person of their choise, like straight folks can, but then not call it "marriage."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. What marriage and prayer have in common is they both fall under religious freedom. Do you not get that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. Prayer is religious, state sanctioned marriage is not. Folks who desire a religious ceremony are free to do so according to the laws of their faith. There is no religious aspect to the state issuing marriage licenses so it has nothing to do with religious freedoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun yes the "marriage" becomes biased by faith if you include conditions that gay couples and marriage be recognized the same way which is faith based.
> 
> And yes, so is marriage also faith based by interpreting it to mean traditional couples only.
> 
> Both are faith based.
> 
> Civil unions or domestic partnership 's would be the neutral secular term.
Click to expand...

Civil marriage is not faith based. It's a legally binding contract between two individuals. The individuals' race doesn't matter.... their religion (or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their sexual orientation or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their creed doesn't matter....

... and now, since Obergefell, their gender doesn't matter.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS thanks Faun for trying to talk through this, reason and understand it. Especially where it doesn't affect you, if it doesn't matter to you if secular laws use the word Marriage to mean secular civil contracts, or states rights vs federal rulings don't affect you and your beliefs. They do affect others whose beliefs are violated.
> 
> To me, it's no big deal to use the term Jihadist to mean warmongering terrorists who worship Jihadist as War against the world.  But to Muslims this is co-opting their faith and terms for spiritual practice in abusive contradictory ways. So if we write public laws and statements, it is imposing on or establishing adverse beliefs to use language in ways that conflict with people of faith for which these terms mean sacred things.
> 
> I don't always get it either, when it seems secular to me too, but out of respect for those who have other beliefs I will try to include them and their limits.
> 
> So if my LGBT friends need public endorsement of certain policies to feel equally represented in laws, let's find a way to achieve that in ways that don't overreach, go too far, and end up indirectly unintentionally violating other beliefs and principles.
> 
> Similar to gun laws and prolife beliefs. Those laws need to be written and focused correctly where they don't incidentally infringe on other rights .
> 
> If you want people to respect your rights, it makes sense to respect other peoples.
> 
> If you want them to hear your objections and what you need for representation, then of course, we listen to theirs too.
> 
> Like you said, the marriage laws must account for everyone.
> 
> So why would you override the objections of others, then argue the laws should reflect everyone???
> 
> How can they reflect the public unless we include all people's consent and resolve all issues causing objection!
> 
> 
> 
> State sanctioned marriage in the U.S. has always been a civil contract and has always been called "marriage." We don't call marriage something else for certain folks because others find it offensive. Equal protection under the law supersedes Christians' feelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun I agree with your other post and will reply to focus on that where we agree.
> 
> For this, opponents argue similar as you do that LGBT are trying to change the definition of marriage. You insist that it only means the CIVIL marriage. But that's not what that means to other citizens who have equal right to how laws are worded. CIVIL unions and domestic contracts would solve this problem for more people. So I'd leave that to states to work out terms.
> 
> If you are going to reform and expand on meanings of terms, let's do the same for the word God instead of cutting that out from public institutions to please the minority.
> 
> Let's agree God can mean universal truth wisdom or collective knowledge, laws of nature, Greater Public Good, forces of life etc. Depending on context. Let's agree Jesus means universal justice with mercy or equal justice for all humanity. So we don't have to remove that term or change the wording.
> 
> If you are willing to trade out compromises in tolerating different beliefs, maybe those opposing specific marriage beliefs would agree to tolerate those in exchange for tolerating beliefs about creation, etc. In public institutions instead of insisting on removal.
> 
> Including beliefs about creation or prayer isn't forcing anyone to change to those, yet these are removed due to faith based beliefs that are relative and free choice.
> 
> Well so are beliefs about LGBT, marriage, orientation/identity as natural or unnatural (or both as I believe they're not all unnatural/changeable nor all natural/unchangeable but depend on spiritual conditions the govt can't define for people).
> 
> If everyone agrees to equal treatment of beliefs, then we could achieve mutual  tolerance on all sides.
> 
> It just can't be one sided, Faun, only pushing liberal beliefs calling them secular while rejecting the beliefs of others as religious when both are equally Faith based and remain equal choice until proven by science or accepted by free will not force of govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay folks are not going to be denied access to their rights to marry the person of their choice (the same right enjoyed by straight folks) because some religious folks don't like that.
Click to expand...

Faun I'm not asking for that 
I'm basically asking help to sue Democrats to create a separate internal govt to practice those political beliefs without imposing on beliefs of others!

Right to health care, right to marriage, no death penalty, reproductive freedom, all these can be exercised through social programs directed and funded by liberal and Democratic party leaders with the funds already spent on lobbying and campaigns.

I'd further argue that reimbursement already owed to taxpayers for contested war contracts and ACA corporate payouts in the trillions could set up sustainable health care by reforming prisons into medical programs for early diagnosis screening and treatment of both physical and mental illness especially criminal disorders or other dangerous diseases that threaten public health and safety.

If Statists want to impose political beliefs by majority rule, have a separate govt that believes in that.

As for me I believe in consent of the governed, no taxation without representation, due process of laws before depriving people of rights and freedoms, and either consensus or separation on areas involving faith based beliefs to ensure equal protections of the laws without discrimination by creed.

One-sided imposition of left on right or right on left is not equal.

I believe in equal inclusion and representation or else separate taxation by party so each manages their own social agenda for members of like beliefs.

Sure there can still be national govt recognizing rights people believe in. Where the public agrees these can still be through federal govt.  Where parties disagree the federal taxes can be divided by party proportionally or allocate to states to work out their state or national agenda without imposing political beliefs on taxpayers who don't consent.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> Everyone has the right to Prayer
> but that doesn't mean that the practice of prayers should be endorsed through govt.
> 
> Civil unions can be incorporated and cover all cases. Marriage like prayer can be practiced in private and doesn't need to be connected with govt.
> 
> All social benefits can be done through civil unions and contracts and not attempt to define or regulate terms of marriage that remain free to people to choose just like how we pray or meditate.
> 
> If we don't agree on terms of social benefits or marriage, that can be done collectively through organizations of free choice, similar to choice of religious programs and practice. It doesn't have to be done through govt which can be reserved to just the secular issues of managing contracts for legal guardianship, custody, Estates etc as civil business contracts independent of beliefs about social relationships between people spiritually which govt should not be abused to regulate or endorse.
> 
> 
> 
> This is about marriage, not prayer. One glaring difference, the state sanctions marriage but not prayer. Given the state sanctions marriage, they have to do so equally for all except for in cases where compelling interests prevail, such as certain age restrictions.
> 
> That it offends Christians is not a compelling interest. It could be if it forced Christians to marry folks of their same gender, but that is not the case.
> 
> So there is no compelling interest in this case to let gays marry the person of their choise, like straight folks can, but then not call it "marriage."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. What marriage and prayer have in common is they both fall under religious freedom. Do you not get that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. Prayer is religious, state sanctioned marriage is not. Folks who desire a religious ceremony are free to do so according to the laws of their faith. There is no religious aspect to the state issuing marriage licenses so it has nothing to do with religious freedoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun yes the "marriage" becomes biased by faith if you include conditions that gay couples and marriage be recognized the same way which is faith based.
> 
> And yes, so is marriage also faith based by interpreting it to mean traditional couples only.
> 
> Both are faith based.
> 
> Civil unions or domestic partnership 's would be the neutral secular term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil marriage is not faith based. It's a legally binding contract between two individuals. The individuals' race doesn't matter.... their religion (or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their sexual orientation or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their creed doesn't matter....
> 
> ... and now, since Obergefell, their gender doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Sure Faun we agree in spirit,
So let's help make sure states write and pass laws by consensus so there is agreement not
To interject faith based beliefs into laws on marriage and/or civil unions.

If states can pass laws using the term marriage or civil marriage, great!  But the same way I would not impose the word Jesus on people just because I know this means Equal Justice for all people universally. I'd  ask that laws reflect the same courtesy and cultural consideration.

I use the term universe instead of creation.
Many Muslims object to the use of terms Jihad or Shariah to mean govt laws or political things outside their pure spiritual meaning.
As long as there are atheists and Muslims under laws, they have the right to ask for neutral terms, as do Christians or others who do not agree to secular definitions of marriage but might agree to expand civil unions or partnerships  (or might agree to take restrictions off all other faith based terms and practices in public institutions such as God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer etc in exchange for tolerating LGBT expressions and inclusion in public institutions as equally endorsed by govt )

Texas laws implemented "moment of silence" instead of prayer in schools as a more secular neutral alternative.

So if people object to "marriage" terms we should agree to secularize it where it achieves the same goals without invoking faith based beliefs as well, state by state. Agreed!


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Boss and Tennyson can I please ask your help to review where I'm getting stuck with Faun.
> 
> I'm saying that where marriage involves people's beliefs it should NOT be federal govt that decides laws. At most the States could pass laws. But when I read Faun beliefs even that is not compatible with people who believe the govt should stop at civil unions and not micromanage social benefits based on beliefs about relationships.
> 
> what do you think? Are we heading for separate policies and benefits programs dividing tax representation by party? Would that allow people to choose whether to endorse
> * gay marriage and benefits or traditional marriage only
> * right to health care or free market
> * prochoice or prolife beliefs
> * gun regulations or gun rights
> * life imprisonment or death penalty
> * statism vs states rights
> 
> Would that solve more problems by allowing choice of partisan platform to pay taxes under. And only keep federal law and taxes for where all parties agree, and delegate the rest proportionally by party per state. So blue states that delegate more to federal can pay and get those benefits. While red states keep more taxes except blue party citizens can still pay taxes through blue programs and micromanage the social programs they choose to relegate collectively on a national level, while allowing red party members to opt out
> 
> Would that help where all states can get their representation and not have to have everyone agree to one way or one set of beliefs
> 
> pvsi
> 
> 
> 
> You're completely off base. Marriage laws are not decided by the federal government. They are decided by the states. In regard to same-sex marriage, the federal government did not write or create any laws. It protected the Constitutional rights of folks who were being denied their right to marry the person of their choice just like heterosexuals were able to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ Here is your post where we agree Faun ^
> yes I agree that although marriage is up to states and people, that federal government is correct in striking down laws or bans against gay marriage as unconstitutional -- but not because they discriminate against marriage as a Constitutional right but *Religious Freedom* as a Constitutional and natural right which includes beliefs on marriage.
> 
> Beliefs about marriage and relationships are naturally under free exercise of religion. And violating or regulating free exercise of beliefs violates 14th amendment equal protections to all persons independent of Creed.
> 
> Faun by this interpretation of marriage beliefs and rights under First amendment free exercise barring govt from either Establishing or Prohibiting
> One belief or another
> *Then BOTH sides beliefs are protected equally from each other!*
> 
> That interpretation is more universal, covers ALL cases, and includes ALL people regardless of beliefs on marriage and rights.
> 
> Now you and traditional interpretations of rulings and precedence keep adding conditions to this such as
> * NOT treating religious beliefs and secular political beliefs the same and thus allowing LGBT beliefs to be endorsed by govt while excluding faith based beliefs in prayer or creation
> * counting only the civil definition and use of the word marriage instead of seeking neutral terms
> * not recognizing right to marriage as a faith based belief but treating it unequally as right to life and other faith based beliefs that other people argue are natural rights not beliefs
> 
> So this creates an environment of discrimination.
> 
> That's why I believe in recognizing political beliefs equally as faith based as religious beliefs.
> 
> I recognize this change requires free choice of people.
> 
> But if you and others insist that it requires govt to change it first, that's your belief. I will respect it for you, but for those who believe it should be free choice, I respect that as well.
> 
> I don't have money for a lawyer but willing to do a fundraiser to find one and/or call for a Constitutional conference on political beliefs. Recognizing some statists require govt to change laws before they feel they have those rights or choices legally. Recognizing some secularists require proof that is demonstrated or replicated before accepting to change beliefs. And recognizing some people cannot help or change their beliefs and can't be forced to by law.
> 
> I'm okay with all that in seeking a consensus on laws touching faith based beliefs, whether religious political or secular, and/or seeking cost effective fair ways to separate policies or funding which includes reimbursement of costs for past abuses of govt paid or credited back to taxpayers to invest in reforms needed to separate or reconcile policies.
> 
> Thank you Faun Sneekin etc all
> This opens up the whole can of worms,
> So let's go fishing for agreed solutions!
Click to expand...

This is the root to why you can't understand this topic...

_"Beliefs about marriage and relationships are naturally under free exercise of religion."_​
...that is simply not true. Peoples' right to civil marriage has nothing to do with their right to exercise religion. It has nothing to do with religion. Many folks who get civilly married don't practice any religion.

Until you understand that, you will never understand why you're on the wrong side of this issue.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is about marriage, not prayer. One glaring difference, the state sanctions marriage but not prayer. Given the state sanctions marriage, they have to do so equally for all except for in cases where compelling interests prevail, such as certain age restrictions.
> 
> That it offends Christians is not a compelling interest. It could be if it forced Christians to marry folks of their same gender, but that is not the case.
> 
> So there is no compelling interest in this case to let gays marry the person of their choise, like straight folks can, but then not call it "marriage."
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. What marriage and prayer have in common is they both fall under religious freedom. Do you not get that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. Prayer is religious, state sanctioned marriage is not. Folks who desire a religious ceremony are free to do so according to the laws of their faith. There is no religious aspect to the state issuing marriage licenses so it has nothing to do with religious freedoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun yes the "marriage" becomes biased by faith if you include conditions that gay couples and marriage be recognized the same way which is faith based.
> 
> And yes, so is marriage also faith based by interpreting it to mean traditional couples only.
> 
> Both are faith based.
> 
> Civil unions or domestic partnership 's would be the neutral secular term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil marriage is not faith based. It's a legally binding contract between two individuals. The individuals' race doesn't matter.... their religion (or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their sexual orientation or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their creed doesn't matter....
> 
> ... and now, since Obergefell, their gender doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure Faun we agree in spirit,
> So let's help make sure states write and pass laws by consensus so there is agreement not
> To interject faith based beliefs into laws on marriage and/or civil unions.
> 
> If states can pass laws using the term marriage or civil marriage, great!  But the same way I would not impose the word Jesus on people just because I know this means Equal Justice for all people universally. I'd  ask that laws reflect the same courtesy and cultural consideration.
> 
> I use the term universe instead of creation.
> Many Muslims object to the use of terms Jihad or Shariah to mean govt laws or political things outside their pure spiritual meaning.
> As long as there are atheists and Muslims under laws, they have the right to ask for neutral terms, as do Christians or others who do not agree to secular definitions of marriage but might agree to expand civil unions or partnerships  (or might agree to take restrictions off all other faith based terms and practices in public institutions such as God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer etc in exchange for tolerating LGBT expressions and inclusion in public institutions as equally endorsed by govt )
> 
> Texas laws implemented "moment of silence" instead of prayer in schools as a more secular neutral alternative.
> 
> So if people object to "marriage" terms we should agree to secularize it where it achieves the same goals without invoking faith based beliefs as well, state by state. Agreed!
Click to expand...

Civil marriage is already secular.


----------



## emilynghiem

Thanks Faun you are taking free exercise and religious freedom literally to mean church based or organized religion.

I use it more universally and secularly to cover All beliefs
So this is fair to atheists, independents of no organized faith, secular humanists, and political beliefs or other faith based or personal beliefs such as in marriage health care global warming creation/evolution etc.

The parties essentially espoused beliefs.

So I'm saying to petition parties their leaders and members to fund and manage their own social policies as secular equivalents of what churches do.

This can still be orchestrate on state and national levels like govt.  But have advantage of being private church like political religions that could qualify for 100 % deductions. 

so everyone gets equal protection and exercise of beliefs without discriminating by creed whether religious or not.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. What marriage and prayer have in common is they both fall under religious freedom. Do you not get that?
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Prayer is religious, state sanctioned marriage is not. Folks who desire a religious ceremony are free to do so according to the laws of their faith. There is no religious aspect to the state issuing marriage licenses so it has nothing to do with religious freedoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun yes the "marriage" becomes biased by faith if you include conditions that gay couples and marriage be recognized the same way which is faith based.
> 
> And yes, so is marriage also faith based by interpreting it to mean traditional couples only.
> 
> Both are faith based.
> 
> Civil unions or domestic partnership 's would be the neutral secular term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil marriage is not faith based. It's a legally binding contract between two individuals. The individuals' race doesn't matter.... their religion (or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their sexual orientation or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their creed doesn't matter....
> 
> ... and now, since Obergefell, their gender doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure Faun we agree in spirit,
> So let's help make sure states write and pass laws by consensus so there is agreement not
> To interject faith based beliefs into laws on marriage and/or civil unions.
> 
> If states can pass laws using the term marriage or civil marriage, great!  But the same way I would not impose the word Jesus on people just because I know this means Equal Justice for all people universally. I'd  ask that laws reflect the same courtesy and cultural consideration.
> 
> I use the term universe instead of creation.
> Many Muslims object to the use of terms Jihad or Shariah to mean govt laws or political things outside their pure spiritual meaning.
> As long as there are atheists and Muslims under laws, they have the right to ask for neutral terms, as do Christians or others who do not agree to secular definitions of marriage but might agree to expand civil unions or partnerships  (or might agree to take restrictions off all other faith based terms and practices in public institutions such as God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer etc in exchange for tolerating LGBT expressions and inclusion in public institutions as equally endorsed by govt )
> 
> Texas laws implemented "moment of silence" instead of prayer in schools as a more secular neutral alternative.
> 
> So if people object to "marriage" terms we should agree to secularize it where it achieves the same goals without invoking faith based beliefs as well, state by state. Agreed!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil marriage is already secular.
Click to expand...


Sure Faun if people per state agree to that. Not all do.
If they can't agree on being under social programs regulated through govt I also suggest to separate by party to solve related
Issues as well.

If prolife don't want health care programs they fund to pay for abortion, then separate funding or policies. Why not solve several problems at once with the same effort? 

I believe in rewarding people with health care coverage who go through spiritual healing to reduce costs to a minimum including wiping out drug abuse and addiction in the process, and cost of related crimes as a further cost saving measure

I don't believe in paying for health care and living expenses of convicted rapists or killers unless they agree to go through spiritual healing and accept help to work and pay back r restitution to victims society and taxpayers or donors who lend them support to do this during rehab.

Why not give all taxpayers a choice which social programs and terms of benefits to support?

 These involve beliefs, either social or spiritual, political or religious.

Why not recognize equal religious and political freedom for people of all parties and creeds equally ?

Keep where we agree to be governed as public policy and law. But where we disagree by inherent beliefs, allow taxpayers the choice to separate fund in g to avoid imposing on each other's equally valid beliefs whether religious political secular spiritual or individual.

Otherwise that's discriminating by creed not to protect each person equally just because their creed doesn't meet a certain size or label.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Prayer is religious, state sanctioned marriage is not. Folks who desire a religious ceremony are free to do so according to the laws of their faith. There is no religious aspect to the state issuing marriage licenses so it has nothing to do with religious freedoms.
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun yes the "marriage" becomes biased by faith if you include conditions that gay couples and marriage be recognized the same way which is faith based.
> 
> And yes, so is marriage also faith based by interpreting it to mean traditional couples only.
> 
> Both are faith based.
> 
> Civil unions or domestic partnership 's would be the neutral secular term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil marriage is not faith based. It's a legally binding contract between two individuals. The individuals' race doesn't matter.... their religion (or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their sexual orientation or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their creed doesn't matter....
> 
> ... and now, since Obergefell, their gender doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure Faun we agree in spirit,
> So let's help make sure states write and pass laws by consensus so there is agreement not
> To interject faith based beliefs into laws on marriage and/or civil unions.
> 
> If states can pass laws using the term marriage or civil marriage, great!  But the same way I would not impose the word Jesus on people just because I know this means Equal Justice for all people universally. I'd  ask that laws reflect the same courtesy and cultural consideration.
> 
> I use the term universe instead of creation.
> Many Muslims object to the use of terms Jihad or Shariah to mean govt laws or political things outside their pure spiritual meaning.
> As long as there are atheists and Muslims under laws, they have the right to ask for neutral terms, as do Christians or others who do not agree to secular definitions of marriage but might agree to expand civil unions or partnerships  (or might agree to take restrictions off all other faith based terms and practices in public institutions such as God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer etc in exchange for tolerating LGBT expressions and inclusion in public institutions as equally endorsed by govt )
> 
> Texas laws implemented "moment of silence" instead of prayer in schools as a more secular neutral alternative.
> 
> So if people object to "marriage" terms we should agree to secularize it where it achieves the same goals without invoking faith based beliefs as well, state by state. Agreed!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil marriage is already secular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure Faun if people per state agree to that. Not all do.
> If they can't agree on being under social programs regulated through govt I also suggest to separate by party to solve related
> Issues as well.
> 
> If prolife don't want health care programs they fund to pay for abortion, then separate funding or policies. Why not solve several problems at once with the same effort?
> 
> I believe in rewarding people with health care coverage who go through spiritual healing to reduce costs to a minimum including wiping out drug abuse and addiction in the process, and cost of related crimes as a further cost saving measure
> 
> I don't believe in paying for health care and living expenses of convicted rapists or killers unless they agree to go through spiritual healing and accept help to work and pay back r restitution to victims society and taxpayers or donors who lend them support to do this during rehab.
> 
> Why not give all taxpayers a choice which social programs and terms of benefits to support?
> 
> These involve beliefs, either social or spiritual, political or religious.
> 
> Why not recognize equal religious and political freedom for people of all parties and creeds equally ?
> 
> Keep where we agree to be governed as public policy and law. But where we disagree by inherent beliefs, allow taxpayers the choice to separate fund in g to avoid imposing on each other's equally valid beliefs whether religious political secular spiritual or individual.
> 
> Otherwise that's discriminating by creed not to protect each person equally just because their creed doesn't meet a certain size or label.
Click to expand...

It matters not if there are people who delude themselves into believing their hallucinations...

Civil marriage still remains secular.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun yes the "marriage" becomes biased by faith if you include conditions that gay couples and marriage be recognized the same way which is faith based.
> 
> And yes, so is marriage also faith based by interpreting it to mean traditional couples only.
> 
> Both are faith based.
> 
> Civil unions or domestic partnership 's would be the neutral secular term.
> 
> 
> 
> Civil marriage is not faith based. It's a legally binding contract between two individuals. The individuals' race doesn't matter.... their religion (or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their sexual orientation or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their creed doesn't matter....
> 
> ... and now, since Obergefell, their gender doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure Faun we agree in spirit,
> So let's help make sure states write and pass laws by consensus so there is agreement not
> To interject faith based beliefs into laws on marriage and/or civil unions.
> 
> If states can pass laws using the term marriage or civil marriage, great!  But the same way I would not impose the word Jesus on people just because I know this means Equal Justice for all people universally. I'd  ask that laws reflect the same courtesy and cultural consideration.
> 
> I use the term universe instead of creation.
> Many Muslims object to the use of terms Jihad or Shariah to mean govt laws or political things outside their pure spiritual meaning.
> As long as there are atheists and Muslims under laws, they have the right to ask for neutral terms, as do Christians or others who do not agree to secular definitions of marriage but might agree to expand civil unions or partnerships  (or might agree to take restrictions off all other faith based terms and practices in public institutions such as God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer etc in exchange for tolerating LGBT expressions and inclusion in public institutions as equally endorsed by govt )
> 
> Texas laws implemented "moment of silence" instead of prayer in schools as a more secular neutral alternative.
> 
> So if people object to "marriage" terms we should agree to secularize it where it achieves the same goals without invoking faith based beliefs as well, state by state. Agreed!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil marriage is already secular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure Faun if people per state agree to that. Not all do.
> If they can't agree on being under social programs regulated through govt I also suggest to separate by party to solve related
> Issues as well.
> 
> If prolife don't want health care programs they fund to pay for abortion, then separate funding or policies. Why not solve several problems at once with the same effort?
> 
> I believe in rewarding people with health care coverage who go through spiritual healing to reduce costs to a minimum including wiping out drug abuse and addiction in the process, and cost of related crimes as a further cost saving measure
> 
> I don't believe in paying for health care and living expenses of convicted rapists or killers unless they agree to go through spiritual healing and accept help to work and pay back r restitution to victims society and taxpayers or donors who lend them support to do this during rehab.
> 
> Why not give all taxpayers a choice which social programs and terms of benefits to support?
> 
> These involve beliefs, either social or spiritual, political or religious.
> 
> Why not recognize equal religious and political freedom for people of all parties and creeds equally ?
> 
> Keep where we agree to be governed as public policy and law. But where we disagree by inherent beliefs, allow taxpayers the choice to separate fund in g to avoid imposing on each other's equally valid beliefs whether religious political secular spiritual or individual.
> 
> Otherwise that's discriminating by creed not to protect each person equally just because their creed doesn't meet a certain size or label.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters not if there are people who delude themselves into believing their hallucinations...
> 
> Civil marriage still remains secular.
Click to expand...

Dear Faun 
Sorry you have no right to dictate laws for other people when it comes to their beliefs.

You and I may be okay with this and also with prochoice laws, another unresolved area, but we are not other people.

I respect the right of consent to laws involving taxation. As long as people are under govt endorsing writing and enforcing laws, all those people have equal rights to dissent or consent.

Not everyone consents or believes as you or I do.

I respect your rights and beliefs equally as theirs 

Sorry if you don't.

Www.equalinclusion.com


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS thanks Faun for trying to talk through this, reason and understand it. Especially where it doesn't affect you, if it doesn't matter to you if secular laws use the word Marriage to mean secular civil contracts, or states rights vs federal rulings don't affect you and your beliefs. They do affect others whose beliefs are violated.
> 
> To me, it's no big deal to use the term Jihadist to mean warmongering terrorists who worship Jihadist as War against the world.  But to Muslims this is co-opting their faith and terms for spiritual practice in abusive contradictory ways. So if we write public laws and statements, it is imposing on or establishing adverse beliefs to use language in ways that conflict with people of faith for which these terms mean sacred things.
> 
> I don't always get it either, when it seems secular to me too, but out of respect for those who have other beliefs I will try to include them and their limits.
> 
> So if my LGBT friends need public endorsement of certain policies to feel equally represented in laws, let's find a way to achieve that in ways that don't overreach, go too far, and end up indirectly unintentionally violating other beliefs and principles.
> 
> Similar to gun laws and prolife beliefs. Those laws need to be written and focused correctly where they don't incidentally infringe on other rights .
> 
> If you want people to respect your rights, it makes sense to respect other peoples.
> 
> If you want them to hear your objections and what you need for representation, then of course, we listen to theirs too.
> 
> Like you said, the marriage laws must account for everyone.
> 
> So why would you override the objections of others, then argue the laws should reflect everyone???
> 
> How can they reflect the public unless we include all people's consent and resolve all issues causing objection!
> 
> 
> 
> State sanctioned marriage in the U.S. has always been a civil contract and has always been called "marriage." We don't call marriage something else for certain folks because others find it offensive. Equal protection under the law supersedes Christians' feelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun I agree with your other post and will reply to focus on that where we agree.
> 
> For this, opponents argue similar as you do that LGBT are trying to change the definition of marriage. You insist that it only means the CIVIL marriage. But that's not what that means to other citizens who have equal right to how laws are worded. CIVIL unions and domestic contracts would solve this problem for more people. So I'd leave that to states to work out terms.
> 
> If you are going to reform and expand on meanings of terms, let's do the same for the word God instead of cutting that out from public institutions to please the minority.
> 
> Let's agree God can mean universal truth wisdom or collective knowledge, laws of nature, Greater Public Good, forces of life etc. Depending on context. Let's agree Jesus means universal justice with mercy or equal justice for all humanity. So we don't have to remove that term or change the wording.
> 
> If you are willing to trade out compromises in tolerating different beliefs, maybe those opposing specific marriage beliefs would agree to tolerate those in exchange for tolerating beliefs about creation, etc. In public institutions instead of insisting on removal.
> 
> Including beliefs about creation or prayer isn't forcing anyone to change to those, yet these are removed due to faith based beliefs that are relative and free choice.
> 
> Well so are beliefs about LGBT, marriage, orientation/identity as natural or unnatural (or both as I believe they're not all unnatural/changeable nor all natural/unchangeable but depend on spiritual conditions the govt can't define for people).
> 
> If everyone agrees to equal treatment of beliefs, then we could achieve mutual  tolerance on all sides.
> 
> It just can't be one sided, Faun, only pushing liberal beliefs calling them secular while rejecting the beliefs of others as religious when both are equally Faith based and remain equal choice until proven by science or accepted by free will not force of govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your faith does not have to accept same sex marriage. You just can't force the government to not accept it based solely on your religion
> 
> You have to demonstrate a legitimate harm to society in order to get government to forbid it. Same sex marriage opponents have been unable to do that to the satisfaction f the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope rightwinger
> 1. It's not about forbidding or banning it,
> But keeping marriage beliefs in private
> 2. The harm is EITHER sides beliefs being established or endorsed by law against the Other beliefs without free choice and consent
> 3. The harm is discrimination by creed pitting one set of beliefs against the other instead of keeping both in private
> 
> if states agree to include gay marriage as the solution fine, but if enough people in that state do not consent and believe it should be civil unions for everyone and keep marriage private, i would suggest either separating by party or possibly resolving the conflict by agreeing to tolerate God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer, and all other faith based expression in public institutions if LGBT beliefs and creeds are going to be endorsed by government as protected. Then all other creeds should have equal freedom to be exercised instead of removed from public institutions too!
Click to expand...

Not as long as the government provides special benefits to married couples that they don't provide to singles. In that case they must treat all marriages equally. 
Our Constitution supersedes the claims of the states. The state must provide equal protection of the law. They must also recognize contracts written in other states 
Nobody is discriminating against your beliefs. If you object to gay marriage....don't do it
However, you can't force the government to enforce your beliefs.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil marriage is not faith based. It's a legally binding contract between two individuals. The individuals' race doesn't matter.... their religion (or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their sexual orientation or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their creed doesn't matter....
> 
> ... and now, since Obergefell, their gender doesn't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Faun we agree in spirit,
> So let's help make sure states write and pass laws by consensus so there is agreement not
> To interject faith based beliefs into laws on marriage and/or civil unions.
> 
> If states can pass laws using the term marriage or civil marriage, great!  But the same way I would not impose the word Jesus on people just because I know this means Equal Justice for all people universally. I'd  ask that laws reflect the same courtesy and cultural consideration.
> 
> I use the term universe instead of creation.
> Many Muslims object to the use of terms Jihad or Shariah to mean govt laws or political things outside their pure spiritual meaning.
> As long as there are atheists and Muslims under laws, they have the right to ask for neutral terms, as do Christians or others who do not agree to secular definitions of marriage but might agree to expand civil unions or partnerships  (or might agree to take restrictions off all other faith based terms and practices in public institutions such as God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer etc in exchange for tolerating LGBT expressions and inclusion in public institutions as equally endorsed by govt )
> 
> Texas laws implemented "moment of silence" instead of prayer in schools as a more secular neutral alternative.
> 
> So if people object to "marriage" terms we should agree to secularize it where it achieves the same goals without invoking faith based beliefs as well, state by state. Agreed!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil marriage is already secular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure Faun if people per state agree to that. Not all do.
> If they can't agree on being under social programs regulated through govt I also suggest to separate by party to solve related
> Issues as well.
> 
> If prolife don't want health care programs they fund to pay for abortion, then separate funding or policies. Why not solve several problems at once with the same effort?
> 
> I believe in rewarding people with health care coverage who go through spiritual healing to reduce costs to a minimum including wiping out drug abuse and addiction in the process, and cost of related crimes as a further cost saving measure
> 
> I don't believe in paying for health care and living expenses of convicted rapists or killers unless they agree to go through spiritual healing and accept help to work and pay back r restitution to victims society and taxpayers or donors who lend them support to do this during rehab.
> 
> Why not give all taxpayers a choice which social programs and terms of benefits to support?
> 
> These involve beliefs, either social or spiritual, political or religious.
> 
> Why not recognize equal religious and political freedom for people of all parties and creeds equally ?
> 
> Keep where we agree to be governed as public policy and law. But where we disagree by inherent beliefs, allow taxpayers the choice to separate fund in g to avoid imposing on each other's equally valid beliefs whether religious political secular spiritual or individual.
> 
> Otherwise that's discriminating by creed not to protect each person equally just because their creed doesn't meet a certain size or label.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters not if there are people who delude themselves into believing their hallucinations...
> 
> Civil marriage still remains secular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> Sorry you have no right to dictate laws for other people when it comes to their beliefs.
> 
> You and I may be okay with this and also with prochoice laws, another unresolved area, but we are not other people.
> 
> I respect the right of consent to laws involving taxation. As long as people are under govt endorsing writing and enforcing laws, all those people have equal rights to dissent or consent.
> 
> Not everyone consents or believes as you or I do.
> 
> I respect your rights and beliefs equally as theirs
> 
> Sorry if you don't.
> 
> Www.equalinclusion.com
Click to expand...

You're mistaken again. I am not dictating any laws. States are and states can dictate laws regardless of peoples' religious beliefs as long as they don't infringe on their freedom to exercise their religion or force them to act in a manner contradictory to their religious beliefs.


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS thanks Faun for trying to talk through this, reason and understand it. Especially where it doesn't affect you, if it doesn't matter to you if secular laws use the word Marriage to mean secular civil contracts, or states rights vs federal rulings don't affect you and your beliefs. They do affect others whose beliefs are violated.
> 
> To me, it's no big deal to use the term Jihadist to mean warmongering terrorists who worship Jihadist as War against the world.  But to Muslims this is co-opting their faith and terms for spiritual practice in abusive contradictory ways. So if we write public laws and statements, it is imposing on or establishing adverse beliefs to use language in ways that conflict with people of faith for which these terms mean sacred things.
> 
> I don't always get it either, when it seems secular to me too, but out of respect for those who have other beliefs I will try to include them and their limits.
> 
> So if my LGBT friends need public endorsement of certain policies to feel equally represented in laws, let's find a way to achieve that in ways that don't overreach, go too far, and end up indirectly unintentionally violating other beliefs and principles.
> 
> Similar to gun laws and prolife beliefs. Those laws need to be written and focused correctly where they don't incidentally infringe on other rights .
> 
> If you want people to respect your rights, it makes sense to respect other peoples.
> 
> If you want them to hear your objections and what you need for representation, then of course, we listen to theirs too.
> 
> Like you said, the marriage laws must account for everyone.
> 
> So why would you override the objections of others, then argue the laws should reflect everyone???
> 
> How can they reflect the public unless we include all people's consent and resolve all issues causing objection!
> 
> 
> 
> State sanctioned marriage in the U.S. has always been a civil contract and has always been called "marriage." We don't call marriage something else for certain folks because others find it offensive. Equal protection under the law supersedes Christians' feelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun I agree with your other post and will reply to focus on that where we agree.
> 
> For this, opponents argue similar as you do that LGBT are trying to change the definition of marriage. You insist that it only means the CIVIL marriage. But that's not what that means to other citizens who have equal right to how laws are worded. CIVIL unions and domestic contracts would solve this problem for more people. So I'd leave that to states to work out terms.
> 
> If you are going to reform and expand on meanings of terms, let's do the same for the word God instead of cutting that out from public institutions to please the minority.
> 
> Let's agree God can mean universal truth wisdom or collective knowledge, laws of nature, Greater Public Good, forces of life etc. Depending on context. Let's agree Jesus means universal justice with mercy or equal justice for all humanity. So we don't have to remove that term or change the wording.
> 
> If you are willing to trade out compromises in tolerating different beliefs, maybe those opposing specific marriage beliefs would agree to tolerate those in exchange for tolerating beliefs about creation, etc. In public institutions instead of insisting on removal.
> 
> Including beliefs about creation or prayer isn't forcing anyone to change to those, yet these are removed due to faith based beliefs that are relative and free choice.
> 
> Well so are beliefs about LGBT, marriage, orientation/identity as natural or unnatural (or both as I believe they're not all unnatural/changeable nor all natural/unchangeable but depend on spiritual conditions the govt can't define for people).
> 
> If everyone agrees to equal treatment of beliefs, then we could achieve mutual  tolerance on all sides.
> 
> It just can't be one sided, Faun, only pushing liberal beliefs calling them secular while rejecting the beliefs of others as religious when both are equally Faith based and remain equal choice until proven by science or accepted by free will not force of govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your faith does not have to accept same sex marriage. You just can't force the government to not accept it based solely on your religion
> 
> You have to demonstrate a legitimate harm to society in order to get government to forbid it. Same sex marriage opponents have been unable to do that to the satisfaction f the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope rightwinger
> 1. It's not about forbidding or banning it,
> But keeping marriage beliefs in private
> 2. The harm is EITHER sides beliefs being established or endorsed by law against the Other beliefs without free choice and consent
> 3. The harm is discrimination by creed pitting one set of beliefs against the other instead of keeping both in private
> 
> if states agree to include gay marriage as the solution fine, but if enough people in that state do not consent and believe it should be civil unions for everyone and keep marriage private, i would suggest either separating by party or possibly resolving the conflict by agreeing to tolerate God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer, and all other faith based expression in public institutions if LGBT beliefs and creeds are going to be endorsed by government as protected. Then all other creeds should have equal freedom to be exercised instead of removed from public institutions too!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not as long as the government provides special benefits to married couples that they don't provide to singles. In that case they must treat all marriages equally.
> Our Constitution supersedes the claims of the states. The state must provide equal protection of the law. They must also recognize contracts written in other states
> Nobody is discriminating against your beliefs. If you object to gay marriage....don't do it
> However, you can't force the government to enforce your beliefs.
Click to expand...


Dear rightwinger 
YES, that's what I'm talking about.
Separating ALL social benefits from beliefs about marriage, too!
Examples:
1. either AGREE to manage all of these benefits for Civil Unions (or if states agree to call them Civil Marriages but I think this gets into conflict)
 as SECULAR financial and legal agreements APART from any conditions or beliefs about the RELATIONSHIP between the two parties in a contract.
Beneficiaries can also be secularized/neutral, and have no restrictions on relationship if the people of the state agree to those terms.
2. or if people CANNOT agree on social terms,
separate ALL such benefits (as we already know people do NOT agree on health care managed through state or federal govt or through free market chioces)
BY PARTY and/or by TAX FORM
where people can CHOOSE whether to go through their state, party or federal program
and not affect taxpayers who CHOOSE a different system.

This would solve SEVERAL problems at once include different beliefs on
* abortion and birth control
* drug use and who pays for the health problems if people choose to use drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc.
* prison policies on death penalty, mentally ill, even Spiritual Healing that has been used to cure not only mental and physical illness but even criminal illness,
and restorative justice approaches whether religious or nonprofit or secular
etc.

By separating funding for prisons, that money alone saved by restorative justice measures would help save
resources in order to afford sustainable universal health care


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Faun we agree in spirit,
> So let's help make sure states write and pass laws by consensus so there is agreement not
> To interject faith based beliefs into laws on marriage and/or civil unions.
> 
> If states can pass laws using the term marriage or civil marriage, great!  But the same way I would not impose the word Jesus on people just because I know this means Equal Justice for all people universally. I'd  ask that laws reflect the same courtesy and cultural consideration.
> 
> I use the term universe instead of creation.
> Many Muslims object to the use of terms Jihad or Shariah to mean govt laws or political things outside their pure spiritual meaning.
> As long as there are atheists and Muslims under laws, they have the right to ask for neutral terms, as do Christians or others who do not agree to secular definitions of marriage but might agree to expand civil unions or partnerships  (or might agree to take restrictions off all other faith based terms and practices in public institutions such as God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer etc in exchange for tolerating LGBT expressions and inclusion in public institutions as equally endorsed by govt )
> 
> Texas laws implemented "moment of silence" instead of prayer in schools as a more secular neutral alternative.
> 
> So if people object to "marriage" terms we should agree to secularize it where it achieves the same goals without invoking faith based beliefs as well, state by state. Agreed!
> 
> 
> 
> Civil marriage is already secular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure Faun if people per state agree to that. Not all do.
> If they can't agree on being under social programs regulated through govt I also suggest to separate by party to solve related
> Issues as well.
> 
> If prolife don't want health care programs they fund to pay for abortion, then separate funding or policies. Why not solve several problems at once with the same effort?
> 
> I believe in rewarding people with health care coverage who go through spiritual healing to reduce costs to a minimum including wiping out drug abuse and addiction in the process, and cost of related crimes as a further cost saving measure
> 
> I don't believe in paying for health care and living expenses of convicted rapists or killers unless they agree to go through spiritual healing and accept help to work and pay back r restitution to victims society and taxpayers or donors who lend them support to do this during rehab.
> 
> Why not give all taxpayers a choice which social programs and terms of benefits to support?
> 
> These involve beliefs, either social or spiritual, political or religious.
> 
> Why not recognize equal religious and political freedom for people of all parties and creeds equally ?
> 
> Keep where we agree to be governed as public policy and law. But where we disagree by inherent beliefs, allow taxpayers the choice to separate fund in g to avoid imposing on each other's equally valid beliefs whether religious political secular spiritual or individual.
> 
> Otherwise that's discriminating by creed not to protect each person equally just because their creed doesn't meet a certain size or label.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters not if there are people who delude themselves into believing their hallucinations...
> 
> Civil marriage still remains secular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> Sorry you have no right to dictate laws for other people when it comes to their beliefs.
> 
> You and I may be okay with this and also with prochoice laws, another unresolved area, but we are not other people.
> 
> I respect the right of consent to laws involving taxation. As long as people are under govt endorsing writing and enforcing laws, all those people have equal rights to dissent or consent.
> 
> Not everyone consents or believes as you or I do.
> 
> I respect your rights and beliefs equally as theirs
> 
> Sorry if you don't.
> 
> Www.equalinclusion.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're mistaken again. I am not dictating any laws. States are and states can dictate laws regardless of peoples' religious beliefs as long as they don't infringe on their freedom to exercise their religion or force them to act in a manner contradictory to their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...


Yes Faun
when you demand that all people interpret marriage the same way to mean civil marriage
you are dictating beliefs for people.

You implied that anyone who can't se e it that way is somehow "delusional"
Well, that's what some people say about
*atheists who can't see a Bible or Cross as historical but only see it as religious imposition
* LGBT who are seen by some as mentally ill!!!

They can't impose their beliefs and neither can you or I.

So if people object to those laws due to their beliefs,
I say resolve those objections until everyone agrees the laws are secular neutral and all inclusive.

You just SAID you believe those people have some "delusion or hallucination"

So no, it is NOT fair for you to impose YOUR beliefs about why they object religiously to marriage laws they disagree with on religious grounds.

You have become the same intolerant judges against diverse beliefs,
assuming there is something DEFICIENT in that person because they have some belief you don't understand or agree with,
SO MUCH that you seek to DEPRIVE others of their equal freedom to have EQUAL say in the same laws
that YOU argue should include diverse beliefs and rights of others!

How contrary is that Faun???

I'm sorry you don't get it, but neither do people
GET why atheists have to "sue to remove a cross," when that's not forcing anyone to change beliefs, and think something is "wrong or deficient" with atheist thinking when maybe that's just how their brains see the world nontheistically!

And you SOUND a lot like those who ASSUME
transgender have "delusions and are imagining" they are the other gender,
when that is part of their SPIRITUAL IDENTITY they aren't required to justify faith in!

Both end up discriminating against others for their beliefs.

Sorry but I don't believe in denigrating people as "delusional" just because
you or I don't understand the REASON for their beliefs!

They have the right to those equally as the arguments you and I make for LGBT
and the reasons for their beliefs and creeds as well!

You can judge them all you want, but you are acting the same as those
you criticize for judging LGBT orientation/identity as "delusional" or mental disorders.

And neither should either belief be imposed on anyone else through govt
or it's discriminating by creed.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil marriage is already secular.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Faun if people per state agree to that. Not all do.
> If they can't agree on being under social programs regulated through govt I also suggest to separate by party to solve related
> Issues as well.
> 
> If prolife don't want health care programs they fund to pay for abortion, then separate funding or policies. Why not solve several problems at once with the same effort?
> 
> I believe in rewarding people with health care coverage who go through spiritual healing to reduce costs to a minimum including wiping out drug abuse and addiction in the process, and cost of related crimes as a further cost saving measure
> 
> I don't believe in paying for health care and living expenses of convicted rapists or killers unless they agree to go through spiritual healing and accept help to work and pay back r restitution to victims society and taxpayers or donors who lend them support to do this during rehab.
> 
> Why not give all taxpayers a choice which social programs and terms of benefits to support?
> 
> These involve beliefs, either social or spiritual, political or religious.
> 
> Why not recognize equal religious and political freedom for people of all parties and creeds equally ?
> 
> Keep where we agree to be governed as public policy and law. But where we disagree by inherent beliefs, allow taxpayers the choice to separate fund in g to avoid imposing on each other's equally valid beliefs whether religious political secular spiritual or individual.
> 
> Otherwise that's discriminating by creed not to protect each person equally just because their creed doesn't meet a certain size or label.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters not if there are people who delude themselves into believing their hallucinations...
> 
> Civil marriage still remains secular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> Sorry you have no right to dictate laws for other people when it comes to their beliefs.
> 
> You and I may be okay with this and also with prochoice laws, another unresolved area, but we are not other people.
> 
> I respect the right of consent to laws involving taxation. As long as people are under govt endorsing writing and enforcing laws, all those people have equal rights to dissent or consent.
> 
> Not everyone consents or believes as you or I do.
> 
> I respect your rights and beliefs equally as theirs
> 
> Sorry if you don't.
> 
> Www.equalinclusion.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're mistaken again. I am not dictating any laws. States are and states can dictate laws regardless of peoples' religious beliefs as long as they don't infringe on their freedom to exercise their religion or force them to act in a manner contradictory to their religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Faun
> when you demand that all people interpret marriage the same way to mean civil marriage
> you are dictating beliefs for people.
> 
> You implied that anyone who can't se e it that way is somehow "delusional"
> Well, that's what some people say about
> *atheists who can't see a Bible or Cross as historical but only see it as religious imposition
> * LGBT who are seen by some as mentally ill!!!
> 
> They can't impose their beliefs and neither can you or I.
> 
> So if people object to those laws due to their beliefs,
> I say resolve those objections until everyone agrees the laws are secular neutral and all inclusive.
> 
> You just SAID you believe those people have some "delusion or hallucination"
> 
> So no, it is NOT fair for you to impose YOUR beliefs about why they object religiously to marriage laws they disagree with on religious grounds.
> 
> You have become the same intolerant judges against diverse beliefs,
> assuming there is something DEFICIENT in that person because they have some belief you don't understand or agree with,
> SO MUCH that you seek to DEPRIVE others of their equal freedom to have EQUAL say in the same laws
> that YOU argue should include diverse beliefs and rights of others!
> 
> How contrary is that Faun???
> 
> I'm sorry you don't get it, but neither do people
> GET why atheists have to "sue to remove a cross," when that's not forcing anyone to change beliefs, and think something is "wrong or deficient" with atheist thinking when maybe that's just how their brains see the world nontheistically!
> 
> And you SOUND a lot like those who ASSUME
> transgender have "delusions and are imagining" they are the other gender,
> when that is part of their SPIRITUAL IDENTITY they aren't required to justify faith in!
> 
> Both end up discriminating against others for their beliefs.
> 
> Sorry but I don't believe in denigrating people as "delusional" just because
> you or I don't understand the REASON for their beliefs!
> 
> They have the right to those equally as the arguments you and I make for LGBT
> and the reasons for their beliefs and creeds as well!
> 
> You can judge them all you want, but you are acting the same as those
> you criticize for judging LGBT orientation/identity as "delusional" or mental disorders.
> 
> And neither should either belief be imposed on anyone else through govt
> or it's discriminating by creed.
Click to expand...

I said, _"civil marriage is already secular,"_ which it is. You responded by stating not everyone believes that; which is what I pointed out is delusional and that no one is bound by such delusional beliefs.

And again... the topic is about same-sex marriage, not crosses.... not praying... not religion. It's a pity you're incapable of separating them from the topic.


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> State sanctioned marriage in the U.S. has always been a civil contract and has always been called "marriage." We don't call marriage something else for certain folks because others find it offensive. Equal protection under the law supersedes Christians' feelings.
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun I agree with your other post and will reply to focus on that where we agree.
> 
> For this, opponents argue similar as you do that LGBT are trying to change the definition of marriage. You insist that it only means the CIVIL marriage. But that's not what that means to other citizens who have equal right to how laws are worded. CIVIL unions and domestic contracts would solve this problem for more people. So I'd leave that to states to work out terms.
> 
> If you are going to reform and expand on meanings of terms, let's do the same for the word God instead of cutting that out from public institutions to please the minority.
> 
> Let's agree God can mean universal truth wisdom or collective knowledge, laws of nature, Greater Public Good, forces of life etc. Depending on context. Let's agree Jesus means universal justice with mercy or equal justice for all humanity. So we don't have to remove that term or change the wording.
> 
> If you are willing to trade out compromises in tolerating different beliefs, maybe those opposing specific marriage beliefs would agree to tolerate those in exchange for tolerating beliefs about creation, etc. In public institutions instead of insisting on removal.
> 
> Including beliefs about creation or prayer isn't forcing anyone to change to those, yet these are removed due to faith based beliefs that are relative and free choice.
> 
> Well so are beliefs about LGBT, marriage, orientation/identity as natural or unnatural (or both as I believe they're not all unnatural/changeable nor all natural/unchangeable but depend on spiritual conditions the govt can't define for people).
> 
> If everyone agrees to equal treatment of beliefs, then we could achieve mutual  tolerance on all sides.
> 
> It just can't be one sided, Faun, only pushing liberal beliefs calling them secular while rejecting the beliefs of others as religious when both are equally Faith based and remain equal choice until proven by science or accepted by free will not force of govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your faith does not have to accept same sex marriage. You just can't force the government to not accept it based solely on your religion
> 
> You have to demonstrate a legitimate harm to society in order to get government to forbid it. Same sex marriage opponents have been unable to do that to the satisfaction f the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope rightwinger
> 1. It's not about forbidding or banning it,
> But keeping marriage beliefs in private
> 2. The harm is EITHER sides beliefs being established or endorsed by law against the Other beliefs without free choice and consent
> 3. The harm is discrimination by creed pitting one set of beliefs against the other instead of keeping both in private
> 
> if states agree to include gay marriage as the solution fine, but if enough people in that state do not consent and believe it should be civil unions for everyone and keep marriage private, i would suggest either separating by party or possibly resolving the conflict by agreeing to tolerate God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer, and all other faith based expression in public institutions if LGBT beliefs and creeds are going to be endorsed by government as protected. Then all other creeds should have equal freedom to be exercised instead of removed from public institutions too!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not as long as the government provides special benefits to married couples that they don't provide to singles. In that case they must treat all marriages equally.
> Our Constitution supersedes the claims of the states. The state must provide equal protection of the law. They must also recognize contracts written in other states
> Nobody is discriminating against your beliefs. If you object to gay marriage....don't do it
> However, you can't force the government to enforce your beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> YES, that's what I'm talking about.
> Separating ALL social benefits from beliefs about marriage, too!
> Examples:
> 1. either AGREE to manage all of these benefits for Civil Unions (or if states agree to call them Civil Marriages but I think this gets into conflict)
> as SECULAR financial and legal agreements APART from any conditions or beliefs about the RELATIONSHIP between the two parties in a contract.
> Beneficiaries can also be secularized/neutral, and have no restrictions on relationship if the people of the state agree to those terms.
> 2. or if people CANNOT agree on social terms,
> separate ALL such benefits (as we already know people do NOT agree on health care managed through state or federal govt or through free market chioces)
> BY PARTY and/or by TAX FORM
> where people can CHOOSE whether to go through their state, party or federal program
> and not affect taxpayers who CHOOSE a different system.
> 
> This would solve SEVERAL problems at once include different beliefs on
> * abortion and birth control
> * drug use and who pays for the health problems if people choose to use drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc.
> * prison policies on death penalty, mentally ill, even Spiritual Healing that has been used to cure not only mental and physical illness but even criminal illness,
> and restorative justice approaches whether religious or nonprofit or secular
> etc.
> 
> By separating funding for prisons, that money alone saved by restorative justice measures would help save
> resources in order to afford sustainable universal health care
Click to expand...

You are close.....

People can CHOOSE to marry a same sex partner or not

you might not like it.....But what business is it of yours?


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Faun if people per state agree to that. Not all do.
> If they can't agree on being under social programs regulated through govt I also suggest to separate by party to solve related
> Issues as well.
> 
> If prolife don't want health care programs they fund to pay for abortion, then separate funding or policies. Why not solve several problems at once with the same effort?
> 
> I believe in rewarding people with health care coverage who go through spiritual healing to reduce costs to a minimum including wiping out drug abuse and addiction in the process, and cost of related crimes as a further cost saving measure
> 
> I don't believe in paying for health care and living expenses of convicted rapists or killers unless they agree to go through spiritual healing and accept help to work and pay back r restitution to victims society and taxpayers or donors who lend them support to do this during rehab.
> 
> Why not give all taxpayers a choice which social programs and terms of benefits to support?
> 
> These involve beliefs, either social or spiritual, political or religious.
> 
> Why not recognize equal religious and political freedom for people of all parties and creeds equally ?
> 
> Keep where we agree to be governed as public policy and law. But where we disagree by inherent beliefs, allow taxpayers the choice to separate fund in g to avoid imposing on each other's equally valid beliefs whether religious political secular spiritual or individual.
> 
> Otherwise that's discriminating by creed not to protect each person equally just because their creed doesn't meet a certain size or label.
> 
> 
> 
> It matters not if there are people who delude themselves into believing their hallucinations...
> 
> Civil marriage still remains secular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> Sorry you have no right to dictate laws for other people when it comes to their beliefs.
> 
> You and I may be okay with this and also with prochoice laws, another unresolved area, but we are not other people.
> 
> I respect the right of consent to laws involving taxation. As long as people are under govt endorsing writing and enforcing laws, all those people have equal rights to dissent or consent.
> 
> Not everyone consents or believes as you or I do.
> 
> I respect your rights and beliefs equally as theirs
> 
> Sorry if you don't.
> 
> Www.equalinclusion.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're mistaken again. I am not dictating any laws. States are and states can dictate laws regardless of peoples' religious beliefs as long as they don't infringe on their freedom to exercise their religion or force them to act in a manner contradictory to their religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Faun
> when you demand that all people interpret marriage the same way to mean civil marriage
> you are dictating beliefs for people.
> 
> You implied that anyone who can't se e it that way is somehow "delusional"
> Well, that's what some people say about
> *atheists who can't see a Bible or Cross as historical but only see it as religious imposition
> * LGBT who are seen by some as mentally ill!!!
> 
> They can't impose their beliefs and neither can you or I.
> 
> So if people object to those laws due to their beliefs,
> I say resolve those objections until everyone agrees the laws are secular neutral and all inclusive.
> 
> You just SAID you believe those people have some "delusion or hallucination"
> 
> So no, it is NOT fair for you to impose YOUR beliefs about why they object religiously to marriage laws they disagree with on religious grounds.
> 
> You have become the same intolerant judges against diverse beliefs,
> assuming there is something DEFICIENT in that person because they have some belief you don't understand or agree with,
> SO MUCH that you seek to DEPRIVE others of their equal freedom to have EQUAL say in the same laws
> that YOU argue should include diverse beliefs and rights of others!
> 
> How contrary is that Faun???
> 
> I'm sorry you don't get it, but neither do people
> GET why atheists have to "sue to remove a cross," when that's not forcing anyone to change beliefs, and think something is "wrong or deficient" with atheist thinking when maybe that's just how their brains see the world nontheistically!
> 
> And you SOUND a lot like those who ASSUME
> transgender have "delusions and are imagining" they are the other gender,
> when that is part of their SPIRITUAL IDENTITY they aren't required to justify faith in!
> 
> Both end up discriminating against others for their beliefs.
> 
> Sorry but I don't believe in denigrating people as "delusional" just because
> you or I don't understand the REASON for their beliefs!
> 
> They have the right to those equally as the arguments you and I make for LGBT
> and the reasons for their beliefs and creeds as well!
> 
> You can judge them all you want, but you are acting the same as those
> you criticize for judging LGBT orientation/identity as "delusional" or mental disorders.
> 
> And neither should either belief be imposed on anyone else through govt
> or it's discriminating by creed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said, _"civil marriage is already secular,"_ which it is. You responded by stating not everyone believes that; which is what I pointed out is delusional and that no one is bound by such delusional beliefs.
> 
> And again... the topic is about same-sex marriage, not crosses.... not praying... not religion. It's a pity you're incapable of separating them from the topic.
Click to expand...


See ^ Faun you did it again.
You assume that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."

Sorry but I disagree.

I know LOTS of independents, even a liberal lesbian friend who said the same thing I am saying in "sticking with CIVIL UNIONS,"
Libertarians, Constitutionalists, both Christian and secular, who do NOT believe that those marriage laws are unbiased and "secular"
but STILL are imposing beliefs by applying to gay couples which NOT ALL PEOPLE BELIEVE IN. 

And they AGREE that sticking to Civil Unions would solve the problem.
Some are still reluctant to remove ALL marriage and ONLY have Civil Unions for ALL people.

But more of the people who agree to "remove ALL marriage" are the Libertarians or similar approaches.

So if that is the common denominator, sure, I will go with that.

If you want to say ALL these diverse people are "delusional" for not agreeing to change civil marriage laws to include gay couples,
that is YOUR assumption, but I found these people are actually MORE objective and MORE rational who 
could LET GO OF BELIEFS and agree to stick to what is neutral and secular.

You claim to let go, but if you have to paint anyone who believes otherwise as "delusional'
that means you are still attaching bias to this and projecting onto people of different beliefs.

Unlike YOU, I am willing to include ALL people in how laws are written state by state.
If you want to exclude and demonize people as being "delusional" that's not unbiased
but you are already discriminating against others you don't understand or agree with.

sorry but an all-inclusive democratic process cannot be run by accusing people of being delusional
just for having different religious biases.

I think if we are having THIS much trouble communicating,
I could see removing marriage ALL TOGETHER and separating ALL social benefits
by party so only LIKEMINDED people write their own terms and conditions for funding
their own benefits collectively, and leave other people out, if both groups are just going
to ACCUSE the other of being delusional or mentally ill.  people already think that
of liberals, so again, I see that you think the same of them. At least it's equal. 

but since two wrongs don't make it right, this still doesn't solve the problems.

I would highly recommend just separating social programs by political party,
so nobody has to deal with others they consider "delusional."


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Sneekin and occupied

I give up on trying to explain political beliefs to people
and how to resolve biases in laws by recognizing people
have a right to their beliefs, whether religious or political spiritual or secular.

Please tell me how you would word this 
so I can ask for legal help to sue or petition parties to separate tracks through the state.

I am trying to argue for the right of people of different beliefs to have
separate tracks for paying their taxes and managing terms and agreements for social programs,
including health care and marriage benefits, since obviously we don't all agree.

At this point, not only do people treat liberal beliefs as mental disorders to be shut out of govt altogether,
but now even Faun is saying this of people who don't believe civil marriage laws are secular enough but
are establishing beliefs by including gay couples which they don't believe are the same as traditional couples and marriage.

If people cannot even fathom that each other's beliefs are valid 
but see them as delusional or mental deficiency,
isn't that grounds for separation?

In order to save freedom of choice from political beliefs seeking to regulate or restrict it through govt,
can I please ask you help: How would you word a petition to lawmakers
and party leaders to support the separation of social programs by party
so that all taxpayers may be assured direct representation on either
state or national levels through the party or track of their choice
without affecting terms or conditions that other people or parties want to fund and represent by their beliefs?


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> It matters not if there are people who delude themselves into believing their hallucinations...
> 
> Civil marriage still remains secular.
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> Sorry you have no right to dictate laws for other people when it comes to their beliefs.
> 
> You and I may be okay with this and also with prochoice laws, another unresolved area, but we are not other people.
> 
> I respect the right of consent to laws involving taxation. As long as people are under govt endorsing writing and enforcing laws, all those people have equal rights to dissent or consent.
> 
> Not everyone consents or believes as you or I do.
> 
> I respect your rights and beliefs equally as theirs
> 
> Sorry if you don't.
> 
> Www.equalinclusion.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're mistaken again. I am not dictating any laws. States are and states can dictate laws regardless of peoples' religious beliefs as long as they don't infringe on their freedom to exercise their religion or force them to act in a manner contradictory to their religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Faun
> when you demand that all people interpret marriage the same way to mean civil marriage
> you are dictating beliefs for people.
> 
> You implied that anyone who can't se e it that way is somehow "delusional"
> Well, that's what some people say about
> *atheists who can't see a Bible or Cross as historical but only see it as religious imposition
> * LGBT who are seen by some as mentally ill!!!
> 
> They can't impose their beliefs and neither can you or I.
> 
> So if people object to those laws due to their beliefs,
> I say resolve those objections until everyone agrees the laws are secular neutral and all inclusive.
> 
> You just SAID you believe those people have some "delusion or hallucination"
> 
> So no, it is NOT fair for you to impose YOUR beliefs about why they object religiously to marriage laws they disagree with on religious grounds.
> 
> You have become the same intolerant judges against diverse beliefs,
> assuming there is something DEFICIENT in that person because they have some belief you don't understand or agree with,
> SO MUCH that you seek to DEPRIVE others of their equal freedom to have EQUAL say in the same laws
> that YOU argue should include diverse beliefs and rights of others!
> 
> How contrary is that Faun???
> 
> I'm sorry you don't get it, but neither do people
> GET why atheists have to "sue to remove a cross," when that's not forcing anyone to change beliefs, and think something is "wrong or deficient" with atheist thinking when maybe that's just how their brains see the world nontheistically!
> 
> And you SOUND a lot like those who ASSUME
> transgender have "delusions and are imagining" they are the other gender,
> when that is part of their SPIRITUAL IDENTITY they aren't required to justify faith in!
> 
> Both end up discriminating against others for their beliefs.
> 
> Sorry but I don't believe in denigrating people as "delusional" just because
> you or I don't understand the REASON for their beliefs!
> 
> They have the right to those equally as the arguments you and I make for LGBT
> and the reasons for their beliefs and creeds as well!
> 
> You can judge them all you want, but you are acting the same as those
> you criticize for judging LGBT orientation/identity as "delusional" or mental disorders.
> 
> And neither should either belief be imposed on anyone else through govt
> or it's discriminating by creed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said, _"civil marriage is already secular,"_ which it is. You responded by stating not everyone believes that; which is what I pointed out is delusional and that no one is bound by such delusional beliefs.
> 
> And again... the topic is about same-sex marriage, not crosses.... not praying... not religion. It's a pity you're incapable of separating them from the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See ^ Faun you did it again.
> You assume that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."
> 
> Sorry but I disagree.
> 
> I know LOTS of independents, even a liberal lesbian friend who said the same thing I am saying in "sticking with CIVIL UNIONS,"
> Libertarians, Constitutionalists, both Christian and secular, who do NOT believe that those marriage laws are unbiased and "secular"
> but STILL are imposing beliefs by applying to gay couples which NOT ALL PEOPLE BELIEVE IN.
> 
> And they AGREE that sticking to Civil Unions would solve the problem.
> Some are still reluctant to remove ALL marriage and ONLY have Civil Unions for ALL people.
> 
> But more of the people who agree to "remove ALL marriage" are the Libertarians or similar approaches.
> 
> So if that is the common denominator, sure, I will go with that.
> 
> If you want to say ALL these diverse people are "delusional" for not agreeing to change civil marriage laws to include gay couples,
> that is YOUR assumption, but I found these people are actually MORE objective and MORE rational who
> could LET GO OF BELIEFS and agree to stick to what is neutral and secular.
> 
> You claim to let go, but if you have to paint anyone who believes otherwise as "delusional'
> that means you are still attaching bias to this and projecting onto people of different beliefs.
> 
> Unlike YOU, I am willing to include ALL people in how laws are written state by state.
> If you want to exclude and demonize people as being "delusional" that's not unbiased
> but you are already discriminating against others you don't understand or agree with.
> 
> sorry but an all-inclusive democratic process cannot be run by accusing people of being delusional
> just for having different religious biases.
> 
> I think if we are having THIS much trouble communicating,
> I could see removing marriage ALL TOGETHER and separating ALL social benefits
> by party so only LIKEMINDED people write their own terms and conditions for funding
> their own benefits collectively, and leave other people out, if both groups are just going
> to ACCUSE the other of being delusional or mentally ill.  people already think that
> of liberals, so again, I see that you think the same of them. At least it's equal.
> 
> but since two wrongs don't make it right, this still doesn't solve the problems.
> 
> I would highly recommend just separating social programs by political party,
> so nobody has to deal with others they consider "delusional."
Click to expand...

I said no such thing. Stop misrepresenting what I say. I said anyone who believes civil marriage is not secular is delusional.

I did not say _that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."_

And we're not doing away with marriage altogether because some folks find it objectionable any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interfaith marriage; or any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interracial marriages.

You've failed to articulate any reasonable argument to reject same-sex sex marriage or doing away with marriage entirely for all.


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun I agree with your other post and will reply to focus on that where we agree.
> 
> For this, opponents argue similar as you do that LGBT are trying to change the definition of marriage. You insist that it only means the CIVIL marriage. But that's not what that means to other citizens who have equal right to how laws are worded. CIVIL unions and domestic contracts would solve this problem for more people. So I'd leave that to states to work out terms.
> 
> If you are going to reform and expand on meanings of terms, let's do the same for the word God instead of cutting that out from public institutions to please the minority.
> 
> Let's agree God can mean universal truth wisdom or collective knowledge, laws of nature, Greater Public Good, forces of life etc. Depending on context. Let's agree Jesus means universal justice with mercy or equal justice for all humanity. So we don't have to remove that term or change the wording.
> 
> If you are willing to trade out compromises in tolerating different beliefs, maybe those opposing specific marriage beliefs would agree to tolerate those in exchange for tolerating beliefs about creation, etc. In public institutions instead of insisting on removal.
> 
> Including beliefs about creation or prayer isn't forcing anyone to change to those, yet these are removed due to faith based beliefs that are relative and free choice.
> 
> Well so are beliefs about LGBT, marriage, orientation/identity as natural or unnatural (or both as I believe they're not all unnatural/changeable nor all natural/unchangeable but depend on spiritual conditions the govt can't define for people).
> 
> If everyone agrees to equal treatment of beliefs, then we could achieve mutual  tolerance on all sides.
> 
> It just can't be one sided, Faun, only pushing liberal beliefs calling them secular while rejecting the beliefs of others as religious when both are equally Faith based and remain equal choice until proven by science or accepted by free will not force of govt.
> 
> 
> 
> Your faith does not have to accept same sex marriage. You just can't force the government to not accept it based solely on your religion
> 
> You have to demonstrate a legitimate harm to society in order to get government to forbid it. Same sex marriage opponents have been unable to do that to the satisfaction f the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope rightwinger
> 1. It's not about forbidding or banning it,
> But keeping marriage beliefs in private
> 2. The harm is EITHER sides beliefs being established or endorsed by law against the Other beliefs without free choice and consent
> 3. The harm is discrimination by creed pitting one set of beliefs against the other instead of keeping both in private
> 
> if states agree to include gay marriage as the solution fine, but if enough people in that state do not consent and believe it should be civil unions for everyone and keep marriage private, i would suggest either separating by party or possibly resolving the conflict by agreeing to tolerate God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer, and all other faith based expression in public institutions if LGBT beliefs and creeds are going to be endorsed by government as protected. Then all other creeds should have equal freedom to be exercised instead of removed from public institutions too!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not as long as the government provides special benefits to married couples that they don't provide to singles. In that case they must treat all marriages equally.
> Our Constitution supersedes the claims of the states. The state must provide equal protection of the law. They must also recognize contracts written in other states
> Nobody is discriminating against your beliefs. If you object to gay marriage....don't do it
> However, you can't force the government to enforce your beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> YES, that's what I'm talking about.
> Separating ALL social benefits from beliefs about marriage, too!
> Examples:
> 1. either AGREE to manage all of these benefits for Civil Unions (or if states agree to call them Civil Marriages but I think this gets into conflict)
> as SECULAR financial and legal agreements APART from any conditions or beliefs about the RELATIONSHIP between the two parties in a contract.
> Beneficiaries can also be secularized/neutral, and have no restrictions on relationship if the people of the state agree to those terms.
> 2. or if people CANNOT agree on social terms,
> separate ALL such benefits (as we already know people do NOT agree on health care managed through state or federal govt or through free market chioces)
> BY PARTY and/or by TAX FORM
> where people can CHOOSE whether to go through their state, party or federal program
> and not affect taxpayers who CHOOSE a different system.
> 
> This would solve SEVERAL problems at once include different beliefs on
> * abortion and birth control
> * drug use and who pays for the health problems if people choose to use drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc.
> * prison policies on death penalty, mentally ill, even Spiritual Healing that has been used to cure not only mental and physical illness but even criminal illness,
> and restorative justice approaches whether religious or nonprofit or secular
> etc.
> 
> By separating funding for prisons, that money alone saved by restorative justice measures would help save
> resources in order to afford sustainable universal health care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are close.....
> 
> People can CHOOSE to marry a same sex partner or not
> 
> you might not like it.....But what business is it of yours?
Click to expand...


Dear rightwinger I'm saying to keep it out of govt if you want free choice.
Keep the language secular where everyone agrees to it.

I've found more common agreement to keep Civil Unions in govt
and manage contracts that way and NOT specify any conditions on
the social relationships between the partners who form a legal contract or domestic partnership.

If brother and sister, or two neighbors want to run a household together and share contractual
duties or legal guardianship, that has ZERO to do with if they are having romantic relations
much less if they have to be husband and wife.

And if people don't agree on benefits policies, those are social values also,
that can be separated by party if people cannot agree on state or federal laws for all people in that state or across the nation.

Not to worry rightwinger I already gave up trying to explain it.

I am happy enough to find the other people who get it,
and maybe that's enough to separate our beliefs from govt
and leave everyone else who believe in dominating one political belief "for all people"
every time majority rule decides an election. I don't believe in that,
but if you and others do, I cannot change your minds for you.

All I can do is sue or petition to separate my taxes and my representation
from people like you who believe in violating each other's by majority rule
and claim that gives you license to impose your beliefs, political or otherwise,
onto others who don't agree. and call them delusional, just like people
say that about liberals and try to censor them for it.

I believe this impositional bullying is a DANGER to the very liberal progressive
ideals I believe in regarding free choice, and protecting beliefs and creeds from
discrimination, exclusion, coercion, bullying, imposition, penalty, and deprivation of equal protection rights and liberties.

I understand you and others believe in protecting rights by establishing them through govt,
but I believe this still requires consensus where political beliefs differ.

I don't believe in forcing or imposing them without consent, or it's not 
valid authority of law if not all people consent to that policy.  I believe
in matters of belief, all objections and conflicts should be resolved to
ensure equal representation and protection of interests, regardless of creed.

But my standards are higher than even very intelligent articulate people like
you and Faun can handle.

so it's not fair to expect you to understand this and change your minds
if you are set on seeing opponents with other beliefs as "delusional."

That's why opponents of liberal beliefs say the same thing, give up
and just resort to voting liberals out of office.  

You are danger to your own party principles and you don't even see it.
Where's the inclusion, the free choice.
Both sides have resorted to painting the other as delusional,
and that's where I have to leave you to your own devices if that's the best I can expect from you.

Thanks for your best efforts!

Just know that people say the same thing and think
liberals are "mentally ill" or "deluded" in depending on govt for rights when to them
that is a false and dangerous premise.

Or they want "everyone else" to pay for their programs
so when I advocate to separate tracks so taxpayers have a choice,
they say "liberals will never support that because they want OTHER people
to pay for their programs".

That makes no sense to me. If I and other Democrats believe in sustainable
health care, we should be able to fund it ourselves. And if it's not affordable,
something is wrong with the terms and conditions, and we'd have to change
them such as requiring all people get help for criminal illness abuse or addiction
if that's what driving costs up that could otherwise pay for health care.

I hope it's finally time to separate social programs and funding by party,
Because I'm sick of fighting back and forth when all parties have enough
resources to manage their own policies and not interfere with each other!!!


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> Sorry you have no right to dictate laws for other people when it comes to their beliefs.
> 
> You and I may be okay with this and also with prochoice laws, another unresolved area, but we are not other people.
> 
> I respect the right of consent to laws involving taxation. As long as people are under govt endorsing writing and enforcing laws, all those people have equal rights to dissent or consent.
> 
> Not everyone consents or believes as you or I do.
> 
> I respect your rights and beliefs equally as theirs
> 
> Sorry if you don't.
> 
> Www.equalinclusion.com
> 
> 
> 
> You're mistaken again. I am not dictating any laws. States are and states can dictate laws regardless of peoples' religious beliefs as long as they don't infringe on their freedom to exercise their religion or force them to act in a manner contradictory to their religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Faun
> when you demand that all people interpret marriage the same way to mean civil marriage
> you are dictating beliefs for people.
> 
> You implied that anyone who can't se e it that way is somehow "delusional"
> Well, that's what some people say about
> *atheists who can't see a Bible or Cross as historical but only see it as religious imposition
> * LGBT who are seen by some as mentally ill!!!
> 
> They can't impose their beliefs and neither can you or I.
> 
> So if people object to those laws due to their beliefs,
> I say resolve those objections until everyone agrees the laws are secular neutral and all inclusive.
> 
> You just SAID you believe those people have some "delusion or hallucination"
> 
> So no, it is NOT fair for you to impose YOUR beliefs about why they object religiously to marriage laws they disagree with on religious grounds.
> 
> You have become the same intolerant judges against diverse beliefs,
> assuming there is something DEFICIENT in that person because they have some belief you don't understand or agree with,
> SO MUCH that you seek to DEPRIVE others of their equal freedom to have EQUAL say in the same laws
> that YOU argue should include diverse beliefs and rights of others!
> 
> How contrary is that Faun???
> 
> I'm sorry you don't get it, but neither do people
> GET why atheists have to "sue to remove a cross," when that's not forcing anyone to change beliefs, and think something is "wrong or deficient" with atheist thinking when maybe that's just how their brains see the world nontheistically!
> 
> And you SOUND a lot like those who ASSUME
> transgender have "delusions and are imagining" they are the other gender,
> when that is part of their SPIRITUAL IDENTITY they aren't required to justify faith in!
> 
> Both end up discriminating against others for their beliefs.
> 
> Sorry but I don't believe in denigrating people as "delusional" just because
> you or I don't understand the REASON for their beliefs!
> 
> They have the right to those equally as the arguments you and I make for LGBT
> and the reasons for their beliefs and creeds as well!
> 
> You can judge them all you want, but you are acting the same as those
> you criticize for judging LGBT orientation/identity as "delusional" or mental disorders.
> 
> And neither should either belief be imposed on anyone else through govt
> or it's discriminating by creed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said, _"civil marriage is already secular,"_ which it is. You responded by stating not everyone believes that; which is what I pointed out is delusional and that no one is bound by such delusional beliefs.
> 
> And again... the topic is about same-sex marriage, not crosses.... not praying... not religion. It's a pity you're incapable of separating them from the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See ^ Faun you did it again.
> You assume that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."
> 
> Sorry but I disagree.
> 
> I know LOTS of independents, even a liberal lesbian friend who said the same thing I am saying in "sticking with CIVIL UNIONS,"
> Libertarians, Constitutionalists, both Christian and secular, who do NOT believe that those marriage laws are unbiased and "secular"
> but STILL are imposing beliefs by applying to gay couples which NOT ALL PEOPLE BELIEVE IN.
> 
> And they AGREE that sticking to Civil Unions would solve the problem.
> Some are still reluctant to remove ALL marriage and ONLY have Civil Unions for ALL people.
> 
> But more of the people who agree to "remove ALL marriage" are the Libertarians or similar approaches.
> 
> So if that is the common denominator, sure, I will go with that.
> 
> If you want to say ALL these diverse people are "delusional" for not agreeing to change civil marriage laws to include gay couples,
> that is YOUR assumption, but I found these people are actually MORE objective and MORE rational who
> could LET GO OF BELIEFS and agree to stick to what is neutral and secular.
> 
> You claim to let go, but if you have to paint anyone who believes otherwise as "delusional'
> that means you are still attaching bias to this and projecting onto people of different beliefs.
> 
> Unlike YOU, I am willing to include ALL people in how laws are written state by state.
> If you want to exclude and demonize people as being "delusional" that's not unbiased
> but you are already discriminating against others you don't understand or agree with.
> 
> sorry but an all-inclusive democratic process cannot be run by accusing people of being delusional
> just for having different religious biases.
> 
> I think if we are having THIS much trouble communicating,
> I could see removing marriage ALL TOGETHER and separating ALL social benefits
> by party so only LIKEMINDED people write their own terms and conditions for funding
> their own benefits collectively, and leave other people out, if both groups are just going
> to ACCUSE the other of being delusional or mentally ill.  people already think that
> of liberals, so again, I see that you think the same of them. At least it's equal.
> 
> but since two wrongs don't make it right, this still doesn't solve the problems.
> 
> I would highly recommend just separating social programs by political party,
> so nobody has to deal with others they consider "delusional."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said no such thing. Stop misrepresenting what I say. I said anyone who believes civil marriage is not secular is delusional.
> 
> I did not say _that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."_
> 
> And we're not doing away with marriage altogether because some folks find it objectionable any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interfaith marriage; or any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interracial marriages.
> 
> You've failed to articulate any reasonable argument to reject same-sex sex marriage or doing away with marriage entirely for all.
Click to expand...


YES I just pointed out the reasons.
that it is discriminating against people of either belief
to impose one way or another.

Whichever side of marriage laws govt takes, it leaves the other discriminated against.
People on both sides feel the other creed is establishing a bias in law and govt
unless all the related issues are resolved.

So it is in govt and public best interest either to require
* consensus on laws including how they are written funded and enforced
* or separation of policies such as by state or by party if needed to solve the conflicts.

Thanks Faun


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're mistaken again. I am not dictating any laws. States are and states can dictate laws regardless of peoples' religious beliefs as long as they don't infringe on their freedom to exercise their religion or force them to act in a manner contradictory to their religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Faun
> when you demand that all people interpret marriage the same way to mean civil marriage
> you are dictating beliefs for people.
> 
> You implied that anyone who can't se e it that way is somehow "delusional"
> Well, that's what some people say about
> *atheists who can't see a Bible or Cross as historical but only see it as religious imposition
> * LGBT who are seen by some as mentally ill!!!
> 
> They can't impose their beliefs and neither can you or I.
> 
> So if people object to those laws due to their beliefs,
> I say resolve those objections until everyone agrees the laws are secular neutral and all inclusive.
> 
> You just SAID you believe those people have some "delusion or hallucination"
> 
> So no, it is NOT fair for you to impose YOUR beliefs about why they object religiously to marriage laws they disagree with on religious grounds.
> 
> You have become the same intolerant judges against diverse beliefs,
> assuming there is something DEFICIENT in that person because they have some belief you don't understand or agree with,
> SO MUCH that you seek to DEPRIVE others of their equal freedom to have EQUAL say in the same laws
> that YOU argue should include diverse beliefs and rights of others!
> 
> How contrary is that Faun???
> 
> I'm sorry you don't get it, but neither do people
> GET why atheists have to "sue to remove a cross," when that's not forcing anyone to change beliefs, and think something is "wrong or deficient" with atheist thinking when maybe that's just how their brains see the world nontheistically!
> 
> And you SOUND a lot like those who ASSUME
> transgender have "delusions and are imagining" they are the other gender,
> when that is part of their SPIRITUAL IDENTITY they aren't required to justify faith in!
> 
> Both end up discriminating against others for their beliefs.
> 
> Sorry but I don't believe in denigrating people as "delusional" just because
> you or I don't understand the REASON for their beliefs!
> 
> They have the right to those equally as the arguments you and I make for LGBT
> and the reasons for their beliefs and creeds as well!
> 
> You can judge them all you want, but you are acting the same as those
> you criticize for judging LGBT orientation/identity as "delusional" or mental disorders.
> 
> And neither should either belief be imposed on anyone else through govt
> or it's discriminating by creed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said, _"civil marriage is already secular,"_ which it is. You responded by stating not everyone believes that; which is what I pointed out is delusional and that no one is bound by such delusional beliefs.
> 
> And again... the topic is about same-sex marriage, not crosses.... not praying... not religion. It's a pity you're incapable of separating them from the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See ^ Faun you did it again.
> You assume that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."
> 
> Sorry but I disagree.
> 
> I know LOTS of independents, even a liberal lesbian friend who said the same thing I am saying in "sticking with CIVIL UNIONS,"
> Libertarians, Constitutionalists, both Christian and secular, who do NOT believe that those marriage laws are unbiased and "secular"
> but STILL are imposing beliefs by applying to gay couples which NOT ALL PEOPLE BELIEVE IN.
> 
> And they AGREE that sticking to Civil Unions would solve the problem.
> Some are still reluctant to remove ALL marriage and ONLY have Civil Unions for ALL people.
> 
> But more of the people who agree to "remove ALL marriage" are the Libertarians or similar approaches.
> 
> So if that is the common denominator, sure, I will go with that.
> 
> If you want to say ALL these diverse people are "delusional" for not agreeing to change civil marriage laws to include gay couples,
> that is YOUR assumption, but I found these people are actually MORE objective and MORE rational who
> could LET GO OF BELIEFS and agree to stick to what is neutral and secular.
> 
> You claim to let go, but if you have to paint anyone who believes otherwise as "delusional'
> that means you are still attaching bias to this and projecting onto people of different beliefs.
> 
> Unlike YOU, I am willing to include ALL people in how laws are written state by state.
> If you want to exclude and demonize people as being "delusional" that's not unbiased
> but you are already discriminating against others you don't understand or agree with.
> 
> sorry but an all-inclusive democratic process cannot be run by accusing people of being delusional
> just for having different religious biases.
> 
> I think if we are having THIS much trouble communicating,
> I could see removing marriage ALL TOGETHER and separating ALL social benefits
> by party so only LIKEMINDED people write their own terms and conditions for funding
> their own benefits collectively, and leave other people out, if both groups are just going
> to ACCUSE the other of being delusional or mentally ill.  people already think that
> of liberals, so again, I see that you think the same of them. At least it's equal.
> 
> but since two wrongs don't make it right, this still doesn't solve the problems.
> 
> I would highly recommend just separating social programs by political party,
> so nobody has to deal with others they consider "delusional."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said no such thing. Stop misrepresenting what I say. I said anyone who believes civil marriage is not secular is delusional.
> 
> I did not say _that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."_
> 
> And we're not doing away with marriage altogether because some folks find it objectionable any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interfaith marriage; or any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interracial marriages.
> 
> You've failed to articulate any reasonable argument to reject same-sex sex marriage or doing away with marriage entirely for all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES I just pointed out the reasons.
> that it is discriminating against people of either belief
> to impose one way or another.
> 
> Whichever side of marriage laws govt takes, it leaves the other discriminated against.
> People on both sides feel the other creed is establishing a bias in law and govt
> unless all the related issues are resolved.
> 
> So it is in govt and public best interest either to require
> * consensus on laws including how they are written funded and enforced
> * or separation of policies such as by state or by party if needed to solve the conflicts.
> 
> Thanks Faun
Click to expand...

As you've been told before, even though you can't understand it, same-sex marriage is not being imposed upon anyone who doesn't want it.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Faun
> when you demand that all people interpret marriage the same way to mean civil marriage
> you are dictating beliefs for people.
> 
> You implied that anyone who can't se e it that way is somehow "delusional"
> Well, that's what some people say about
> *atheists who can't see a Bible or Cross as historical but only see it as religious imposition
> * LGBT who are seen by some as mentally ill!!!
> 
> They can't impose their beliefs and neither can you or I.
> 
> So if people object to those laws due to their beliefs,
> I say resolve those objections until everyone agrees the laws are secular neutral and all inclusive.
> 
> You just SAID you believe those people have some "delusion or hallucination"
> 
> So no, it is NOT fair for you to impose YOUR beliefs about why they object religiously to marriage laws they disagree with on religious grounds.
> 
> You have become the same intolerant judges against diverse beliefs,
> assuming there is something DEFICIENT in that person because they have some belief you don't understand or agree with,
> SO MUCH that you seek to DEPRIVE others of their equal freedom to have EQUAL say in the same laws
> that YOU argue should include diverse beliefs and rights of others!
> 
> How contrary is that Faun???
> 
> I'm sorry you don't get it, but neither do people
> GET why atheists have to "sue to remove a cross," when that's not forcing anyone to change beliefs, and think something is "wrong or deficient" with atheist thinking when maybe that's just how their brains see the world nontheistically!
> 
> And you SOUND a lot like those who ASSUME
> transgender have "delusions and are imagining" they are the other gender,
> when that is part of their SPIRITUAL IDENTITY they aren't required to justify faith in!
> 
> Both end up discriminating against others for their beliefs.
> 
> Sorry but I don't believe in denigrating people as "delusional" just because
> you or I don't understand the REASON for their beliefs!
> 
> They have the right to those equally as the arguments you and I make for LGBT
> and the reasons for their beliefs and creeds as well!
> 
> You can judge them all you want, but you are acting the same as those
> you criticize for judging LGBT orientation/identity as "delusional" or mental disorders.
> 
> And neither should either belief be imposed on anyone else through govt
> or it's discriminating by creed.
> 
> 
> 
> I said, _"civil marriage is already secular,"_ which it is. You responded by stating not everyone believes that; which is what I pointed out is delusional and that no one is bound by such delusional beliefs.
> 
> And again... the topic is about same-sex marriage, not crosses.... not praying... not religion. It's a pity you're incapable of separating them from the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See ^ Faun you did it again.
> You assume that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."
> 
> Sorry but I disagree.
> 
> I know LOTS of independents, even a liberal lesbian friend who said the same thing I am saying in "sticking with CIVIL UNIONS,"
> Libertarians, Constitutionalists, both Christian and secular, who do NOT believe that those marriage laws are unbiased and "secular"
> but STILL are imposing beliefs by applying to gay couples which NOT ALL PEOPLE BELIEVE IN.
> 
> And they AGREE that sticking to Civil Unions would solve the problem.
> Some are still reluctant to remove ALL marriage and ONLY have Civil Unions for ALL people.
> 
> But more of the people who agree to "remove ALL marriage" are the Libertarians or similar approaches.
> 
> So if that is the common denominator, sure, I will go with that.
> 
> If you want to say ALL these diverse people are "delusional" for not agreeing to change civil marriage laws to include gay couples,
> that is YOUR assumption, but I found these people are actually MORE objective and MORE rational who
> could LET GO OF BELIEFS and agree to stick to what is neutral and secular.
> 
> You claim to let go, but if you have to paint anyone who believes otherwise as "delusional'
> that means you are still attaching bias to this and projecting onto people of different beliefs.
> 
> Unlike YOU, I am willing to include ALL people in how laws are written state by state.
> If you want to exclude and demonize people as being "delusional" that's not unbiased
> but you are already discriminating against others you don't understand or agree with.
> 
> sorry but an all-inclusive democratic process cannot be run by accusing people of being delusional
> just for having different religious biases.
> 
> I think if we are having THIS much trouble communicating,
> I could see removing marriage ALL TOGETHER and separating ALL social benefits
> by party so only LIKEMINDED people write their own terms and conditions for funding
> their own benefits collectively, and leave other people out, if both groups are just going
> to ACCUSE the other of being delusional or mentally ill.  people already think that
> of liberals, so again, I see that you think the same of them. At least it's equal.
> 
> but since two wrongs don't make it right, this still doesn't solve the problems.
> 
> I would highly recommend just separating social programs by political party,
> so nobody has to deal with others they consider "delusional."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said no such thing. Stop misrepresenting what I say. I said anyone who believes civil marriage is not secular is delusional.
> 
> I did not say _that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."_
> 
> And we're not doing away with marriage altogether because some folks find it objectionable any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interfaith marriage; or any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interracial marriages.
> 
> You've failed to articulate any reasonable argument to reject same-sex sex marriage or doing away with marriage entirely for all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES I just pointed out the reasons.
> that it is discriminating against people of either belief
> to impose one way or another.
> 
> Whichever side of marriage laws govt takes, it leaves the other discriminated against.
> People on both sides feel the other creed is establishing a bias in law and govt
> unless all the related issues are resolved.
> 
> So it is in govt and public best interest either to require
> * consensus on laws including how they are written funded and enforced
> * or separation of policies such as by state or by party if needed to solve the conflicts.
> 
> Thanks Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you've been told before, even though you can't understand it, same-sex marriage is not being imposed upon anyone who doesn't want it.
Click to expand...


I answered this before, several times.

I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"

If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."

Same principle. Faun 

In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.

So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
"if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."

Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
Crosses
Prayers
God
Jesus
creation
etc.
from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda. 

Or that's discrimination by creed.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said, _"civil marriage is already secular,"_ which it is. You responded by stating not everyone believes that; which is what I pointed out is delusional and that no one is bound by such delusional beliefs.
> 
> And again... the topic is about same-sex marriage, not crosses.... not praying... not religion. It's a pity you're incapable of separating them from the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See ^ Faun you did it again.
> You assume that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."
> 
> Sorry but I disagree.
> 
> I know LOTS of independents, even a liberal lesbian friend who said the same thing I am saying in "sticking with CIVIL UNIONS,"
> Libertarians, Constitutionalists, both Christian and secular, who do NOT believe that those marriage laws are unbiased and "secular"
> but STILL are imposing beliefs by applying to gay couples which NOT ALL PEOPLE BELIEVE IN.
> 
> And they AGREE that sticking to Civil Unions would solve the problem.
> Some are still reluctant to remove ALL marriage and ONLY have Civil Unions for ALL people.
> 
> But more of the people who agree to "remove ALL marriage" are the Libertarians or similar approaches.
> 
> So if that is the common denominator, sure, I will go with that.
> 
> If you want to say ALL these diverse people are "delusional" for not agreeing to change civil marriage laws to include gay couples,
> that is YOUR assumption, but I found these people are actually MORE objective and MORE rational who
> could LET GO OF BELIEFS and agree to stick to what is neutral and secular.
> 
> You claim to let go, but if you have to paint anyone who believes otherwise as "delusional'
> that means you are still attaching bias to this and projecting onto people of different beliefs.
> 
> Unlike YOU, I am willing to include ALL people in how laws are written state by state.
> If you want to exclude and demonize people as being "delusional" that's not unbiased
> but you are already discriminating against others you don't understand or agree with.
> 
> sorry but an all-inclusive democratic process cannot be run by accusing people of being delusional
> just for having different religious biases.
> 
> I think if we are having THIS much trouble communicating,
> I could see removing marriage ALL TOGETHER and separating ALL social benefits
> by party so only LIKEMINDED people write their own terms and conditions for funding
> their own benefits collectively, and leave other people out, if both groups are just going
> to ACCUSE the other of being delusional or mentally ill.  people already think that
> of liberals, so again, I see that you think the same of them. At least it's equal.
> 
> but since two wrongs don't make it right, this still doesn't solve the problems.
> 
> I would highly recommend just separating social programs by political party,
> so nobody has to deal with others they consider "delusional."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said no such thing. Stop misrepresenting what I say. I said anyone who believes civil marriage is not secular is delusional.
> 
> I did not say _that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."_
> 
> And we're not doing away with marriage altogether because some folks find it objectionable any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interfaith marriage; or any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interracial marriages.
> 
> You've failed to articulate any reasonable argument to reject same-sex sex marriage or doing away with marriage entirely for all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES I just pointed out the reasons.
> that it is discriminating against people of either belief
> to impose one way or another.
> 
> Whichever side of marriage laws govt takes, it leaves the other discriminated against.
> People on both sides feel the other creed is establishing a bias in law and govt
> unless all the related issues are resolved.
> 
> So it is in govt and public best interest either to require
> * consensus on laws including how they are written funded and enforced
> * or separation of policies such as by state or by party if needed to solve the conflicts.
> 
> Thanks Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you've been told before, even though you can't understand it, same-sex marriage is not being imposed upon anyone who doesn't want it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered this before, several times.
> 
> I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"
> 
> If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
> then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."
> 
> Same principle. Faun
> 
> In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
> the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.
> 
> So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
> they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
> "if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."
> 
> Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
> And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
> Crosses
> Prayers
> God
> Jesus
> creation
> etc.
> from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
> and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
> and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.
> 
> Or that's discrimination by creed.
Click to expand...

Your analogies are not the same. Crosses are banned from public property because such a display can be construed as state established religion, which is strictly forbidden according to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

That is in no way analogous to same-sex marriage, which in no way, violates the U.S. Constitution.

You're again grasping at straws because you have no rational defense of your position.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> See ^ Faun you did it again.
> You assume that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."
> 
> Sorry but I disagree.
> 
> I know LOTS of independents, even a liberal lesbian friend who said the same thing I am saying in "sticking with CIVIL UNIONS,"
> Libertarians, Constitutionalists, both Christian and secular, who do NOT believe that those marriage laws are unbiased and "secular"
> but STILL are imposing beliefs by applying to gay couples which NOT ALL PEOPLE BELIEVE IN.
> 
> And they AGREE that sticking to Civil Unions would solve the problem.
> Some are still reluctant to remove ALL marriage and ONLY have Civil Unions for ALL people.
> 
> But more of the people who agree to "remove ALL marriage" are the Libertarians or similar approaches.
> 
> So if that is the common denominator, sure, I will go with that.
> 
> If you want to say ALL these diverse people are "delusional" for not agreeing to change civil marriage laws to include gay couples,
> that is YOUR assumption, but I found these people are actually MORE objective and MORE rational who
> could LET GO OF BELIEFS and agree to stick to what is neutral and secular.
> 
> You claim to let go, but if you have to paint anyone who believes otherwise as "delusional'
> that means you are still attaching bias to this and projecting onto people of different beliefs.
> 
> Unlike YOU, I am willing to include ALL people in how laws are written state by state.
> If you want to exclude and demonize people as being "delusional" that's not unbiased
> but you are already discriminating against others you don't understand or agree with.
> 
> sorry but an all-inclusive democratic process cannot be run by accusing people of being delusional
> just for having different religious biases.
> 
> I think if we are having THIS much trouble communicating,
> I could see removing marriage ALL TOGETHER and separating ALL social benefits
> by party so only LIKEMINDED people write their own terms and conditions for funding
> their own benefits collectively, and leave other people out, if both groups are just going
> to ACCUSE the other of being delusional or mentally ill.  people already think that
> of liberals, so again, I see that you think the same of them. At least it's equal.
> 
> but since two wrongs don't make it right, this still doesn't solve the problems.
> 
> I would highly recommend just separating social programs by political party,
> so nobody has to deal with others they consider "delusional."
> 
> 
> 
> I said no such thing. Stop misrepresenting what I say. I said anyone who believes civil marriage is not secular is delusional.
> 
> I did not say _that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."_
> 
> And we're not doing away with marriage altogether because some folks find it objectionable any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interfaith marriage; or any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interracial marriages.
> 
> You've failed to articulate any reasonable argument to reject same-sex sex marriage or doing away with marriage entirely for all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES I just pointed out the reasons.
> that it is discriminating against people of either belief
> to impose one way or another.
> 
> Whichever side of marriage laws govt takes, it leaves the other discriminated against.
> People on both sides feel the other creed is establishing a bias in law and govt
> unless all the related issues are resolved.
> 
> So it is in govt and public best interest either to require
> * consensus on laws including how they are written funded and enforced
> * or separation of policies such as by state or by party if needed to solve the conflicts.
> 
> Thanks Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you've been told before, even though you can't understand it, same-sex marriage is not being imposed upon anyone who doesn't want it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered this before, several times.
> 
> I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"
> 
> If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
> then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."
> 
> Same principle. Faun
> 
> In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
> the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.
> 
> So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
> they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
> "if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."
> 
> Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
> And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
> Crosses
> Prayers
> God
> Jesus
> creation
> etc.
> from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
> and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
> and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.
> 
> Or that's discrimination by creed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your analogies are not the same. Crosses are banned from public property because such a display can be construed as state established religion, which is strictly forbidden according to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> That is in no way analogous to same-sex marriage, which in no way, violates the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> You're again grasping at straws because you have no rational defense of your position.
Click to expand...


????

Dear Faun
Yes, it does constitute an establishment of beliefs
if govt is abused to impose EITHER beliefs about marriage
as "traditional only" or as "including gay couples and gay marriage"
where other people dissent because they don't share those beliefs.

BOTH of those are biases in beliefs.

Sorry Faun Only if the public or people in a state AGREE
to the laws can you or I say it isn't biased in beliefs. So that's what I am seeking:
true inclusion, neutrality and equal representation of all people of all beliefs.

If one side objects because their beliefs or rights aren't represented equally,
that means there IS A BIAS, or else why would they be objecting.

You are the one discrediting one side's beliefs as "delusional."

I'm the only one in this discussion attempting to include ALL beliefs equally
and find a way that doesn't discriminate against one or the other.

I don't consider LGBT beliefs or orientation a "delusion" or "hallucination."

So don't blame bias on me when I am trying to be all inclusive
and you already excluded other people's beliefs as delusions!

Shame on you.


----------



## emilynghiem

Here Faun
here is a response I posted to someone else
who argued that homosexuality is NOT proven scientifically to be a born innate fixed condition
[and who APPEARS TO CORRELATE homosexuality and transgender identity with "mental health problems"]

====================================
_The other author is Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the leading psychiatrists in the world. He was psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore from 1975 to 2001. These scientists reviewed hundreds of peer reviewed studies on sexual orientation and gender identity from the biological, psychological and social sciences. Their conclusions were as follows:_.........................

_the belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property – that people are “born that way” –* is not supported by scientific evidence.*
The belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex – so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ – *is not supported by scientific evidence*._.......................

_Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behaviour will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood._..............

_Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity._.............................. .............

_The second bombshell was exploded by a top researcher for the American Psychological Association (APA), lesbian activist, Dr. Lisa Diamond, co-author-in-chief of ‘the APA Handbook’ of sexuality and psychology and one of the APA’s most respected members. She admitted that sexual orientation was “fluid” and not unchangeable. By doing so, Dr. Diamond confirmed that the myth that “homosexuals can’t change” is now a dead-end theory_
===========================================================

Dear sec
Yes and no
1. studies on identical twins do not show correlation in orientation.
some studies were inflated to show higher than 50%, but it's definitely NOT 100% as a genetic cause would show
One source: Homosexuality Can it be Healed by Dr. Francis MacNutt
for interview of Judith MacNutt on 20 cases of homosexual clients healed by spiritual therapy
see: Interview - Francis & Judith MacNutt - Mastering Life

2. homosexual and transgender identity can still be attributed to factors in the WOMB.
studies on brains show a similarity between the brains of females and of gay males.
Even if not genetic, it could be a condition by birth and not someone's choice.

When I look at people who claim to be spiritual soulmates, is that something
either one of them chose? How they were incarnated as black or white, male or female?

3. my argument is to treat LGBT beliefs orientation and gender as SPIRITUALLY determined.
So this covers any and all beliefs equally, and does not discriminate against one or another.
No matter what someone believes, since both sides are faith based and neither proven nor disproven
by science, they remain free choice; and certain govt should never be abused to impose a faith-based bias
or force someone to change their beliefs. These should all be included equally, whether for or against gay marriage
or believing homosexuality is natural or unnatural, a choice of behavior or not, or it can or cannot change.

Some people can change, some cannot.
Some believe the change is merely reverting back to default natural status at birth, and not really changing orientation
So like someone's expression of identity as Muslim or Christian, atheist, liberal prochoice, or conservative prolife,
I believe in treating one's beliefs about LGBT as a CREED and not denying disparaging or harassing people regardless
what their views are, why, and if these change or not. Some people cannot help and cannot change how they believe.
And that goes for both sides!


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said no such thing. Stop misrepresenting what I say. I said anyone who believes civil marriage is not secular is delusional.
> 
> I did not say _that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."_
> 
> And we're not doing away with marriage altogether because some folks find it objectionable any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interfaith marriage; or any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interracial marriages.
> 
> You've failed to articulate any reasonable argument to reject same-sex sex marriage or doing away with marriage entirely for all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES I just pointed out the reasons.
> that it is discriminating against people of either belief
> to impose one way or another.
> 
> Whichever side of marriage laws govt takes, it leaves the other discriminated against.
> People on both sides feel the other creed is establishing a bias in law and govt
> unless all the related issues are resolved.
> 
> So it is in govt and public best interest either to require
> * consensus on laws including how they are written funded and enforced
> * or separation of policies such as by state or by party if needed to solve the conflicts.
> 
> Thanks Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you've been told before, even though you can't understand it, same-sex marriage is not being imposed upon anyone who doesn't want it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered this before, several times.
> 
> I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"
> 
> If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
> then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."
> 
> Same principle. Faun
> 
> In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
> the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.
> 
> So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
> they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
> "if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."
> 
> Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
> And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
> Crosses
> Prayers
> God
> Jesus
> creation
> etc.
> from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
> and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
> and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.
> 
> Or that's discrimination by creed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your analogies are not the same. Crosses are banned from public property because such a display can be construed as state established religion, which is strictly forbidden according to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> That is in no way analogous to same-sex marriage, which in no way, violates the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> You're again grasping at straws because you have no rational defense of your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ????
> 
> Dear Faun
> Yes, it does constitute an establishment of beliefs
> if govt is abused to impose EITHER beliefs about marriage
> as "traditional only" or as "including gay couples and gay marriage"
> where other people dissent because they don't share those beliefs.
> 
> BOTH of those are biases in beliefs.
> 
> Sorry Faun Only if the public or people in a state AGREE
> to the laws can you or I say it isn't biased in beliefs. So that's what I am seeking:
> true inclusion, neutrality and equal representation of all people of all beliefs.
> 
> If one side objects because their beliefs or rights aren't represented equally,
> that means there IS A BIAS, or else why would they be objecting.
> 
> You are the one discrediting one side's beliefs as "delusional."
> 
> I'm the only one in this discussion attempting to include ALL beliefs equally
> and find a way that doesn't discriminate against one or the other.
> 
> I don't consider LGBT beliefs or orientation a "delusion" or "hallucination."
> 
> So don't blame bias on me when I am trying to be all inclusive
> and you already excluded other people's beliefs as delusions!
> 
> Shame on you.
Click to expand...

And what is unconstitutional about the belief that gay people should be legally allowed to marry the person of their choice regardless of gender?


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES I just pointed out the reasons.
> that it is discriminating against people of either belief
> to impose one way or another.
> 
> Whichever side of marriage laws govt takes, it leaves the other discriminated against.
> People on both sides feel the other creed is establishing a bias in law and govt
> unless all the related issues are resolved.
> 
> So it is in govt and public best interest either to require
> * consensus on laws including how they are written funded and enforced
> * or separation of policies such as by state or by party if needed to solve the conflicts.
> 
> Thanks Faun
> 
> 
> 
> As you've been told before, even though you can't understand it, same-sex marriage is not being imposed upon anyone who doesn't want it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered this before, several times.
> 
> I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"
> 
> If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
> then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."
> 
> Same principle. Faun
> 
> In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
> the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.
> 
> So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
> they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
> "if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."
> 
> Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
> And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
> Crosses
> Prayers
> God
> Jesus
> creation
> etc.
> from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
> and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
> and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.
> 
> Or that's discrimination by creed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your analogies are not the same. Crosses are banned from public property because such a display can be construed as state established religion, which is strictly forbidden according to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> That is in no way analogous to same-sex marriage, which in no way, violates the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> You're again grasping at straws because you have no rational defense of your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ????
> 
> Dear Faun
> Yes, it does constitute an establishment of beliefs
> if govt is abused to impose EITHER beliefs about marriage
> as "traditional only" or as "including gay couples and gay marriage"
> where other people dissent because they don't share those beliefs.
> 
> BOTH of those are biases in beliefs.
> 
> Sorry Faun Only if the public or people in a state AGREE
> to the laws can you or I say it isn't biased in beliefs. So that's what I am seeking:
> true inclusion, neutrality and equal representation of all people of all beliefs.
> 
> If one side objects because their beliefs or rights aren't represented equally,
> that means there IS A BIAS, or else why would they be objecting.
> 
> You are the one discrediting one side's beliefs as "delusional."
> 
> I'm the only one in this discussion attempting to include ALL beliefs equally
> and find a way that doesn't discriminate against one or the other.
> 
> I don't consider LGBT beliefs or orientation a "delusion" or "hallucination."
> 
> So don't blame bias on me when I am trying to be all inclusive
> and you already excluded other people's beliefs as delusions!
> 
> Shame on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what is unconstitutional about the belief that gay people should be legally allowed to marry the person of their choice regardless of gender?
Click to expand...


That this belief can be practiced under free exercise of religion,
which govt can neither prohibit or establish, without endorsing it through govt laws that everyone is under (except as written and enforced by consent of the people where beliefs are involved)

So if either side believes a law isn't neutral enough but is biased one way or another,
that is grounds for revising it until it is neutral enough to represent the public.

Faun


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Here Faun
> here is a response I posted to someone else
> who argued that homosexuality is NOT proven scientifically to be a born innate fixed condition
> [and who APPEARS TO CORRELATE homosexuality and transgender identity with "mental health problems"]
> 
> ====================================
> _The other author is Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the leading psychiatrists in the world. He was psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore from 1975 to 2001. These scientists reviewed hundreds of peer reviewed studies on sexual orientation and gender identity from the biological, psychological and social sciences. Their conclusions were as follows:_.........................
> 
> _the belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property – that people are “born that way” –* is not supported by scientific evidence.*
> The belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex – so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ – *is not supported by scientific evidence*._.......................
> 
> _Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behaviour will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood._..............
> 
> _Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity._.............................. .............
> 
> _The second bombshell was exploded by a top researcher for the American Psychological Association (APA), lesbian activist, Dr. Lisa Diamond, co-author-in-chief of ‘the APA Handbook’ of sexuality and psychology and one of the APA’s most respected members. She admitted that sexual orientation was “fluid” and not unchangeable. By doing so, Dr. Diamond confirmed that the myth that “homosexuals can’t change” is now a dead-end theory_
> ===========================================================
> 
> Dear sec
> Yes and no
> 1. studies on identical twins do not show correlation in orientation.
> some studies were inflated to show higher than 50%, but it's definitely NOT 100% as a genetic cause would show
> One source: Homosexuality Can it be Healed by Dr. Francis MacNutt
> for interview of Judith MacNutt on 20 cases of homosexual clients healed by spiritual therapy
> see: Interview - Francis & Judith MacNutt - Mastering Life
> 
> 2. homosexual and transgender identity can still be attributed to factors in the WOMB.
> studies on brains show a similarity between the brains of females and of gay males.
> Even if not genetic, it could be a condition by birth and not someone's choice.
> 
> When I look at people who claim to be spiritual soulmates, is that something
> either one of them chose? How they were incarnated as black or white, male or female?
> 
> 3. my argument is to treat LGBT beliefs orientation and gender as SPIRITUALLY determined.
> So this covers any and all beliefs equally, and does not discriminate against one or another.
> No matter what someone believes, since both sides are faith based and neither proven nor disproven
> by science, they remain free choice; and certain govt should never be abused to impose a faith-based bias
> or force someone to change their beliefs. These should all be included equally, whether for or against gay marriage
> or believing homosexuality is natural or unnatural, a choice of behavior or not, or it can or cannot change.
> 
> Some people can change, some cannot.
> Some believe the change is merely reverting back to default natural status at birth, and not really changing orientation
> So like someone's expression of identity as Muslim or Christian, atheist, liberal prochoice, or conservative prolife,
> I believe in treating one's beliefs about LGBT as a CREED and not denying disparaging or harassing people regardless
> what their views are, why, and if these change or not. Some people cannot help and cannot change how they believe.
> And that goes for both sides!


That's not an argument I ever made or care about. 

Next diatribe...?


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you've been told before, even though you can't understand it, same-sex marriage is not being imposed upon anyone who doesn't want it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered this before, several times.
> 
> I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"
> 
> If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
> then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."
> 
> Same principle. Faun
> 
> In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
> the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.
> 
> So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
> they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
> "if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."
> 
> Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
> And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
> Crosses
> Prayers
> God
> Jesus
> creation
> etc.
> from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
> and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
> and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.
> 
> Or that's discrimination by creed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your analogies are not the same. Crosses are banned from public property because such a display can be construed as state established religion, which is strictly forbidden according to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> That is in no way analogous to same-sex marriage, which in no way, violates the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> You're again grasping at straws because you have no rational defense of your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ????
> 
> Dear Faun
> Yes, it does constitute an establishment of beliefs
> if govt is abused to impose EITHER beliefs about marriage
> as "traditional only" or as "including gay couples and gay marriage"
> where other people dissent because they don't share those beliefs.
> 
> BOTH of those are biases in beliefs.
> 
> Sorry Faun Only if the public or people in a state AGREE
> to the laws can you or I say it isn't biased in beliefs. So that's what I am seeking:
> true inclusion, neutrality and equal representation of all people of all beliefs.
> 
> If one side objects because their beliefs or rights aren't represented equally,
> that means there IS A BIAS, or else why would they be objecting.
> 
> You are the one discrediting one side's beliefs as "delusional."
> 
> I'm the only one in this discussion attempting to include ALL beliefs equally
> and find a way that doesn't discriminate against one or the other.
> 
> I don't consider LGBT beliefs or orientation a "delusion" or "hallucination."
> 
> So don't blame bias on me when I am trying to be all inclusive
> and you already excluded other people's beliefs as delusions!
> 
> Shame on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what is unconstitutional about the belief that gay people should be legally allowed to marry the person of their choice regardless of gender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That this belief can be practiced under free exercise of religion,
> which govt can neither prohibit or establish, without endorsing it through govt laws that everyone is under (except as written and enforced by consent of the people where beliefs are involved)
> 
> So if either side believes a law isn't neutral enough but is biased one way or another,
> that is grounds for revising it until it is neutral enough to represent the public.
> 
> Faun
Click to expand...

No one made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. This has been explained to you repeatedly and you just don't get it.

Seems you have nothing in terms of same-sex marriage being unconstitutional.


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your faith does not have to accept same sex marriage. You just can't force the government to not accept it based solely on your religion
> 
> You have to demonstrate a legitimate harm to society in order to get government to forbid it. Same sex marriage opponents have been unable to do that to the satisfaction f the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope rightwinger
> 1. It's not about forbidding or banning it,
> But keeping marriage beliefs in private
> 2. The harm is EITHER sides beliefs being established or endorsed by law against the Other beliefs without free choice and consent
> 3. The harm is discrimination by creed pitting one set of beliefs against the other instead of keeping both in private
> 
> if states agree to include gay marriage as the solution fine, but if enough people in that state do not consent and believe it should be civil unions for everyone and keep marriage private, i would suggest either separating by party or possibly resolving the conflict by agreeing to tolerate God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer, and all other faith based expression in public institutions if LGBT beliefs and creeds are going to be endorsed by government as protected. Then all other creeds should have equal freedom to be exercised instead of removed from public institutions too!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not as long as the government provides special benefits to married couples that they don't provide to singles. In that case they must treat all marriages equally.
> Our Constitution supersedes the claims of the states. The state must provide equal protection of the law. They must also recognize contracts written in other states
> Nobody is discriminating against your beliefs. If you object to gay marriage....don't do it
> However, you can't force the government to enforce your beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> YES, that's what I'm talking about.
> Separating ALL social benefits from beliefs about marriage, too!
> Examples:
> 1. either AGREE to manage all of these benefits for Civil Unions (or if states agree to call them Civil Marriages but I think this gets into conflict)
> as SECULAR financial and legal agreements APART from any conditions or beliefs about the RELATIONSHIP between the two parties in a contract.
> Beneficiaries can also be secularized/neutral, and have no restrictions on relationship if the people of the state agree to those terms.
> 2. or if people CANNOT agree on social terms,
> separate ALL such benefits (as we already know people do NOT agree on health care managed through state or federal govt or through free market chioces)
> BY PARTY and/or by TAX FORM
> where people can CHOOSE whether to go through their state, party or federal program
> and not affect taxpayers who CHOOSE a different system.
> 
> This would solve SEVERAL problems at once include different beliefs on
> * abortion and birth control
> * drug use and who pays for the health problems if people choose to use drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc.
> * prison policies on death penalty, mentally ill, even Spiritual Healing that has been used to cure not only mental and physical illness but even criminal illness,
> and restorative justice approaches whether religious or nonprofit or secular
> etc.
> 
> By separating funding for prisons, that money alone saved by restorative justice measures would help save
> resources in order to afford sustainable universal health care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are close.....
> 
> People can CHOOSE to marry a same sex partner or not
> 
> you might not like it.....But what business is it of yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger I'm saying to keep it out of govt if you want free choice.
> Keep the language secular where everyone agrees to it.
> 
> I've found more common agreement to keep Civil Unions in govt
> and manage contracts that way and NOT specify any conditions on
> the social relationships between the partners who form a legal contract or domestic partnership.
> 
> If brother and sister, or two neighbors want to run a household together and share contractual
> duties or legal guardianship, that has ZERO to do with if they are having romantic relations
> much less if they have to be husband and wife.
> 
> And if people don't agree on benefits policies, those are social values also,
> that can be separated by party if people cannot agree on state or federal laws for all people in that state or across the nation.
> 
> Not to worry rightwinger I already gave up trying to explain it.
> 
> I am happy enough to find the other people who get it,
> and maybe that's enough to separate our beliefs from govt
> and leave everyone else who believe in dominating one political belief "for all people"
> every time majority rule decides an election. I don't believe in that,
> but if you and others do, I cannot change your minds for you.
> 
> All I can do is sue or petition to separate my taxes and my representation
> from people like you who believe in violating each other's by majority rule
> and claim that gives you license to impose your beliefs, political or otherwise,
> onto others who don't agree. and call them delusional, just like people
> say that about liberals and try to censor them for it.
> 
> I believe this impositional bullying is a DANGER to the very liberal progressive
> ideals I believe in regarding free choice, and protecting beliefs and creeds from
> discrimination, exclusion, coercion, bullying, imposition, penalty, and deprivation of equal protection rights and liberties.
> 
> I understand you and others believe in protecting rights by establishing them through govt,
> but I believe this still requires consensus where political beliefs differ.
> 
> I don't believe in forcing or imposing them without consent, or it's not
> valid authority of law if not all people consent to that policy.  I believe
> in matters of belief, all objections and conflicts should be resolved to
> ensure equal representation and protection of interests, regardless of creed.
> 
> But my standards are higher than even very intelligent articulate people like
> you and Faun can handle.
> 
> so it's not fair to expect you to understand this and change your minds
> if you are set on seeing opponents with other beliefs as "delusional."
> 
> That's why opponents of liberal beliefs say the same thing, give up
> and just resort to voting liberals out of office.
> 
> You are danger to your own party principles and you don't even see it.
> Where's the inclusion, the free choice.
> Both sides have resorted to painting the other as delusional,
> and that's where I have to leave you to your own devices if that's the best I can expect from you.
> 
> Thanks for your best efforts!
> 
> Just know that people say the same thing and think
> liberals are "mentally ill" or "deluded" in depending on govt for rights when to them
> that is a false and dangerous premise.
> 
> Or they want "everyone else" to pay for their programs
> so when I advocate to separate tracks so taxpayers have a choice,
> they say "liberals will never support that because they want OTHER people
> to pay for their programs".
> 
> That makes no sense to me. If I and other Democrats believe in sustainable
> health care, we should be able to fund it ourselves. And if it's not affordable,
> something is wrong with the terms and conditions, and we'd have to change
> them such as requiring all people get help for criminal illness abuse or addiction
> if that's what driving costs up that could otherwise pay for health care.
> 
> I hope it's finally time to separate social programs and funding by party,
> Because I'm sick of fighting back and forth when all parties have enough
> resources to manage their own policies and not interfere with each other!!!
Click to expand...

Government is in the marriage business...

They certify it and make it legal
They provide tax breaks
They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
They supervise the dissolution of marriage

What do you want them to stop doing?


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's like you're oblivous to what happened regarding Obergfell. Marriage laws are still written by the states. Obergfell did not write laws or create rights. Marriage is the union of two people. The race, creed, gender, or religion of them matters not in the eyes of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> Almost Faun You could promote Civil Unions as neutral contracts between people independent of social relationships.  But bringing in and using the term Marriage involves Beliefs about Marriage. You might see this as a neutral term. But it's not neutral for people with religious beliefs about Marriage. It's like using the term Shariah to mean secular laws, but this discriminates against people for which Shariah means spiritual duties and practice within their faith -- to them it's not a neutral secular term.
> 
> So that's what's going wrong.  These laws and rulings aren't staying secular as you intend and interpret. They cross lines into affecting areas of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.
> 
> Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. Civil unions can be for everyone and avoid the issue of marriage beliefs not everyone shares. You are free to exercise, teach and practice your beliefs about marriage, but not to impose them through govt on people of other beliefs about marriage.
> 
> To be fair to all people of all beliefs, civil unions are universal and secular.
> 
> 2. If you want to impose further, that is like people who want prayer in schools to include Christian practice of invoking God through everyone joining in Christ Jesus name. I happen to understand GOD represents universal concepts that cover and include all people, but people do not agree on religious terms. It has to remain free choice where beliefs are involved.
> 
> Same with beliefs about marriage, not all people agree on religious terms, so out of respect for religious freedom it makes sense to stick with civil unions for the government to recognize as secular contracts and leave beliefs about marriage out of govt.
> 
> Again, if you believe otherwise, so do many Christians believe in integrating their beliefs through govt they believe are universal truth as well that includes all people.
> 
> 3. If you all agree to open the doors of govt to endorse and incorporate all manner of beliefs into laws and public institutions, then that's fair and you are including all people.
> 
> But it's discrimination to tell Christians that references to Crosses, prayers to God through Christ, and teaching creation through God all have to be Removed from public institutions while insisting that beliefs about gay marriage and homosexuality as natural must be included for tolerance even when it violates beliefs of others that these are not natural.
> 
> It's discriminating by creed, so it violates other laws.
> 
> Faun would you agree to a resolution allowing all Christian beliefs and practices to be endorsed and implemented in public policies and institutions, including Christian healing prayer and right to life for unborn and teaching creation in schools, in exchange for allowing beliefs in gate marriage?
> 
> I'm sure an agreement can be worked out if all beliefs are included equally as you are asking.
> 
> Are you willing to incorporate and include all beliefs equally as yours? Are only the beliefs you happen to agree with? Thanks Faun
> 
> Even if we cannot agree how to accommodate all beliefs equally, at least we tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again, Emily. No one is imposing same-sex marriage upon anyone. Everyone is free to marry the person of their choice within legal restrictions, such as age restrictions and consent. No Christian who is opposed to same-sex marriage is forced to marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> Regarding the remainder of your post about prayer ... Again, that's a different issue and has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun what's being imposed is the faith based belief that "marriage" should be the same for gay couple as traditional couples. That is still faith based.
> 
> When crosses are on public property these are not "forcing" a belief on anyone.
> 
> But crosses have been removed on Principle alone.
> And in one case, land was transferred to private entity to preserve the cross on a structure as is to resolve the conflict.  There is no need to transfer marriage, it's been written into state laws already, since the very beginnings of our country. What are you going to do with the millions already married?  You can't really believe we are going to issue out new civil union certificates.  You aren't going to change my civil union to a marriage, nor can you legally change my marriage to a civil union.  You also have to address divorces - which is secular.   Another case where even though the priest/pastor/rabbi/monk/etc deems you to be divorced in the eyes of your religion, it does not mean you are divorced legally.  What do we call it?  Civil Dissolution?  There are laws currently in place, where if two parents are married, and there is offspring, the father is presumptively named the father, unless another person is named.  If no name is mentioned, then it is the father.  In some states, if they child was conceived during the marriage, even though there was a divorce, the divorced father is presumptively the father, even if the divorce decree was grounded on adultery of the wife.  I know Iowa was that way for years.  But it ONLY references marriage, not common law marriage, not civil unions, domestic partners, etc.  That indeed is going to be a problem, a huge impact to the states,  and huge costs.  There are also huge costs incurred at the federal levels, mainly in the tax arena.
> 
> So here, marriage can be transfered to private institutions to remove it from govt.
> 
> And only keep civil unions for everyone so it's secular neutral and fair.
Click to expand...

When the 10 commandments, cross, or any other religious symbol (form ANY religion) requires me to remove my hat, put my hand over my heart, kneel down in front, salute, or anything else, it most certainly is an interference, a forcing of belief onto me.  This happened in a public school I attended. We are a republic, you are viewing the US as a democracy, which we are not.   It's not majority rule.   If there was only a Menorah at city hall, I'd protest as well if any other religion was refused.  Could you reference where the land was transferred from the city/state/federal land to a private entity?  

I'm still waiting for you to answer how two same sex people getting married in any way shape or form interferes with a religion.  The only way it could interfere is if the government set down rules for the religions.   Obergefell, Windsor, even the 14th amendment and 1st amendment does not direct anything at a religion; in fact, it only impacts those 1138 legal decisions.   I do find it a violation of my personal beliefs if I'm forced to be in a civil union because of where I got married at (JP) or who I married (SS).   And you still haven't addressed the fact that there will have to be literally double the number of marriage laws on the books (one for SSM and one for heterosexual), but probably even more.   How are you going to handle interracial marriage?  There's a religion (one of the fundamentalist Christian sects) in KY that will not allow interracial couples to attend, and refuses to allow interracial couples to get married.  The first amendment allows this to occur.   How will you handle that in a civil union?  Or will there be different laws?  Some churches allow SSM, some don't.  

In fact, I refuse to have my marriage renamed because of who I married, or where I went to get married.


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope rightwinger
> 1. It's not about forbidding or banning it,
> But keeping marriage beliefs in private
> 2. The harm is EITHER sides beliefs being established or endorsed by law against the Other beliefs without free choice and consent
> 3. The harm is discrimination by creed pitting one set of beliefs against the other instead of keeping both in private
> 
> if states agree to include gay marriage as the solution fine, but if enough people in that state do not consent and believe it should be civil unions for everyone and keep marriage private, i would suggest either separating by party or possibly resolving the conflict by agreeing to tolerate God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer, and all other faith based expression in public institutions if LGBT beliefs and creeds are going to be endorsed by government as protected. Then all other creeds should have equal freedom to be exercised instead of removed from public institutions too!
> 
> 
> 
> Not as long as the government provides special benefits to married couples that they don't provide to singles. In that case they must treat all marriages equally.
> Our Constitution supersedes the claims of the states. The state must provide equal protection of the law. They must also recognize contracts written in other states
> Nobody is discriminating against your beliefs. If you object to gay marriage....don't do it
> However, you can't force the government to enforce your beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> YES, that's what I'm talking about.
> Separating ALL social benefits from beliefs about marriage, too!
> Examples:
> 1. either AGREE to manage all of these benefits for Civil Unions (or if states agree to call them Civil Marriages but I think this gets into conflict)
> as SECULAR financial and legal agreements APART from any conditions or beliefs about the RELATIONSHIP between the two parties in a contract.
> Beneficiaries can also be secularized/neutral, and have no restrictions on relationship if the people of the state agree to those terms.
> 2. or if people CANNOT agree on social terms,
> separate ALL such benefits (as we already know people do NOT agree on health care managed through state or federal govt or through free market chioces)
> BY PARTY and/or by TAX FORM
> where people can CHOOSE whether to go through their state, party or federal program
> and not affect taxpayers who CHOOSE a different system.
> 
> This would solve SEVERAL problems at once include different beliefs on
> * abortion and birth control
> * drug use and who pays for the health problems if people choose to use drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc.
> * prison policies on death penalty, mentally ill, even Spiritual Healing that has been used to cure not only mental and physical illness but even criminal illness,
> and restorative justice approaches whether religious or nonprofit or secular
> etc.
> 
> By separating funding for prisons, that money alone saved by restorative justice measures would help save
> resources in order to afford sustainable universal health care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are close.....
> 
> People can CHOOSE to marry a same sex partner or not
> 
> you might not like it.....But what business is it of yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger I'm saying to keep it out of govt if you want free choice.
> Keep the language secular where everyone agrees to it.
> 
> I've found more common agreement to keep Civil Unions in govt
> and manage contracts that way and NOT specify any conditions on
> the social relationships between the partners who form a legal contract or domestic partnership.
> 
> If brother and sister, or two neighbors want to run a household together and share contractual
> duties or legal guardianship, that has ZERO to do with if they are having romantic relations
> much less if they have to be husband and wife.
> 
> And if people don't agree on benefits policies, those are social values also,
> that can be separated by party if people cannot agree on state or federal laws for all people in that state or across the nation.
> 
> Not to worry rightwinger I already gave up trying to explain it.
> 
> I am happy enough to find the other people who get it,
> and maybe that's enough to separate our beliefs from govt
> and leave everyone else who believe in dominating one political belief "for all people"
> every time majority rule decides an election. I don't believe in that,
> but if you and others do, I cannot change your minds for you.
> 
> All I can do is sue or petition to separate my taxes and my representation
> from people like you who believe in violating each other's by majority rule
> and claim that gives you license to impose your beliefs, political or otherwise,
> onto others who don't agree. and call them delusional, just like people
> say that about liberals and try to censor them for it.
> 
> I believe this impositional bullying is a DANGER to the very liberal progressive
> ideals I believe in regarding free choice, and protecting beliefs and creeds from
> discrimination, exclusion, coercion, bullying, imposition, penalty, and deprivation of equal protection rights and liberties.
> 
> I understand you and others believe in protecting rights by establishing them through govt,
> but I believe this still requires consensus where political beliefs differ.
> 
> I don't believe in forcing or imposing them without consent, or it's not
> valid authority of law if not all people consent to that policy.  I believe
> in matters of belief, all objections and conflicts should be resolved to
> ensure equal representation and protection of interests, regardless of creed.
> 
> But my standards are higher than even very intelligent articulate people like
> you and Faun can handle.
> 
> so it's not fair to expect you to understand this and change your minds
> if you are set on seeing opponents with other beliefs as "delusional."
> 
> That's why opponents of liberal beliefs say the same thing, give up
> and just resort to voting liberals out of office.
> 
> You are danger to your own party principles and you don't even see it.
> Where's the inclusion, the free choice.
> Both sides have resorted to painting the other as delusional,
> and that's where I have to leave you to your own devices if that's the best I can expect from you.
> 
> Thanks for your best efforts!
> 
> Just know that people say the same thing and think
> liberals are "mentally ill" or "deluded" in depending on govt for rights when to them
> that is a false and dangerous premise.
> 
> Or they want "everyone else" to pay for their programs
> so when I advocate to separate tracks so taxpayers have a choice,
> they say "liberals will never support that because they want OTHER people
> to pay for their programs".
> 
> That makes no sense to me. If I and other Democrats believe in sustainable
> health care, we should be able to fund it ourselves. And if it's not affordable,
> something is wrong with the terms and conditions, and we'd have to change
> them such as requiring all people get help for criminal illness abuse or addiction
> if that's what driving costs up that could otherwise pay for health care.
> 
> I hope it's finally time to separate social programs and funding by party,
> Because I'm sick of fighting back and forth when all parties have enough
> resources to manage their own policies and not interfere with each other!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is in the marriage business...
> 
> They certify it and make it legal
> They provide tax breaks
> They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
> They supervise the dissolution of marriage
> 
> What do you want them to stop doing?
Click to expand...


Dear rightwinger
I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.

Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
due to their beliefs.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I answered this before, several times.
> 
> I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"
> 
> If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
> then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."
> 
> Same principle. Faun
> 
> In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
> the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.
> 
> So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
> they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
> "if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."
> 
> Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
> And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
> Crosses
> Prayers
> God
> Jesus
> creation
> etc.
> from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
> and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
> and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.
> 
> Or that's discrimination by creed.
> 
> 
> 
> Your analogies are not the same. Crosses are banned from public property because such a display can be construed as state established religion, which is strictly forbidden according to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> That is in no way analogous to same-sex marriage, which in no way, violates the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> You're again grasping at straws because you have no rational defense of your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ????
> 
> Dear Faun
> Yes, it does constitute an establishment of beliefs
> if govt is abused to impose EITHER beliefs about marriage
> as "traditional only" or as "including gay couples and gay marriage"
> where other people dissent because they don't share those beliefs.
> 
> BOTH of those are biases in beliefs.
> 
> Sorry Faun Only if the public or people in a state AGREE
> to the laws can you or I say it isn't biased in beliefs. So that's what I am seeking:
> true inclusion, neutrality and equal representation of all people of all beliefs.
> 
> If one side objects because their beliefs or rights aren't represented equally,
> that means there IS A BIAS, or else why would they be objecting.
> 
> You are the one discrediting one side's beliefs as "delusional."
> 
> I'm the only one in this discussion attempting to include ALL beliefs equally
> and find a way that doesn't discriminate against one or the other.
> 
> I don't consider LGBT beliefs or orientation a "delusion" or "hallucination."
> 
> So don't blame bias on me when I am trying to be all inclusive
> and you already excluded other people's beliefs as delusions!
> 
> Shame on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what is unconstitutional about the belief that gay people should be legally allowed to marry the person of their choice regardless of gender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That this belief can be practiced under free exercise of religion,
> which govt can neither prohibit or establish, without endorsing it through govt laws that everyone is under (except as written and enforced by consent of the people where beliefs are involved)
> 
> So if either side believes a law isn't neutral enough but is biased one way or another,
> that is grounds for revising it until it is neutral enough to represent the public.
> 
> Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. This has been explained to you repeatedly and you just don't get it.
> 
> Seems you have nothing in terms of same-sex marriage being unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


???

Dear Faun I don't know if you are living in a box or you just don't care or acknowledge the beliefs of others.
Am I really the only person you know making these arguments:
1. about states rights
2. about civil unions instead of marriage through govt
3. about right to marriage being a political belief that not all people agree to apply to gay couples?

REALLY?

Maybe it's because I'm in Texas.
And in Houston.

I have TONS of prolife Christian friends who do NOT believe abortion is a choice
and do NOT believe in the govt endorsing gay marriage as natural.

I have stated these over and over.

If you are just citing the court case in Obergefell,
well I know more people who contest that just like you would contest a court ruling endorsing slavery as legal property laws.

Sorry, but it's leaving out the consent and beliefs of other people in making that ruling.
(the most I can interpret it to include the gist of it,
is by religious freedom of course people have equal
rights to marriage, and that's why it's not govt jurisidiction to decide)

You don't count the beliefs of these other people.
It's not your fault, I think you truly do not see any violation occurring
so you think it must be delusional.

It's the principle, that govt should not impose ANY beliefs about marriage
that should remain the right of the people to CHOOSE.

The dissenters do NOT believe Govt has the authority to declare marriage
rights beliefs or practices one way or another.

That's the issue.

I think it's so fundamental that you are missing it.
You keep wanting to argue specific points,
when it's the whole thing that is objected to.

Sorry if I cannot explain what each and every person is arguing
who objects to this.

If you need to hear all the reasons and arguments (as each person
says it differently) give me time and I will collect and list these for you.

In general they don't believe and don't consent.
So I'm trying to find where they would agree.

Here is one way people are arguing Obergefell is unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420934/reclaiming-rule-law-after-obergefell-bradley-c-s-watson

And with the 4-5 decision, similar to the 4-5 ruling to approve ACA mandates
also contested as unconstitutional,
this seems to me to represent two sides of political beliefs,
that are split fairly evenly, and just the majority BELIEF
is being endorsed and enforced by govt. when both sides
represent EQUAL BELIEFS, thus I would argue why not
allow both choices, separate tracks and let people of
BOTH beliefs each have their separate way to treat them equally.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ps Faun the compelling interest is upholding laws consistently.
> 
> Civil unions for everyone would keep beliefs about marriage out of government and protect religious freedom of people on both sides equally.
> 
> Otherwise if one side pushes traditional marriage only or the other side imposes beliefs about marriage for everyone this violates
> * beliefs of people of the other group
> * beliefs of people who believe in states rights to decide either way
> *beliefs of Constitutionalists like me who believe both sides should get their way without imposing on the other
> *beliefs of people who believe the state should just recognize civil unions
> 
> So pushing gay marriages through govt violates beliefs of all these other people.
> 
> While sticking to just civil unions includes all of them and doesn't exclude one more than the other.
> Everyone can follow their own beliefs about marriage by recognizing civil unions, so that covers all beliefs equally while yours does not.
> 
> 
> 
> States are already free to abandon civil marriages for all within their respective borders. If states want to offer only civil unions for everyone, there would be no legal issue with that. But that was not the case prior to Obergefell. At that time, states decided marriage would be available; but some states decided only certain people would have the right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily / Faun, let me raise the following problems/points/issues, Emily, you are hard pressed to be able to answer this one, as marriage is currently at the state level, recognized interstate, and civil unions are not.....
> 
> Again, since civil unions are being proposed / if included for only gays or those married outside of church, then that would be separate but equal, which in and of itself is patently illegal.   If just dropping marriage, then there is a huge cost involved, as any state that would have civil unions already on the books would literally have to rewrite each and every law, to mirror the existing marriage laws.  This would then have to be voted on, at great cost.  One would also have to check the legality of it, as there are numerous laws at the federal level that hinge on marriage, and not civil unions.  Does that mean if your state is the only state wishing to eliminate marriage and replace it, your state would fit the bill?   Your state would still have to deal with marriage in two aspects anyway - each state recognizes the other 49 states in regards to marriage.   If I am married in State A, and your State B has only civil unions, you still have to have in full force and effect, laws in place to recognize my incoming marriage.   If you have just a civil union in your state B, somehow it would have to magically convert to a marriage in my state if you move here - which doesn't address the fact that I may still have my civil union laws on the books - in which case, there is a whole other can of worms opened.  In fact, your "marriage by another name" may be completely invalidated in another state - which currently cannot happen. Marriage laws interstate allow me to have marriage age at 14 in my state, 18 in your state,  21 in yet another, but the 14 year old who is married would have a valid marriage in all states.   Simply not true in the case of civil unions.  Who would pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin I see where you misunderstand me.
> 
> I'm saying ALL civil unions be treated the same for both traditional marriage and gay marriage, not for gay couples only. Since of course that isn't fair, then just recognize  civil unions for ALL.
> 
> Who would pay: both marriage proponents who want to keep either gay marriage or traditional marriage and benefits on either a state or federal level. All people who want a solution and inclusion would figure out the best way to separate this and then deal with the costs.
> 
> I suggest keeping civil unions or domestic partnerships as the neutral contract on the secular got level. And if people can't agree on marriage or social benefits then separate that by state or by party which can still go national and not affect the other systems by state or by other parties that can still go national with separate terms
> 
> The cost effectiveness of separation comes in separating ALL other areas of incompatible political beliefs so we solve several issues with one solution. And where it costs too much to separate, parties could make deals such as accepting marriage in govt  if prayers and creation can be in schools and textbooks. Or agreeing on solutions to faith based beliefs in  LGBT, global warming, or spiritual healing that can be proven by science.
> 
> Separate prolife taxpayers from prochoice where one pays for planned parenthood and the other pays for the nurturing network.
> Separate funding for death penalty or alternative life imprisonment and rehab.
> Separate funding for health care through federal mandates or free market.
> 
> Add to that credits to taxpayers for restitution from unauthorized abuses and expenditures of public dollars, such as assessing the cost of ACA handouts and unconstitutional mandates and refunding those as credits back to taxpayers to invest in the cost of reforming govt.
> 
> That's what I suggest. Have party reps , especially libertarians and vet party and Constitutionalists who believe in separating social programs from federal govt, research the least intrusive way of streamlining separating and reforming this so it meets Constitutional standards and incurs the least cost. If it really is the best solution, and a!reset everyone's concerns for equal representation of interests, the majority across different parties would sign on.
> 
> That's why I would include paying reimbursement to taxpayers for trillions in bad govt misspending as part of the plan. Each party has its laundry list of who owes what to taxpayers. Those credits can be assessed and applied toward creating jobs in reform to correct the root problems and stop the waste.
Click to expand...

This seriously won't work.   Here's a great example - when I was in high school, Visiting Nurses (which eventually became Planned Parenthood around here) did counseling, exams, checks, issued birth control pills, etc (abortion wasn't legal yet in the state, had to go one state over).  I was friends with several girls that utilized the service and took them there  for their quarterly visits and checks.  Why?  Because their parent's refused, and were against BC pills.   What taxpayers would pay?  The parents wouldn't.   My parents wouldn't (I'm male, and have no need for any service there).  After being older and married, one of us is pro PP (me), the spouse is against PP.  Joint taxes.   How do we both pay and not pay for it? Same would apply for death penalty/life in prison/rehab.

Bad example for health care - since no one I know that doesn't want to sign up for the ACA simply doesn't.  They have never been fined.  Mandates and free market both have problems.  If it's not mandated, you run into the current situation, where people simply use the ER as their personal physicians.  Can't pay?  Oh well, the hospital writes it off.  Free market?  The young won't buy it (they never have, they never will).  So In either case, I end up paying more through higher fees from the hospital/medical corp, or even more through free market, where my premiums go up astronomically.   The year the ACA went into effect, my insurance was decreased by 50 percent.   In the years since, it's gone up a grand total of 20-25 dollars a month.  So, just a few dollars a month.  Before that, it was going up 20-30 dollars every two weeks.  There's also a single payer option.  Before people jump on me, and claim people are dying in Canada, and coming down here, I need to point out that it all depends on where you live.  I've got friends in small towns in CN, who wait a couple of weeks for most procedures.   Those same procedures where I'm at now in the US, where the population is 1/3 of a million, with University hospitals within 50 miles in two different directions, along with 8 private ones,  the average wait time is 2-3 months of waiting.

Novel thought here, if you want to save money on healthcare, then go after the hospitals and insurance companies.  The hospitals double and triple bill (they've done this 3 different times with various procedures done on my dad), submitting them to Medicare and his private insurance.   He also has the ability to use the VA, but his costs are actually higher on prescriptions and appliances.


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not as long as the government provides special benefits to married couples that they don't provide to singles. In that case they must treat all marriages equally.
> Our Constitution supersedes the claims of the states. The state must provide equal protection of the law. They must also recognize contracts written in other states
> Nobody is discriminating against your beliefs. If you object to gay marriage....don't do it
> However, you can't force the government to enforce your beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> YES, that's what I'm talking about.
> Separating ALL social benefits from beliefs about marriage, too!
> Examples:
> 1. either AGREE to manage all of these benefits for Civil Unions (or if states agree to call them Civil Marriages but I think this gets into conflict)
> as SECULAR financial and legal agreements APART from any conditions or beliefs about the RELATIONSHIP between the two parties in a contract.
> Beneficiaries can also be secularized/neutral, and have no restrictions on relationship if the people of the state agree to those terms.
> 2. or if people CANNOT agree on social terms,
> separate ALL such benefits (as we already know people do NOT agree on health care managed through state or federal govt or through free market chioces)
> BY PARTY and/or by TAX FORM
> where people can CHOOSE whether to go through their state, party or federal program
> and not affect taxpayers who CHOOSE a different system.
> 
> This would solve SEVERAL problems at once include different beliefs on
> * abortion and birth control
> * drug use and who pays for the health problems if people choose to use drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc.
> * prison policies on death penalty, mentally ill, even Spiritual Healing that has been used to cure not only mental and physical illness but even criminal illness,
> and restorative justice approaches whether religious or nonprofit or secular
> etc.
> 
> By separating funding for prisons, that money alone saved by restorative justice measures would help save
> resources in order to afford sustainable universal health care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are close.....
> 
> People can CHOOSE to marry a same sex partner or not
> 
> you might not like it.....But what business is it of yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger I'm saying to keep it out of govt if you want free choice.
> Keep the language secular where everyone agrees to it.
> 
> I've found more common agreement to keep Civil Unions in govt
> and manage contracts that way and NOT specify any conditions on
> the social relationships between the partners who form a legal contract or domestic partnership.
> 
> If brother and sister, or two neighbors want to run a household together and share contractual
> duties or legal guardianship, that has ZERO to do with if they are having romantic relations
> much less if they have to be husband and wife.
> 
> And if people don't agree on benefits policies, those are social values also,
> that can be separated by party if people cannot agree on state or federal laws for all people in that state or across the nation.
> 
> Not to worry rightwinger I already gave up trying to explain it.
> 
> I am happy enough to find the other people who get it,
> and maybe that's enough to separate our beliefs from govt
> and leave everyone else who believe in dominating one political belief "for all people"
> every time majority rule decides an election. I don't believe in that,
> but if you and others do, I cannot change your minds for you.
> 
> All I can do is sue or petition to separate my taxes and my representation
> from people like you who believe in violating each other's by majority rule
> and claim that gives you license to impose your beliefs, political or otherwise,
> onto others who don't agree. and call them delusional, just like people
> say that about liberals and try to censor them for it.
> 
> I believe this impositional bullying is a DANGER to the very liberal progressive
> ideals I believe in regarding free choice, and protecting beliefs and creeds from
> discrimination, exclusion, coercion, bullying, imposition, penalty, and deprivation of equal protection rights and liberties.
> 
> I understand you and others believe in protecting rights by establishing them through govt,
> but I believe this still requires consensus where political beliefs differ.
> 
> I don't believe in forcing or imposing them without consent, or it's not
> valid authority of law if not all people consent to that policy.  I believe
> in matters of belief, all objections and conflicts should be resolved to
> ensure equal representation and protection of interests, regardless of creed.
> 
> But my standards are higher than even very intelligent articulate people like
> you and Faun can handle.
> 
> so it's not fair to expect you to understand this and change your minds
> if you are set on seeing opponents with other beliefs as "delusional."
> 
> That's why opponents of liberal beliefs say the same thing, give up
> and just resort to voting liberals out of office.
> 
> You are danger to your own party principles and you don't even see it.
> Where's the inclusion, the free choice.
> Both sides have resorted to painting the other as delusional,
> and that's where I have to leave you to your own devices if that's the best I can expect from you.
> 
> Thanks for your best efforts!
> 
> Just know that people say the same thing and think
> liberals are "mentally ill" or "deluded" in depending on govt for rights when to them
> that is a false and dangerous premise.
> 
> Or they want "everyone else" to pay for their programs
> so when I advocate to separate tracks so taxpayers have a choice,
> they say "liberals will never support that because they want OTHER people
> to pay for their programs".
> 
> That makes no sense to me. If I and other Democrats believe in sustainable
> health care, we should be able to fund it ourselves. And if it's not affordable,
> something is wrong with the terms and conditions, and we'd have to change
> them such as requiring all people get help for criminal illness abuse or addiction
> if that's what driving costs up that could otherwise pay for health care.
> 
> I hope it's finally time to separate social programs and funding by party,
> Because I'm sick of fighting back and forth when all parties have enough
> resources to manage their own policies and not interfere with each other!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is in the marriage business...
> 
> They certify it and make it legal
> They provide tax breaks
> They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
> They supervise the dissolution of marriage
> 
> What do you want them to stop doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
> because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
> such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
> and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
> choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.
> 
> Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
> or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
> and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
> due to their beliefs.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court has already ruled that as unconstitutional. Equal protection of our laws

How do you resolve married gay people moving between the states?
They are married or they are not


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost Faun You could promote Civil Unions as neutral contracts between people independent of social relationships.  But bringing in and using the term Marriage involves Beliefs about Marriage. You might see this as a neutral term. But it's not neutral for people with religious beliefs about Marriage. It's like using the term Shariah to mean secular laws, but this discriminates against people for which Shariah means spiritual duties and practice within their faith -- to them it's not a neutral secular term.
> 
> So that's what's going wrong.  These laws and rulings aren't staying secular as you intend and interpret. They cross lines into affecting areas of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.
> 
> Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. Civil unions can be for everyone and avoid the issue of marriage beliefs not everyone shares. You are free to exercise, teach and practice your beliefs about marriage, but not to impose them through govt on people of other beliefs about marriage.
> 
> To be fair to all people of all beliefs, civil unions are universal and secular.
> 
> 2. If you want to impose further, that is like people who want prayer in schools to include Christian practice of invoking God through everyone joining in Christ Jesus name. I happen to understand GOD represents universal concepts that cover and include all people, but people do not agree on religious terms. It has to remain free choice where beliefs are involved.
> 
> Same with beliefs about marriage, not all people agree on religious terms, so out of respect for religious freedom it makes sense to stick with civil unions for the government to recognize as secular contracts and leave beliefs about marriage out of govt.
> 
> Again, if you believe otherwise, so do many Christians believe in integrating their beliefs through govt they believe are universal truth as well that includes all people.
> 
> 3. If you all agree to open the doors of govt to endorse and incorporate all manner of beliefs into laws and public institutions, then that's fair and you are including all people.
> 
> But it's discrimination to tell Christians that references to Crosses, prayers to God through Christ, and teaching creation through God all have to be Removed from public institutions while insisting that beliefs about gay marriage and homosexuality as natural must be included for tolerance even when it violates beliefs of others that these are not natural.
> 
> It's discriminating by creed, so it violates other laws.
> 
> Faun would you agree to a resolution allowing all Christian beliefs and practices to be endorsed and implemented in public policies and institutions, including Christian healing prayer and right to life for unborn and teaching creation in schools, in exchange for allowing beliefs in gate marriage?
> 
> I'm sure an agreement can be worked out if all beliefs are included equally as you are asking.
> 
> Are you willing to incorporate and include all beliefs equally as yours? Are only the beliefs you happen to agree with? Thanks Faun
> 
> Even if we cannot agree how to accommodate all beliefs equally, at least we tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again, Emily. No one is imposing same-sex marriage upon anyone. Everyone is free to marry the person of their choice within legal restrictions, such as age restrictions and consent. No Christian who is opposed to same-sex marriage is forced to marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> Regarding the remainder of your post about prayer ... Again, that's a different issue and has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun what's being imposed is the faith based belief that "marriage" should be the same for gay couple as traditional couples. That is still faith based.
> 
> When crosses are on public property these are not "forcing" a belief on anyone.
> 
> But crosses have been removed on Principle alone.
> And in one case, land was transferred to private entity to preserve the cross on a structure as is to resolve the conflict.  There is no need to transfer marriage, it's been written into state laws already, since the very beginnings of our country. What are you going to do with the millions already married?  You can't really believe we are going to issue out new civil union certificates.  You aren't going to change my civil union to a marriage, nor can you legally change my marriage to a civil union.  You also have to address divorces - which is secular.   Another case where even though the priest/pastor/rabbi/monk/etc deems you to be divorced in the eyes of your religion, it does not mean you are divorced legally.  What do we call it?  Civil Dissolution?  There are laws currently in place, where if two parents are married, and there is offspring, the father is presumptively named the father, unless another person is named.  If no name is mentioned, then it is the father.  In some states, if they child was conceived during the marriage, even though there was a divorce, the divorced father is presumptively the father, even if the divorce decree was grounded on adultery of the wife.  I know Iowa was that way for years.  But it ONLY references marriage, not common law marriage, not civil unions, domestic partners, etc.  That indeed is going to be a problem, a huge impact to the states,  and huge costs.  There are also huge costs incurred at the federal levels, mainly in the tax arena.
> 
> So here, marriage can be transfered to private institutions to remove it from govt.
> 
> And only keep civil unions for everyone so it's secular neutral and fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the 10 commandments, cross, or any other religious symbol (form ANY religion) requires me to remove my hat, put my hand over my heart, kneel down in front, salute, or anything else, it most certainly is an interference, a forcing of belief onto me.  This happened in a public school I attended. We are a republic, you are viewing the US as a democracy, which we are not.   It's not majority rule.   If there was only a Menorah at city hall, I'd protest as well if any other religion was refused.  Could you reference where the land was transferred from the city/state/federal land to a private entity?
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to answer how two same sex people getting married in any way shape or form interferes with a religion.  The only way it could interfere is if the government set down rules for the religions.   Obergefell, Windsor, even the 14th amendment and 1st amendment does not direct anything at a religion; in fact, it only impacts those 1138 legal decisions.   I do find it a violation of my personal beliefs if I'm forced to be in a civil union because of where I got married at (JP) or who I married (SS).   And you still haven't addressed the fact that there will have to be literally double the number of marriage laws on the books (one for SSM and one for heterosexual), but probably even more.   How are you going to handle interracial marriage?  There's a religion (one of the fundamentalist Christian sects) in KY that will not allow interracial couples to attend, and refuses to allow interracial couples to get married.  The first amendment allows this to occur.   How will you handle that in a civil union?  Or will there be different laws?  Some churches allow SSM, some don't.
> 
> In fact, I refuse to have my marriage renamed because of who I married, or where I went to get married.
Click to expand...


Sneekin
I'd say you can keep your marriage but people who do not want their state endorsing gay marriage can petition to separate marriage under two tracks and not have anything to do with endorsing something they don't believe in. Same with prolife separating funding from prochoice.

Both can call it marriage but stay separate from each other, especially if it's the terms of benefits policy they don't agree with, which is also the problem with health care. So why not separate tracks by party and let each have their own already. Why not solve a slew of conflicts all together by separating platforms by party per state, and let taxpayers pay for what they vote for to include.

Here's the case of the cross preserved by selling the land to private ownership
Soledad Cross sale to private group complete

Here's one about a group across the country suing to remove crosses on public school memorial based on principle alone:
A Religious Memorial Honoring a Middle School Teacher is Altered After Atheists Point Out Constitutional Problems

so if these are going to be removed, so can groups who don't believe in gay marriage, ask that all marriage be removed, in order to be fair.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not as long as the government provides special benefits to married couples that they don't provide to singles. In that case they must treat all marriages equally.
> Our Constitution supersedes the claims of the states. The state must provide equal protection of the law. They must also recognize contracts written in other states
> Nobody is discriminating against your beliefs. If you object to gay marriage....don't do it
> However, you can't force the government to enforce your beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> YES, that's what I'm talking about.
> Separating ALL social benefits from beliefs about marriage, too!
> Examples:
> 1. either AGREE to manage all of these benefits for Civil Unions (or if states agree to call them Civil Marriages but I think this gets into conflict)
> as SECULAR financial and legal agreements APART from any conditions or beliefs about the RELATIONSHIP between the two parties in a contract.
> Beneficiaries can also be secularized/neutral, and have no restrictions on relationship if the people of the state agree to those terms.
> 2. or if people CANNOT agree on social terms,
> separate ALL such benefits (as we already know people do NOT agree on health care managed through state or federal govt or through free market chioces)
> BY PARTY and/or by TAX FORM
> where people can CHOOSE whether to go through their state, party or federal program
> and not affect taxpayers who CHOOSE a different system.
> 
> This would solve SEVERAL problems at once include different beliefs on
> * abortion and birth control
> * drug use and who pays for the health problems if people choose to use drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc.
> * prison policies on death penalty, mentally ill, even Spiritual Healing that has been used to cure not only mental and physical illness but even criminal illness,
> and restorative justice approaches whether religious or nonprofit or secular
> etc.
> 
> By separating funding for prisons, that money alone saved by restorative justice measures would help save
> resources in order to afford sustainable universal health care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are close.....
> 
> People can CHOOSE to marry a same sex partner or not
> 
> you might not like it.....But what business is it of yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger I'm saying to keep it out of govt if you want free choice.
> Keep the language secular where everyone agrees to it.
> 
> I've found more common agreement to keep Civil Unions in govt
> and manage contracts that way and NOT specify any conditions on
> the social relationships between the partners who form a legal contract or domestic partnership.
> 
> If brother and sister, or two neighbors want to run a household together and share contractual
> duties or legal guardianship, that has ZERO to do with if they are having romantic relations
> much less if they have to be husband and wife.
> 
> And if people don't agree on benefits policies, those are social values also,
> that can be separated by party if people cannot agree on state or federal laws for all people in that state or across the nation.
> 
> Not to worry rightwinger I already gave up trying to explain it.
> 
> I am happy enough to find the other people who get it,
> and maybe that's enough to separate our beliefs from govt
> and leave everyone else who believe in dominating one political belief "for all people"
> every time majority rule decides an election. I don't believe in that,
> but if you and others do, I cannot change your minds for you.
> 
> All I can do is sue or petition to separate my taxes and my representation
> from people like you who believe in violating each other's by majority rule
> and claim that gives you license to impose your beliefs, political or otherwise,
> onto others who don't agree. and call them delusional, just like people
> say that about liberals and try to censor them for it.
> 
> I believe this impositional bullying is a DANGER to the very liberal progressive
> ideals I believe in regarding free choice, and protecting beliefs and creeds from
> discrimination, exclusion, coercion, bullying, imposition, penalty, and deprivation of equal protection rights and liberties.
> 
> I understand you and others believe in protecting rights by establishing them through govt,
> but I believe this still requires consensus where political beliefs differ.
> 
> I don't believe in forcing or imposing them without consent, or it's not
> valid authority of law if not all people consent to that policy.  I believe
> in matters of belief, all objections and conflicts should be resolved to
> ensure equal representation and protection of interests, regardless of creed.
> 
> But my standards are higher than even very intelligent articulate people like
> you and Faun can handle.
> 
> so it's not fair to expect you to understand this and change your minds
> if you are set on seeing opponents with other beliefs as "delusional."
> 
> That's why opponents of liberal beliefs say the same thing, give up
> and just resort to voting liberals out of office.
> 
> You are danger to your own party principles and you don't even see it.
> Where's the inclusion, the free choice.
> Both sides have resorted to painting the other as delusional,
> and that's where I have to leave you to your own devices if that's the best I can expect from you.
> 
> Thanks for your best efforts!
> 
> Just know that people say the same thing and think
> liberals are "mentally ill" or "deluded" in depending on govt for rights when to them
> that is a false and dangerous premise.
> 
> Or they want "everyone else" to pay for their programs
> so when I advocate to separate tracks so taxpayers have a choice,
> they say "liberals will never support that because they want OTHER people
> to pay for their programs".
> 
> That makes no sense to me. If I and other Democrats believe in sustainable
> health care, we should be able to fund it ourselves. And if it's not affordable,
> something is wrong with the terms and conditions, and we'd have to change
> them such as requiring all people get help for criminal illness abuse or addiction
> if that's what driving costs up that could otherwise pay for health care.
> 
> I hope it's finally time to separate social programs and funding by party,
> Because I'm sick of fighting back and forth when all parties have enough
> resources to manage their own policies and not interfere with each other!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is in the marriage business...
> 
> They certify it and make it legal
> They provide tax breaks
> They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
> They supervise the dissolution of marriage
> 
> What do you want them to stop doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
> because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
> such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
> and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
> choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.
> 
> Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
> or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
> and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
> due to their beliefs.
Click to expand...

We don't make laws based on peoples' feelings or religious objections. If we did, capital punishment would be unconstitutional, pork would be banned, cotton/wool blends would be punishable, etc...


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not as long as the government provides special benefits to married couples that they don't provide to singles. In that case they must treat all marriages equally.
> Our Constitution supersedes the claims of the states. The state must provide equal protection of the law. They must also recognize contracts written in other states
> Nobody is discriminating against your beliefs. If you object to gay marriage....don't do it
> However, you can't force the government to enforce your beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> YES, that's what I'm talking about.
> Separating ALL social benefits from beliefs about marriage, too!
> Examples:
> 1. either AGREE to manage all of these benefits for Civil Unions (or if states agree to call them Civil Marriages but I think this gets into conflict)
> as SECULAR financial and legal agreements APART from any conditions or beliefs about the RELATIONSHIP between the two parties in a contract.
> Beneficiaries can also be secularized/neutral, and have no restrictions on relationship if the people of the state agree to those terms.
> 2. or if people CANNOT agree on social terms,
> separate ALL such benefits (as we already know people do NOT agree on health care managed through state or federal govt or through free market chioces)
> BY PARTY and/or by TAX FORM
> where people can CHOOSE whether to go through their state, party or federal program
> and not affect taxpayers who CHOOSE a different system.
> 
> This would solve SEVERAL problems at once include different beliefs on
> * abortion and birth control
> * drug use and who pays for the health problems if people choose to use drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc.
> * prison policies on death penalty, mentally ill, even Spiritual Healing that has been used to cure not only mental and physical illness but even criminal illness,
> and restorative justice approaches whether religious or nonprofit or secular
> etc.
> 
> By separating funding for prisons, that money alone saved by restorative justice measures would help save
> resources in order to afford sustainable universal health care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are close.....
> 
> People can CHOOSE to marry a same sex partner or not
> 
> you might not like it.....But what business is it of yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger I'm saying to keep it out of govt if you want free choice.
> Keep the language secular where everyone agrees to it.
> 
> I've found more common agreement to keep Civil Unions in govt
> and manage contracts that way and NOT specify any conditions on
> the social relationships between the partners who form a legal contract or domestic partnership.
> 
> If brother and sister, or two neighbors want to run a household together and share contractual
> duties or legal guardianship, that has ZERO to do with if they are having romantic relations
> much less if they have to be husband and wife.
> 
> And if people don't agree on benefits policies, those are social values also,
> that can be separated by party if people cannot agree on state or federal laws for all people in that state or across the nation.
> 
> Not to worry rightwinger I already gave up trying to explain it.
> 
> I am happy enough to find the other people who get it,
> and maybe that's enough to separate our beliefs from govt
> and leave everyone else who believe in dominating one political belief "for all people"
> every time majority rule decides an election. I don't believe in that,
> but if you and others do, I cannot change your minds for you.
> 
> All I can do is sue or petition to separate my taxes and my representation
> from people like you who believe in violating each other's by majority rule
> and claim that gives you license to impose your beliefs, political or otherwise,
> onto others who don't agree. and call them delusional, just like people
> say that about liberals and try to censor them for it.
> 
> I believe this impositional bullying is a DANGER to the very liberal progressive
> ideals I believe in regarding free choice, and protecting beliefs and creeds from
> discrimination, exclusion, coercion, bullying, imposition, penalty, and deprivation of equal protection rights and liberties.
> 
> I understand you and others believe in protecting rights by establishing them through govt,
> but I believe this still requires consensus where political beliefs differ.
> 
> I don't believe in forcing or imposing them without consent, or it's not
> valid authority of law if not all people consent to that policy.  I believe
> in matters of belief, all objections and conflicts should be resolved to
> ensure equal representation and protection of interests, regardless of creed.
> 
> But my standards are higher than even very intelligent articulate people like
> you and Faun can handle.
> 
> so it's not fair to expect you to understand this and change your minds
> if you are set on seeing opponents with other beliefs as "delusional."
> 
> That's why opponents of liberal beliefs say the same thing, give up
> and just resort to voting liberals out of office.
> 
> You are danger to your own party principles and you don't even see it.
> Where's the inclusion, the free choice.
> Both sides have resorted to painting the other as delusional,
> and that's where I have to leave you to your own devices if that's the best I can expect from you.
> 
> Thanks for your best efforts!
> 
> Just know that people say the same thing and think
> liberals are "mentally ill" or "deluded" in depending on govt for rights when to them
> that is a false and dangerous premise.
> 
> Or they want "everyone else" to pay for their programs
> so when I advocate to separate tracks so taxpayers have a choice,
> they say "liberals will never support that because they want OTHER people
> to pay for their programs".
> 
> That makes no sense to me. If I and other Democrats believe in sustainable
> health care, we should be able to fund it ourselves. And if it's not affordable,
> something is wrong with the terms and conditions, and we'd have to change
> them such as requiring all people get help for criminal illness abuse or addiction
> if that's what driving costs up that could otherwise pay for health care.
> 
> I hope it's finally time to separate social programs and funding by party,
> Because I'm sick of fighting back and forth when all parties have enough
> resources to manage their own policies and not interfere with each other!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is in the marriage business...
> 
> They certify it and make it legal
> They provide tax breaks
> They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
> They supervise the dissolution of marriage
> 
> What do you want them to stop doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
> because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
> such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
> and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
> choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.
> 
> Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
> or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
> and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
> due to their beliefs.
Click to expand...

But you can't break them out by party!  I'm an independent, I vote on the issues.  I may be "right wing" for some candidates, "left wing" for others.   So that option won't work for anyone.  

I'm still waiting for the answer of how anyone is imposing on equal choice beliefs, and rights of others.   No one against SSM has been forced to have one.  If you know different, please name names.  You are free to believe, I am free to practice.  You are not free to tell me what I can and cannot practice in regards to religion - again - if my religion recognizes say - only SSM - then it's still going to have to be called a marriage, and not a civil union. And the same people whining about it will still whine about it - they are doing it now.


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> YES, that's what I'm talking about.
> Separating ALL social benefits from beliefs about marriage, too!
> Examples:
> 1. either AGREE to manage all of these benefits for Civil Unions (or if states agree to call them Civil Marriages but I think this gets into conflict)
> as SECULAR financial and legal agreements APART from any conditions or beliefs about the RELATIONSHIP between the two parties in a contract.
> Beneficiaries can also be secularized/neutral, and have no restrictions on relationship if the people of the state agree to those terms.
> 2. or if people CANNOT agree on social terms,
> separate ALL such benefits (as we already know people do NOT agree on health care managed through state or federal govt or through free market chioces)
> BY PARTY and/or by TAX FORM
> where people can CHOOSE whether to go through their state, party or federal program
> and not affect taxpayers who CHOOSE a different system.
> 
> This would solve SEVERAL problems at once include different beliefs on
> * abortion and birth control
> * drug use and who pays for the health problems if people choose to use drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc.
> * prison policies on death penalty, mentally ill, even Spiritual Healing that has been used to cure not only mental and physical illness but even criminal illness,
> and restorative justice approaches whether religious or nonprofit or secular
> etc.
> 
> By separating funding for prisons, that money alone saved by restorative justice measures would help save
> resources in order to afford sustainable universal health care
> 
> 
> 
> You are close.....
> 
> People can CHOOSE to marry a same sex partner or not
> 
> you might not like it.....But what business is it of yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger I'm saying to keep it out of govt if you want free choice.
> Keep the language secular where everyone agrees to it.
> 
> I've found more common agreement to keep Civil Unions in govt
> and manage contracts that way and NOT specify any conditions on
> the social relationships between the partners who form a legal contract or domestic partnership.
> 
> If brother and sister, or two neighbors want to run a household together and share contractual
> duties or legal guardianship, that has ZERO to do with if they are having romantic relations
> much less if they have to be husband and wife.
> 
> And if people don't agree on benefits policies, those are social values also,
> that can be separated by party if people cannot agree on state or federal laws for all people in that state or across the nation.
> 
> Not to worry rightwinger I already gave up trying to explain it.
> 
> I am happy enough to find the other people who get it,
> and maybe that's enough to separate our beliefs from govt
> and leave everyone else who believe in dominating one political belief "for all people"
> every time majority rule decides an election. I don't believe in that,
> but if you and others do, I cannot change your minds for you.
> 
> All I can do is sue or petition to separate my taxes and my representation
> from people like you who believe in violating each other's by majority rule
> and claim that gives you license to impose your beliefs, political or otherwise,
> onto others who don't agree. and call them delusional, just like people
> say that about liberals and try to censor them for it.
> 
> I believe this impositional bullying is a DANGER to the very liberal progressive
> ideals I believe in regarding free choice, and protecting beliefs and creeds from
> discrimination, exclusion, coercion, bullying, imposition, penalty, and deprivation of equal protection rights and liberties.
> 
> I understand you and others believe in protecting rights by establishing them through govt,
> but I believe this still requires consensus where political beliefs differ.
> 
> I don't believe in forcing or imposing them without consent, or it's not
> valid authority of law if not all people consent to that policy.  I believe
> in matters of belief, all objections and conflicts should be resolved to
> ensure equal representation and protection of interests, regardless of creed.
> 
> But my standards are higher than even very intelligent articulate people like
> you and Faun can handle.
> 
> so it's not fair to expect you to understand this and change your minds
> if you are set on seeing opponents with other beliefs as "delusional."
> 
> That's why opponents of liberal beliefs say the same thing, give up
> and just resort to voting liberals out of office.
> 
> You are danger to your own party principles and you don't even see it.
> Where's the inclusion, the free choice.
> Both sides have resorted to painting the other as delusional,
> and that's where I have to leave you to your own devices if that's the best I can expect from you.
> 
> Thanks for your best efforts!
> 
> Just know that people say the same thing and think
> liberals are "mentally ill" or "deluded" in depending on govt for rights when to them
> that is a false and dangerous premise.
> 
> Or they want "everyone else" to pay for their programs
> so when I advocate to separate tracks so taxpayers have a choice,
> they say "liberals will never support that because they want OTHER people
> to pay for their programs".
> 
> That makes no sense to me. If I and other Democrats believe in sustainable
> health care, we should be able to fund it ourselves. And if it's not affordable,
> something is wrong with the terms and conditions, and we'd have to change
> them such as requiring all people get help for criminal illness abuse or addiction
> if that's what driving costs up that could otherwise pay for health care.
> 
> I hope it's finally time to separate social programs and funding by party,
> Because I'm sick of fighting back and forth when all parties have enough
> resources to manage their own policies and not interfere with each other!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is in the marriage business...
> 
> They certify it and make it legal
> They provide tax breaks
> They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
> They supervise the dissolution of marriage
> 
> What do you want them to stop doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
> because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
> such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
> and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
> choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.
> 
> Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
> or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
> and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
> due to their beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court has already ruled that as unconstitutional. Equal protection of our laws
> 
> How do you resolve married gay people moving between the states?
> They are married or they are not
Click to expand...


Dear rightwinger 
States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state.

Some states don't require car insurance, if the driver has "ability to pay" and can prove it.
So in that state, the same driver with the same car is under different rules.

States like Nevada have legalized prostitution, that only applies in that state.

For national policies on health care and other social benefits,
I recommend to my fellow progressive Democrats and Greens 
to organize by party. So people can have collective representation
and management of resources to fund policies that correspond
and represent beliefs in marriage, health care, prison alternatives, 
educational priorities, etc.

if not everyone agrees on social policies through federal govt.
AND by the Platform of the Veterans Party of America
"ALL social legislation is Unconstitutional"
then why not manage it by party and have taxpayers
pay directly into the programs of choice?

I know tons of progressives who believe in paying
for education and health care instead of funding
war and the death penalty.

Why not give taxpayers that choice?

If it's organized by party then the responsibility
for all the terms and agreements is delegated
to one national group to represent its members,
similar to states being responsible for representing its citizens.

Just proportionally delegate federal budgets to allot
money to states, and states divide it by party by
proportion of taxpayers and taxmoney coming in.
so if GOP do not want to pay to federal govt
except for military, they don't get federal funds for health care
except for VA/vets if that's all they approve.
If Dems want singlepayer health care and no death penalty,
then that's where their tax money goes or doesn't go.

So each pays for their share and their members
work out their terms and conditions, from prolife
to gay marriage, whatever they believe or don't believe in.

If states can agree, then it's done by state.

This is if the population of states CAN'T agree,
why not create two separate tracks and let
taxpayers choose just like we do when we
donate to parties or vote for platforms and reps.


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are close.....
> 
> People can CHOOSE to marry a same sex partner or not
> 
> you might not like it.....But what business is it of yours?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger I'm saying to keep it out of govt if you want free choice.
> Keep the language secular where everyone agrees to it.
> 
> I've found more common agreement to keep Civil Unions in govt
> and manage contracts that way and NOT specify any conditions on
> the social relationships between the partners who form a legal contract or domestic partnership.
> 
> If brother and sister, or two neighbors want to run a household together and share contractual
> duties or legal guardianship, that has ZERO to do with if they are having romantic relations
> much less if they have to be husband and wife.
> 
> And if people don't agree on benefits policies, those are social values also,
> that can be separated by party if people cannot agree on state or federal laws for all people in that state or across the nation.
> 
> Not to worry rightwinger I already gave up trying to explain it.
> 
> I am happy enough to find the other people who get it,
> and maybe that's enough to separate our beliefs from govt
> and leave everyone else who believe in dominating one political belief "for all people"
> every time majority rule decides an election. I don't believe in that,
> but if you and others do, I cannot change your minds for you.
> 
> All I can do is sue or petition to separate my taxes and my representation
> from people like you who believe in violating each other's by majority rule
> and claim that gives you license to impose your beliefs, political or otherwise,
> onto others who don't agree. and call them delusional, just like people
> say that about liberals and try to censor them for it.
> 
> I believe this impositional bullying is a DANGER to the very liberal progressive
> ideals I believe in regarding free choice, and protecting beliefs and creeds from
> discrimination, exclusion, coercion, bullying, imposition, penalty, and deprivation of equal protection rights and liberties.
> 
> I understand you and others believe in protecting rights by establishing them through govt,
> but I believe this still requires consensus where political beliefs differ.
> 
> I don't believe in forcing or imposing them without consent, or it's not
> valid authority of law if not all people consent to that policy.  I believe
> in matters of belief, all objections and conflicts should be resolved to
> ensure equal representation and protection of interests, regardless of creed.
> 
> But my standards are higher than even very intelligent articulate people like
> you and Faun can handle.
> 
> so it's not fair to expect you to understand this and change your minds
> if you are set on seeing opponents with other beliefs as "delusional."
> 
> That's why opponents of liberal beliefs say the same thing, give up
> and just resort to voting liberals out of office.
> 
> You are danger to your own party principles and you don't even see it.
> Where's the inclusion, the free choice.
> Both sides have resorted to painting the other as delusional,
> and that's where I have to leave you to your own devices if that's the best I can expect from you.
> 
> Thanks for your best efforts!
> 
> Just know that people say the same thing and think
> liberals are "mentally ill" or "deluded" in depending on govt for rights when to them
> that is a false and dangerous premise.
> 
> Or they want "everyone else" to pay for their programs
> so when I advocate to separate tracks so taxpayers have a choice,
> they say "liberals will never support that because they want OTHER people
> to pay for their programs".
> 
> That makes no sense to me. If I and other Democrats believe in sustainable
> health care, we should be able to fund it ourselves. And if it's not affordable,
> something is wrong with the terms and conditions, and we'd have to change
> them such as requiring all people get help for criminal illness abuse or addiction
> if that's what driving costs up that could otherwise pay for health care.
> 
> I hope it's finally time to separate social programs and funding by party,
> Because I'm sick of fighting back and forth when all parties have enough
> resources to manage their own policies and not interfere with each other!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is in the marriage business...
> 
> They certify it and make it legal
> They provide tax breaks
> They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
> They supervise the dissolution of marriage
> 
> What do you want them to stop doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
> because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
> such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
> and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
> choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.
> 
> Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
> or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
> and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
> due to their beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court has already ruled that as unconstitutional. Equal protection of our laws
> 
> How do you resolve married gay people moving between the states?
> They are married or they are not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
> if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
> If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state.
> 
> Some states don't require car insurance, if the driver has "ability to pay" and can prove it.
> So in that state, the same driver with the same car is under different rules.
> 
> States like Nevada have legalized prostitution, that only applies in that state.
> 
> For national policies on health care and other social benefits,
> I recommend to my fellow progressive Democrats and Greens
> to organize by party. So people can have collective representation
> and management of resources to fund policies that correspond
> and represent beliefs in marriage, health care, prison alternatives,
> educational priorities, etc.
> 
> if not everyone agrees on social policies through federal govt.
> AND by the Platform of the Veterans Party of America
> "ALL social legislation is Unconstitutional"
> then why not manage it by party and have taxpayers
> pay directly into the programs of choice?
> 
> I know tons of progressives who believe in paying
> for education and health care instead of funding
> war and the death penalty.
> 
> Why not give taxpayers that choice?
> 
> If it's organized by party then the responsibility
> for all the terms and agreements is delegated
> to one national group to represent its members,
> similar to states being responsible for representing its citizens.
> 
> Just proportionally delegate federal budgets to allot
> money to states, and states divide it by party by
> proportion of taxpayers and taxmoney coming in.
> so if GOP do not want to pay to federal govt
> except for military, they don't get federal funds for health care
> except for VA/vets if that's all they approve.
> If Dems want singlepayer health care and no death penalty,
> then that's where their tax money goes or doesn't go.
> 
> So each pays for their share and their members
> work out their terms and conditions, from prolife
> to gay marriage, whatever they believe or don't believe in.
> 
> If states can agree, then it's done by state.
> 
> This is if the population of states CAN'T agree,
> why not create two separate tracks and let
> taxpayers choose just like we do when we
> donate to parties or vote for platforms and reps.
Click to expand...

In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question

With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you  handle gay couples traveling between states?

Try to answer in less than 50 words


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> YES, that's what I'm talking about.
> Separating ALL social benefits from beliefs about marriage, too!
> Examples:
> 1. either AGREE to manage all of these benefits for Civil Unions (or if states agree to call them Civil Marriages but I think this gets into conflict)
> as SECULAR financial and legal agreements APART from any conditions or beliefs about the RELATIONSHIP between the two parties in a contract.
> Beneficiaries can also be secularized/neutral, and have no restrictions on relationship if the people of the state agree to those terms.
> 2. or if people CANNOT agree on social terms,
> separate ALL such benefits (as we already know people do NOT agree on health care managed through state or federal govt or through free market chioces)
> BY PARTY and/or by TAX FORM
> where people can CHOOSE whether to go through their state, party or federal program
> and not affect taxpayers who CHOOSE a different system.
> 
> This would solve SEVERAL problems at once include different beliefs on
> * abortion and birth control
> * drug use and who pays for the health problems if people choose to use drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc.
> * prison policies on death penalty, mentally ill, even Spiritual Healing that has been used to cure not only mental and physical illness but even criminal illness,
> and restorative justice approaches whether religious or nonprofit or secular
> etc.
> 
> By separating funding for prisons, that money alone saved by restorative justice measures would help save
> resources in order to afford sustainable universal health care
> 
> 
> 
> You are close.....
> 
> People can CHOOSE to marry a same sex partner or not
> 
> you might not like it.....But what business is it of yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger I'm saying to keep it out of govt if you want free choice.
> Keep the language secular where everyone agrees to it.
> 
> I've found more common agreement to keep Civil Unions in govt
> and manage contracts that way and NOT specify any conditions on
> the social relationships between the partners who form a legal contract or domestic partnership.
> 
> If brother and sister, or two neighbors want to run a household together and share contractual
> duties or legal guardianship, that has ZERO to do with if they are having romantic relations
> much less if they have to be husband and wife.
> 
> And if people don't agree on benefits policies, those are social values also,
> that can be separated by party if people cannot agree on state or federal laws for all people in that state or across the nation.
> 
> Not to worry rightwinger I already gave up trying to explain it.
> 
> I am happy enough to find the other people who get it,
> and maybe that's enough to separate our beliefs from govt
> and leave everyone else who believe in dominating one political belief "for all people"
> every time majority rule decides an election. I don't believe in that,
> but if you and others do, I cannot change your minds for you.
> 
> All I can do is sue or petition to separate my taxes and my representation
> from people like you who believe in violating each other's by majority rule
> and claim that gives you license to impose your beliefs, political or otherwise,
> onto others who don't agree. and call them delusional, just like people
> say that about liberals and try to censor them for it.
> 
> I believe this impositional bullying is a DANGER to the very liberal progressive
> ideals I believe in regarding free choice, and protecting beliefs and creeds from
> discrimination, exclusion, coercion, bullying, imposition, penalty, and deprivation of equal protection rights and liberties.
> 
> I understand you and others believe in protecting rights by establishing them through govt,
> but I believe this still requires consensus where political beliefs differ.
> 
> I don't believe in forcing or imposing them without consent, or it's not
> valid authority of law if not all people consent to that policy.  I believe
> in matters of belief, all objections and conflicts should be resolved to
> ensure equal representation and protection of interests, regardless of creed.
> 
> But my standards are higher than even very intelligent articulate people like
> you and Faun can handle.
> 
> so it's not fair to expect you to understand this and change your minds
> if you are set on seeing opponents with other beliefs as "delusional."
> 
> That's why opponents of liberal beliefs say the same thing, give up
> and just resort to voting liberals out of office.
> 
> You are danger to your own party principles and you don't even see it.
> Where's the inclusion, the free choice.
> Both sides have resorted to painting the other as delusional,
> and that's where I have to leave you to your own devices if that's the best I can expect from you.
> 
> Thanks for your best efforts!
> 
> Just know that people say the same thing and think
> liberals are "mentally ill" or "deluded" in depending on govt for rights when to them
> that is a false and dangerous premise.
> 
> Or they want "everyone else" to pay for their programs
> so when I advocate to separate tracks so taxpayers have a choice,
> they say "liberals will never support that because they want OTHER people
> to pay for their programs".
> 
> That makes no sense to me. If I and other Democrats believe in sustainable
> health care, we should be able to fund it ourselves. And if it's not affordable,
> something is wrong with the terms and conditions, and we'd have to change
> them such as requiring all people get help for criminal illness abuse or addiction
> if that's what driving costs up that could otherwise pay for health care.
> 
> I hope it's finally time to separate social programs and funding by party,
> Because I'm sick of fighting back and forth when all parties have enough
> resources to manage their own policies and not interfere with each other!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is in the marriage business...
> 
> They certify it and make it legal
> They provide tax breaks
> They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
> They supervise the dissolution of marriage
> 
> What do you want them to stop doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
> because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
> such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
> and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
> choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.
> 
> Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
> or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
> and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
> due to their beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't make laws based on peoples' feelings or religious objections. If we did, capital punishment would be unconstitutional, pork would be banned, cotton/wool blends would be punishable, etc...
Click to expand...


Yes Faun I also believe in separating funding for the death penalty
so people can have a free choice but it doesn't impose on other people's choice of funding.

This would take a lot of the "emotional hype" out of election campaigns
if all issues were resolved one by one instead of lumped together,
voting for one party to dominate while the other in the minority risks losing representation.

*A lot of fear based bullying going on now would be eliminated
if we based laws on consensus or separation by party so everyone
is equally represented and not forced to fund the beliefs of others.*

As for fabric, by the time the Greens Democrats and Social Workers
organize labor pools and worker owned coops and business networks,
maybe we will see more locally grown "hemp" fabric and/or whatever is more sustainable.
maybe we won't rely so much on foreign slave labor for clothing and electronic devices
if we organize labor and factories as campuses providing education, health care and housing
as part of work-study programs to ensure students and workers have protection from abuse,
even if working for barter or credit, or lower training wages in exchange for low cost housing and services.

*Religious beliefs and objections are part of how people express consent or dissent.
I believe the right solutions will satisfy people's standards regardless if these are expressed religiously, politically, spiritually or by secular laws, business models, etc.*
Faun


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS thanks Faun for trying to talk through this, reason and understand it. Especially where it doesn't affect you, if it doesn't matter to you if secular laws use the word Marriage to mean secular civil contracts, or states rights vs federal rulings don't affect you and your beliefs. They do affect others whose beliefs are violated.
> 
> To me, it's no big deal to use the term Jihadist to mean warmongering terrorists who worship Jihadist as War against the world.  But to Muslims this is co-opting their faith and terms for spiritual practice in abusive contradictory ways. So if we write public laws and statements, it is imposing on or establishing adverse beliefs to use language in ways that conflict with people of faith for which these terms mean sacred things.
> 
> I don't always get it either, when it seems secular to me too, but out of respect for those who have other beliefs I will try to include them and their limits.
> 
> So if my LGBT friends need public endorsement of certain policies to feel equally represented in laws, let's find a way to achieve that in ways that don't overreach, go too far, and end up indirectly unintentionally violating other beliefs and principles.
> 
> Similar to gun laws and prolife beliefs. Those laws need to be written and focused correctly where they don't incidentally infringe on other rights .
> 
> If you want people to respect your rights, it makes sense to respect other peoples.
> 
> If you want them to hear your objections and what you need for representation, then of course, we listen to theirs too.
> 
> Like you said, the marriage laws must account for everyone.
> 
> So why would you override the objections of others, then argue the laws should reflect everyone???
> 
> How can they reflect the public unless we include all people's consent and resolve all issues causing objection!
> 
> 
> 
> State sanctioned marriage in the U.S. has always been a civil contract and has always been called "marriage." We don't call marriage something else for certain folks because others find it offensive. Equal protection under the law supersedes Christians' feelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun I agree with your other post and will reply to focus on that where we agree.
> 
> For this, opponents argue similar as you do that LGBT are trying to change the definition of marriage. You insist that it only means the CIVIL marriage. But that's not what that means to other citizens who have equal right to how laws are worded. CIVIL unions and domestic contracts would solve this problem for more people. So I'd leave that to states to work out terms.
> 
> If you are going to reform and expand on meanings of terms, let's do the same for the word God instead of cutting that out from public institutions to please the minority.
> 
> Let's agree God can mean universal truth wisdom or collective knowledge, laws of nature, Greater Public Good, forces of life etc. Depending on context. Let's agree Jesus means universal justice with mercy or equal justice for all humanity. So we don't have to remove that term or change the wording.
> 
> If you are willing to trade out compromises in tolerating different beliefs, maybe those opposing specific marriage beliefs would agree to tolerate those in exchange for tolerating beliefs about creation, etc. In public institutions instead of insisting on removal.
> 
> Including beliefs about creation or prayer isn't forcing anyone to change to those, yet these are removed due to faith based beliefs that are relative and free choice.
> 
> Well so are beliefs about LGBT, marriage, orientation/identity as natural or unnatural (or both as I believe they're not all unnatural/changeable nor all natural/unchangeable but depend on spiritual conditions the govt can't define for people).
> 
> If everyone agrees to equal treatment of beliefs, then we could achieve mutual  tolerance on all sides.
> 
> It just can't be one sided, Faun, only pushing liberal beliefs calling them secular while rejecting the beliefs of others as religious when both are equally Faith based and remain equal choice until proven by science or accepted by free will not force of govt.
Click to expand...

It really makes no difference what the others think - I am free to marry (civilly) whoever I want to marry.  Pardon this expression, but it fits perfectly - I can't change stupid.   If they are too stupid to understand that they are having holy matrimony performed, some gay people are having holy matrimony, some gays and some straights are only getting a civil marriage, but in ALL cases, they ALL are getting civilly married, be it priest, rabbi or judge.

It's not a matter of tolerance.  It's equal protection.  Just as prayer in school of crucifix in the public square violates my equal protection.  Your beliefs about creation or prayer do attempt to change my beliefs, and so have ruled the courts.  It violates my first amendment rights.  You also aren't winning any friends using unnatural.    Leave spirituality out of this, we are discussing civil marriage only.  We already have equal treatment of beliefs.  We are all free to get married, we are all able to worship in our own houses of worship.  I can't force anyone to enter into a SSM or OSM,  and they can't force me to pray, and I can't force them to pray. Faith based beliefs (ie, Hobby Lobby, Chik-fil-a, etc are most certainly forcing their religious beliefs on me, and I will never utilize their services.   You will not be allowed to teach creationism, as it it a religious based method that isn't truthful in several ways (ie, the earth is only a few thousands of years old, yet we carbon date things from millions of years ago).  You might want to research more on Jesus, as some religions view him as a charlatan, some just as a man, some believe he never existed, and some believe him to be nothing more than a prophet.   Why should you be able to teach my children that?   If I'm a devout theist, or Muslim, or Buddhist, I find your total opening sentences comopletely offensive.  Don't tell me I have to believe in someone that never existed, or was nothing ore than a prophet.


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger I'm saying to keep it out of govt if you want free choice.
> Keep the language secular where everyone agrees to it.
> 
> I've found more common agreement to keep Civil Unions in govt
> and manage contracts that way and NOT specify any conditions on
> the social relationships between the partners who form a legal contract or domestic partnership.
> 
> If brother and sister, or two neighbors want to run a household together and share contractual
> duties or legal guardianship, that has ZERO to do with if they are having romantic relations
> much less if they have to be husband and wife.
> 
> And if people don't agree on benefits policies, those are social values also,
> that can be separated by party if people cannot agree on state or federal laws for all people in that state or across the nation.
> 
> Not to worry rightwinger I already gave up trying to explain it.
> 
> I am happy enough to find the other people who get it,
> and maybe that's enough to separate our beliefs from govt
> and leave everyone else who believe in dominating one political belief "for all people"
> every time majority rule decides an election. I don't believe in that,
> but if you and others do, I cannot change your minds for you.
> 
> All I can do is sue or petition to separate my taxes and my representation
> from people like you who believe in violating each other's by majority rule
> and claim that gives you license to impose your beliefs, political or otherwise,
> onto others who don't agree. and call them delusional, just like people
> say that about liberals and try to censor them for it.
> 
> I believe this impositional bullying is a DANGER to the very liberal progressive
> ideals I believe in regarding free choice, and protecting beliefs and creeds from
> discrimination, exclusion, coercion, bullying, imposition, penalty, and deprivation of equal protection rights and liberties.
> 
> I understand you and others believe in protecting rights by establishing them through govt,
> but I believe this still requires consensus where political beliefs differ.
> 
> I don't believe in forcing or imposing them without consent, or it's not
> valid authority of law if not all people consent to that policy.  I believe
> in matters of belief, all objections and conflicts should be resolved to
> ensure equal representation and protection of interests, regardless of creed.
> 
> But my standards are higher than even very intelligent articulate people like
> you and Faun can handle.
> 
> so it's not fair to expect you to understand this and change your minds
> if you are set on seeing opponents with other beliefs as "delusional."
> 
> That's why opponents of liberal beliefs say the same thing, give up
> and just resort to voting liberals out of office.
> 
> You are danger to your own party principles and you don't even see it.
> Where's the inclusion, the free choice.
> Both sides have resorted to painting the other as delusional,
> and that's where I have to leave you to your own devices if that's the best I can expect from you.
> 
> Thanks for your best efforts!
> 
> Just know that people say the same thing and think
> liberals are "mentally ill" or "deluded" in depending on govt for rights when to them
> that is a false and dangerous premise.
> 
> Or they want "everyone else" to pay for their programs
> so when I advocate to separate tracks so taxpayers have a choice,
> they say "liberals will never support that because they want OTHER people
> to pay for their programs".
> 
> That makes no sense to me. If I and other Democrats believe in sustainable
> health care, we should be able to fund it ourselves. And if it's not affordable,
> something is wrong with the terms and conditions, and we'd have to change
> them such as requiring all people get help for criminal illness abuse or addiction
> if that's what driving costs up that could otherwise pay for health care.
> 
> I hope it's finally time to separate social programs and funding by party,
> Because I'm sick of fighting back and forth when all parties have enough
> resources to manage their own policies and not interfere with each other!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Government is in the marriage business...
> 
> They certify it and make it legal
> They provide tax breaks
> They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
> They supervise the dissolution of marriage
> 
> What do you want them to stop doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
> because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
> such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
> and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
> choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.
> 
> Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
> or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
> and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
> due to their beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court has already ruled that as unconstitutional. Equal protection of our laws
> 
> How do you resolve married gay people moving between the states?
> They are married or they are not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
> if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
> If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state.
> 
> Some states don't require car insurance, if the driver has "ability to pay" and can prove it.
> So in that state, the same driver with the same car is under different rules.
> 
> States like Nevada have legalized prostitution, that only applies in that state.
> 
> For national policies on health care and other social benefits,
> I recommend to my fellow progressive Democrats and Greens
> to organize by party. So people can have collective representation
> and management of resources to fund policies that correspond
> and represent beliefs in marriage, health care, prison alternatives,
> educational priorities, etc.
> 
> if not everyone agrees on social policies through federal govt.
> AND by the Platform of the Veterans Party of America
> "ALL social legislation is Unconstitutional"
> then why not manage it by party and have taxpayers
> pay directly into the programs of choice?
> 
> I know tons of progressives who believe in paying
> for education and health care instead of funding
> war and the death penalty.
> 
> Why not give taxpayers that choice?
> 
> If it's organized by party then the responsibility
> for all the terms and agreements is delegated
> to one national group to represent its members,
> similar to states being responsible for representing its citizens.
> 
> Just proportionally delegate federal budgets to allot
> money to states, and states divide it by party by
> proportion of taxpayers and taxmoney coming in.
> so if GOP do not want to pay to federal govt
> except for military, they don't get federal funds for health care
> except for VA/vets if that's all they approve.
> If Dems want singlepayer health care and no death penalty,
> then that's where their tax money goes or doesn't go.
> 
> So each pays for their share and their members
> work out their terms and conditions, from prolife
> to gay marriage, whatever they believe or don't believe in.
> 
> If states can agree, then it's done by state.
> 
> This is if the population of states CAN'T agree,
> why not create two separate tracks and let
> taxpayers choose just like we do when we
> donate to parties or vote for platforms and reps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question
> 
> With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you  handle gay couples traveling between states?
> 
> Try to answer in less than 50 words
Click to expand...


I answered that already rightwinger
each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
civil marriage, civil unions.

And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.

What part of my answer did you not get
and I will explain it again.

I answered two different ways
1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
it can be national without going through state or federal govt

There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are close.....
> 
> People can CHOOSE to marry a same sex partner or not
> 
> you might not like it.....But what business is it of yours?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger I'm saying to keep it out of govt if you want free choice.
> Keep the language secular where everyone agrees to it.
> 
> I've found more common agreement to keep Civil Unions in govt
> and manage contracts that way and NOT specify any conditions on
> the social relationships between the partners who form a legal contract or domestic partnership.
> 
> If brother and sister, or two neighbors want to run a household together and share contractual
> duties or legal guardianship, that has ZERO to do with if they are having romantic relations
> much less if they have to be husband and wife.
> 
> And if people don't agree on benefits policies, those are social values also,
> that can be separated by party if people cannot agree on state or federal laws for all people in that state or across the nation.
> 
> Not to worry rightwinger I already gave up trying to explain it.
> 
> I am happy enough to find the other people who get it,
> and maybe that's enough to separate our beliefs from govt
> and leave everyone else who believe in dominating one political belief "for all people"
> every time majority rule decides an election. I don't believe in that,
> but if you and others do, I cannot change your minds for you.
> 
> All I can do is sue or petition to separate my taxes and my representation
> from people like you who believe in violating each other's by majority rule
> and claim that gives you license to impose your beliefs, political or otherwise,
> onto others who don't agree. and call them delusional, just like people
> say that about liberals and try to censor them for it.
> 
> I believe this impositional bullying is a DANGER to the very liberal progressive
> ideals I believe in regarding free choice, and protecting beliefs and creeds from
> discrimination, exclusion, coercion, bullying, imposition, penalty, and deprivation of equal protection rights and liberties.
> 
> I understand you and others believe in protecting rights by establishing them through govt,
> but I believe this still requires consensus where political beliefs differ.
> 
> I don't believe in forcing or imposing them without consent, or it's not
> valid authority of law if not all people consent to that policy.  I believe
> in matters of belief, all objections and conflicts should be resolved to
> ensure equal representation and protection of interests, regardless of creed.
> 
> But my standards are higher than even very intelligent articulate people like
> you and Faun can handle.
> 
> so it's not fair to expect you to understand this and change your minds
> if you are set on seeing opponents with other beliefs as "delusional."
> 
> That's why opponents of liberal beliefs say the same thing, give up
> and just resort to voting liberals out of office.
> 
> You are danger to your own party principles and you don't even see it.
> Where's the inclusion, the free choice.
> Both sides have resorted to painting the other as delusional,
> and that's where I have to leave you to your own devices if that's the best I can expect from you.
> 
> Thanks for your best efforts!
> 
> Just know that people say the same thing and think
> liberals are "mentally ill" or "deluded" in depending on govt for rights when to them
> that is a false and dangerous premise.
> 
> Or they want "everyone else" to pay for their programs
> so when I advocate to separate tracks so taxpayers have a choice,
> they say "liberals will never support that because they want OTHER people
> to pay for their programs".
> 
> That makes no sense to me. If I and other Democrats believe in sustainable
> health care, we should be able to fund it ourselves. And if it's not affordable,
> something is wrong with the terms and conditions, and we'd have to change
> them such as requiring all people get help for criminal illness abuse or addiction
> if that's what driving costs up that could otherwise pay for health care.
> 
> I hope it's finally time to separate social programs and funding by party,
> Because I'm sick of fighting back and forth when all parties have enough
> resources to manage their own policies and not interfere with each other!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is in the marriage business...
> 
> They certify it and make it legal
> They provide tax breaks
> They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
> They supervise the dissolution of marriage
> 
> What do you want them to stop doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
> because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
> such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
> and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
> choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.
> 
> Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
> or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
> and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
> due to their beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't make laws based on peoples' feelings or religious objections. If we did, capital punishment would be unconstitutional, pork would be banned, cotton/wool blends would be punishable, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Faun I also believe in separating funding for the death penalty
> so people can have a free choice but it doesn't impose on other people's choice of funding.
> 
> This would take a lot of the "emotional hype" out of election campaigns
> if all issues were resolved one by one instead of lumped together,
> voting for one party to dominate while the other in the minority risks losing representation.
> 
> *A lot of fear based bullying going on now would be eliminated
> if we based laws on consensus or separation by party so everyone
> is equally represented and not forced to fund the beliefs of others.*
> 
> As for fabric, by the time the Greens Democrats and Social Workers
> organize labor pools and worker owned coops and business networks,
> maybe we will see more locally grown "hemp" fabric and/or whatever is more sustainable.
> maybe we won't rely so much on foreign slave labor for clothing and electronic devices
> if we organize labor and factories as campuses providing education, health care and housing
> as part of work-study programs to ensure students and workers have protection from abuse,
> even if working for barter or credit, or lower training wages in exchange for low cost housing and services.
> 
> *Religious beliefs and objections are part of how people express consent or dissent.
> I believe the right solutions will satisfy people's standards regardless if these are expressed religiously, politically, spiritually or by secular laws, business models, etc.*
> Faun
Click to expand...

Much of what you advocate Emily, is either illegal, or tried and failed.    The rest has already been implemented. You can't separate social programs by political, that is laughable.   I'll be a republican, until I need SNAP, public aid, food stamps, gas and light assistance, etc.  I'll quit my job, switch my party, and get all of this for free (not paying taxes).  When I want more, I get a job, switch my party to republican, and still not pay.   That's the most epic failure to date. You have no idea how many times I've seen political leanings just for this purpose.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS thanks Faun for trying to talk through this, reason and understand it. Especially where it doesn't affect you, if it doesn't matter to you if secular laws use the word Marriage to mean secular civil contracts, or states rights vs federal rulings don't affect you and your beliefs. They do affect others whose beliefs are violated.
> 
> To me, it's no big deal to use the term Jihadist to mean warmongering terrorists who worship Jihadist as War against the world.  But to Muslims this is co-opting their faith and terms for spiritual practice in abusive contradictory ways. So if we write public laws and statements, it is imposing on or establishing adverse beliefs to use language in ways that conflict with people of faith for which these terms mean sacred things.
> 
> I don't always get it either, when it seems secular to me too, but out of respect for those who have other beliefs I will try to include them and their limits.
> 
> So if my LGBT friends need public endorsement of certain policies to feel equally represented in laws, let's find a way to achieve that in ways that don't overreach, go too far, and end up indirectly unintentionally violating other beliefs and principles.
> 
> Similar to gun laws and prolife beliefs. Those laws need to be written and focused correctly where they don't incidentally infringe on other rights .
> 
> If you want people to respect your rights, it makes sense to respect other peoples.
> 
> If you want them to hear your objections and what you need for representation, then of course, we listen to theirs too.
> 
> Like you said, the marriage laws must account for everyone.
> 
> So why would you override the objections of others, then argue the laws should reflect everyone???
> 
> How can they reflect the public unless we include all people's consent and resolve all issues causing objection!
> 
> 
> 
> State sanctioned marriage in the U.S. has always been a civil contract and has always been called "marriage." We don't call marriage something else for certain folks because others find it offensive. Equal protection under the law supersedes Christians' feelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun I agree with your other post and will reply to focus on that where we agree.
> 
> For this, opponents argue similar as you do that LGBT are trying to change the definition of marriage. You insist that it only means the CIVIL marriage. But that's not what that means to other citizens who have equal right to how laws are worded. CIVIL unions and domestic contracts would solve this problem for more people. So I'd leave that to states to work out terms.
> 
> If you are going to reform and expand on meanings of terms, let's do the same for the word God instead of cutting that out from public institutions to please the minority.
> 
> Let's agree God can mean universal truth wisdom or collective knowledge, laws of nature, Greater Public Good, forces of life etc. Depending on context. Let's agree Jesus means universal justice with mercy or equal justice for all humanity. So we don't have to remove that term or change the wording.
> 
> If you are willing to trade out compromises in tolerating different beliefs, maybe those opposing specific marriage beliefs would agree to tolerate those in exchange for tolerating beliefs about creation, etc. In public institutions instead of insisting on removal.
> 
> Including beliefs about creation or prayer isn't forcing anyone to change to those, yet these are removed due to faith based beliefs that are relative and free choice.
> 
> Well so are beliefs about LGBT, marriage, orientation/identity as natural or unnatural (or both as I believe they're not all unnatural/changeable nor all natural/unchangeable but depend on spiritual conditions the govt can't define for people).
> 
> If everyone agrees to equal treatment of beliefs, then we could achieve mutual  tolerance on all sides.
> 
> It just can't be one sided, Faun, only pushing liberal beliefs calling them secular while rejecting the beliefs of others as religious when both are equally Faith based and remain equal choice until proven by science or accepted by free will not force of govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay folks are not going to be denied access to their rights to marry the person of their choice (the same right enjoyed by straight folks) because some religious folks don't like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faun I'm not asking for that
> I'm basically asking help to sue Democrats to create a separate internal govt to practice those political beliefs without imposing on beliefs of others!
> 
> Right to health care, right to marriage, no death penalty, reproductive freedom, all these can be exercised through social programs directed and funded by liberal and Democratic party leaders with the funds already spent on lobbying and campaigns.
> 
> I'd further argue that reimbursement already owed to taxpayers for contested war contracts and ACA corporate payouts in the trillions could set up sustainable health care by reforming prisons into medical programs for early diagnosis screening and treatment of both physical and mental illness especially criminal disorders or other dangerous diseases that threaten public health and safety.
> 
> If Statists want to impose political beliefs by majority rule, have a separate govt that believes in that.
> 
> As for me I believe in consent of the governed, no taxation without representation, due process of laws before depriving people of rights and freedoms, and either consensus or separation on areas involving faith based beliefs to ensure equal protections of the laws without discrimination by creed.
> 
> One-sided imposition of left on right or right on left is not equal.
> 
> I believe in equal inclusion and representation or else separate taxation by party so each manages their own social agenda for members of like beliefs.
> 
> Sure there can still be national govt recognizing rights people believe in. Where the public agrees these can still be through federal govt.  Where parties disagree the federal taxes can be divided by party proportionally or allocate to states to work out their state or national agenda without imposing political beliefs on taxpayers who don't consent.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact his would not be legal.   Think equal protection.  Think - the only way I can get assistance is to change my political affiliation?  Really?  If I get diagnosed with cancer, I have to change my political party to get better insurance?


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS thanks Faun for trying to talk through this, reason and understand it. Especially where it doesn't affect you, if it doesn't matter to you if secular laws use the word Marriage to mean secular civil contracts, or states rights vs federal rulings don't affect you and your beliefs. They do affect others whose beliefs are violated.
> 
> To me, it's no big deal to use the term Jihadist to mean warmongering terrorists who worship Jihadist as War against the world.  But to Muslims this is co-opting their faith and terms for spiritual practice in abusive contradictory ways. So if we write public laws and statements, it is imposing on or establishing adverse beliefs to use language in ways that conflict with people of faith for which these terms mean sacred things.
> 
> I don't always get it either, when it seems secular to me too, but out of respect for those who have other beliefs I will try to include them and their limits.
> 
> So if my LGBT friends need public endorsement of certain policies to feel equally represented in laws, let's find a way to achieve that in ways that don't overreach, go too far, and end up indirectly unintentionally violating other beliefs and principles.
> 
> Similar to gun laws and prolife beliefs. Those laws need to be written and focused correctly where they don't incidentally infringe on other rights .
> 
> If you want people to respect your rights, it makes sense to respect other peoples.
> 
> If you want them to hear your objections and what you need for representation, then of course, we listen to theirs too.
> 
> Like you said, the marriage laws must account for everyone.
> 
> So why would you override the objections of others, then argue the laws should reflect everyone???
> 
> How can they reflect the public unless we include all people's consent and resolve all issues causing objection!
> 
> 
> 
> State sanctioned marriage in the U.S. has always been a civil contract and has always been called "marriage." We don't call marriage something else for certain folks because others find it offensive. Equal protection under the law supersedes Christians' feelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun I agree with your other post and will reply to focus on that where we agree.
> 
> For this, opponents argue similar as you do that LGBT are trying to change the definition of marriage. You insist that it only means the CIVIL marriage. But that's not what that means to other citizens who have equal right to how laws are worded. CIVIL unions and domestic contracts would solve this problem for more people. So I'd leave that to states to work out terms.
> 
> If you are going to reform and expand on meanings of terms, let's do the same for the word God instead of cutting that out from public institutions to please the minority.
> 
> Let's agree God can mean universal truth wisdom or collective knowledge, laws of nature, Greater Public Good, forces of life etc. Depending on context. Let's agree Jesus means universal justice with mercy or equal justice for all humanity. So we don't have to remove that term or change the wording.
> 
> If you are willing to trade out compromises in tolerating different beliefs, maybe those opposing specific marriage beliefs would agree to tolerate those in exchange for tolerating beliefs about creation, etc. In public institutions instead of insisting on removal.
> 
> Including beliefs about creation or prayer isn't forcing anyone to change to those, yet these are removed due to faith based beliefs that are relative and free choice.
> 
> Well so are beliefs about LGBT, marriage, orientation/identity as natural or unnatural (or both as I believe they're not all unnatural/changeable nor all natural/unchangeable but depend on spiritual conditions the govt can't define for people).
> 
> If everyone agrees to equal treatment of beliefs, then we could achieve mutual  tolerance on all sides.
> 
> It just can't be one sided, Faun, only pushing liberal beliefs calling them secular while rejecting the beliefs of others as religious when both are equally Faith based and remain equal choice until proven by science or accepted by free will not force of govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It really makes no difference what the others think - I am free to marry (civilly) whoever I want to marry.  Pardon this expression, but it fits perfectly - I can't change stupid.   If they are too stupid to understand that they are having holy matrimony performed, some gay people are having holy matrimony, some gays and some straights are only getting a civil marriage, but in ALL cases, they ALL are getting civilly married, be it priest, rabbi or judge.
> 
> It's not a matter of tolerance.  It's equal protection.  Just as prayer in school of crucifix in the public square violates my equal protection.  Your beliefs about creation or prayer do attempt to change my beliefs, and so have ruled the courts.  It violates my first amendment rights.  You also aren't winning any friends using unnatural.    Leave spirituality out of this, we are discussing civil marriage only.  We already have equal treatment of beliefs.  We are all free to get married, we are all able to worship in our own houses of worship.  I can't force anyone to enter into a SSM or OSM,  and they can't force me to pray, and I can't force them to pray. Faith based beliefs (ie, Hobby Lobby, Chik-fil-a, etc are most certainly forcing their religious beliefs on me, and I will never utilize their services.   You will not be allowed to teach creationism, as it it a religious based method that isn't truthful in several ways (ie, the earth is only a few thousands of years old, yet we carbon date things from millions of years ago).  You might want to research more on Jesus, as some religions view him as a charlatan, some just as a man, some believe he never existed, and some believe him to be nothing more than a prophet.   Why should you be able to teach my children that?   If I'm a devout theist, or Muslim, or Buddhist, I find your total opening sentences comopletely offensive.  Don't tell me I have to believe in someone that never existed, or was nothing ore than a prophet.
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin
And that's about how people feel about govt endorsing beliefs about homosexuality as natural
and gay couples as equal in marriage.

We agree on civil unions as secular and neutral, 
but I'm just being honest with you and Faun: not everyone agrees with the civil marriage.

You can insult people all you want for not seeing this as civil secular unions,
but I respect their beliefs as I do yours, which many people also see as problematic
even equating to mental diseases and disorders because they just don't see how that can be normal rational thinkìng.

The same way you reject creationism being taught in schools as deceitful,
that reminds me of how as many people believe the same about teaching homosexuality as natural.

So you are about even on that score.

[BTW the interpretation in the Bible does not have to mean literally 6 thousand years "literally" but 6 AGES where 1000 years represent a stage or age.
So it is possible to teach the Bible as representing the same process that science backs up, and just teach it symbolically not literally as in 6 Ages or Stages.
I believe we are in the 7th stage or age of our spiritual/social growth or development.]

As for Buddhists, not all of them are offended or intolerant of prayer in God or Jesus name. I know people who are both and take no offense.
Muslims are also called to respect and follow the prophets and laws in the Bible as given by God.

So teaching that the Christian God is exclusive of other paths is not the same denomination or interpretation I follow.
there are ways of teaching this that are inclusive, but these remain free choice.
It should not be govt abused to decide that one person's interpretation of the Cross is all inclusive
so that should be allowed and exclude anyone who doesn't interpret the Cross the same way.
And that's what I'm saying about marriage.
If people don't agree, I'm saying we should resolve those issues if we are going to have
 marriage laws represent all people of a state without bias towards or against one belief or another.
They should be neutral laws, and if people are objecting then I would find out why and resolve that issue.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Thanks Faun you are taking free exercise and religious freedom literally to mean church based or organized religion.
> 
> I use it more universally and secularly to cover All beliefs
> So this is fair to atheists, independents of no organized faith, secular humanists, and political beliefs or other faith based or personal beliefs such as in marriage health care global warming creation/evolution etc.
> 
> The parties essentially espoused beliefs.
> 
> So I'm saying to petition parties their leaders and members to fund and manage their own social policies as secular equivalents of what churches do.
> 
> This can still be orchestrate on state and national levels like govt.  But have advantage of being private church like political religions that could qualify for 100 % deductions.
> 
> so everyone gets equal protection and exercise of beliefs without discriminating by creed whether religious or not.


So you are telling me I have to join the _____ Church now, if I have cancer, need food stamps, financial assistance, or a prescription drug filled?  Nope.  And you are stretching the definition beyond what religious freedom and free exercise means - to really simplify it, it means you are free to have belief in a higher being or not.  Religious freedom literally means organized religion or personal beliefs.   If I choose not to believe in a higher power, then I'm still covered by the first amendment.  So are secular humanists.  You still don't understand that civil marriage (as used in the law) is not faith based, nor is health care, global warming,  etc.   You are mixing too many items in here now.  Creationism means a higher being created the heavens and the earth a few thousand years ago.  Evolution means millions of years ago, we evolved up to what we are today.   A million years ago, our appendix had a profound use in the digestive process.  Now, not at all.  Global Warming is a proven fact, nothing that can be in and of itself voted on.  Healthcare - is a problem caused by insurance companies and billing offices of the medical profession.  

You cannot have a political religion - it directly violates the first amendment.   There are laws that prevent a minister from endorsing a candidate from the pulpit.  That 100 percent deduction would actually be loss of it's 501.c3 status.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger I'm saying to keep it out of govt if you want free choice.
> Keep the language secular where everyone agrees to it.
> 
> I've found more common agreement to keep Civil Unions in govt
> and manage contracts that way and NOT specify any conditions on
> the social relationships between the partners who form a legal contract or domestic partnership.
> 
> If brother and sister, or two neighbors want to run a household together and share contractual
> duties or legal guardianship, that has ZERO to do with if they are having romantic relations
> much less if they have to be husband and wife.
> 
> And if people don't agree on benefits policies, those are social values also,
> that can be separated by party if people cannot agree on state or federal laws for all people in that state or across the nation.
> 
> Not to worry rightwinger I already gave up trying to explain it.
> 
> I am happy enough to find the other people who get it,
> and maybe that's enough to separate our beliefs from govt
> and leave everyone else who believe in dominating one political belief "for all people"
> every time majority rule decides an election. I don't believe in that,
> but if you and others do, I cannot change your minds for you.
> 
> All I can do is sue or petition to separate my taxes and my representation
> from people like you who believe in violating each other's by majority rule
> and claim that gives you license to impose your beliefs, political or otherwise,
> onto others who don't agree. and call them delusional, just like people
> say that about liberals and try to censor them for it.
> 
> I believe this impositional bullying is a DANGER to the very liberal progressive
> ideals I believe in regarding free choice, and protecting beliefs and creeds from
> discrimination, exclusion, coercion, bullying, imposition, penalty, and deprivation of equal protection rights and liberties.
> 
> I understand you and others believe in protecting rights by establishing them through govt,
> but I believe this still requires consensus where political beliefs differ.
> 
> I don't believe in forcing or imposing them without consent, or it's not
> valid authority of law if not all people consent to that policy.  I believe
> in matters of belief, all objections and conflicts should be resolved to
> ensure equal representation and protection of interests, regardless of creed.
> 
> But my standards are higher than even very intelligent articulate people like
> you and Faun can handle.
> 
> so it's not fair to expect you to understand this and change your minds
> if you are set on seeing opponents with other beliefs as "delusional."
> 
> That's why opponents of liberal beliefs say the same thing, give up
> and just resort to voting liberals out of office.
> 
> You are danger to your own party principles and you don't even see it.
> Where's the inclusion, the free choice.
> Both sides have resorted to painting the other as delusional,
> and that's where I have to leave you to your own devices if that's the best I can expect from you.
> 
> Thanks for your best efforts!
> 
> Just know that people say the same thing and think
> liberals are "mentally ill" or "deluded" in depending on govt for rights when to them
> that is a false and dangerous premise.
> 
> Or they want "everyone else" to pay for their programs
> so when I advocate to separate tracks so taxpayers have a choice,
> they say "liberals will never support that because they want OTHER people
> to pay for their programs".
> 
> That makes no sense to me. If I and other Democrats believe in sustainable
> health care, we should be able to fund it ourselves. And if it's not affordable,
> something is wrong with the terms and conditions, and we'd have to change
> them such as requiring all people get help for criminal illness abuse or addiction
> if that's what driving costs up that could otherwise pay for health care.
> 
> I hope it's finally time to separate social programs and funding by party,
> Because I'm sick of fighting back and forth when all parties have enough
> resources to manage their own policies and not interfere with each other!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Government is in the marriage business...
> 
> They certify it and make it legal
> They provide tax breaks
> They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
> They supervise the dissolution of marriage
> 
> What do you want them to stop doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
> because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
> such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
> and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
> choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.
> 
> Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
> or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
> and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
> due to their beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't make laws based on peoples' feelings or religious objections. If we did, capital punishment would be unconstitutional, pork would be banned, cotton/wool blends would be punishable, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Faun I also believe in separating funding for the death penalty
> so people can have a free choice but it doesn't impose on other people's choice of funding.
> 
> This would take a lot of the "emotional hype" out of election campaigns
> if all issues were resolved one by one instead of lumped together,
> voting for one party to dominate while the other in the minority risks losing representation.
> 
> *A lot of fear based bullying going on now would be eliminated
> if we based laws on consensus or separation by party so everyone
> is equally represented and not forced to fund the beliefs of others.*
> 
> As for fabric, by the time the Greens Democrats and Social Workers
> organize labor pools and worker owned coops and business networks,
> maybe we will see more locally grown "hemp" fabric and/or whatever is more sustainable.
> maybe we won't rely so much on foreign slave labor for clothing and electronic devices
> if we organize labor and factories as campuses providing education, health care and housing
> as part of work-study programs to ensure students and workers have protection from abuse,
> even if working for barter or credit, or lower training wages in exchange for low cost housing and services.
> 
> *Religious beliefs and objections are part of how people express consent or dissent.
> I believe the right solutions will satisfy people's standards regardless if these are expressed religiously, politically, spiritually or by secular laws, business models, etc.*
> Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Much of what you advocate Emily, is either illegal, or tried and failed.    The rest has already been implemented. You can't separate social programs by political, that is laughable.   I'll be a republican, until I need SNAP, public aid, food stamps, gas and light assistance, etc.  I'll quit my job, switch my party, and get all of this for free (not paying taxes).  When I want more, I get a job, switch my party to republican, and still not pay.   That's the most epic failure to date. You have no idea how many times I've seen political leanings just for this purpose.
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin 
And that would be up to each party to deal with that element.

If it affects their bottom line, they'd have motivation to deal with fraud or abuse,
or have the best charities to refer people to that specialize in helping people
with all manner of social or financial instability or crisis. Many groups I know
INVITE people to seek their help so they CAN do the counseling at the same time.
They WANT to do that part too!

If those are the terms of their help, then people would have to agree to get stable if they want that help.
That ensures accountability if people want the best help, they meet the terms of the program they join.

We already rely on charities and taxpayers to pay for everything
from prisons to medical expenses. 
But if we at least organize likeminded people under the same programs,
we could start streamlining and maximizing resources under the best models.

If groups are serving more people effectively, they would get more funding.
So it's in their best interest to be the most effective, and show progress.

That's better than competing to make each other fail, to get political points for the next election!


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Sneekin and occupied
> 
> I give up on trying to explain political beliefs to people
> and how to resolve biases in laws by recognizing people
> have a right to their beliefs, whether religious or political spiritual or secular.
> 
> Please tell me how you would word this
> so I can ask for legal help to sue or petition parties to separate tracks through the state.
> 
> I am trying to argue for the right of people of different beliefs to have
> separate tracks for paying their taxes and managing terms and agreements for social programs,
> including health care and marriage benefits, since obviously we don't all agree.
> 
> At this point, not only do people treat liberal beliefs as mental disorders to be shut out of govt altogether,
> but now even Faun is saying this of people who don't believe civil marriage laws are secular enough but
> are establishing beliefs by including gay couples which they don't believe are the same as traditional couples and marriage.
> 
> If people cannot even fathom that each other's beliefs are valid
> but see them as delusional or mental deficiency,
> isn't that grounds for separation?
> 
> In order to save freedom of choice from political beliefs seeking to regulate or restrict it through govt,
> can I please ask you help: How would you word a petition to lawmakers
> and party leaders to support the separation of social programs by party
> so that all taxpayers may be assured direct representation on either
> state or national levels through the party or track of their choice
> without affecting terms or conditions that other people or parties want to fund and represent by their beliefs?


I can't help write anything like this, because it goes directly against my beliefs, not to mention, some of this is quite obviously in violation of existing law.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Faun you are taking free exercise and religious freedom literally to mean church based or organized religion.
> 
> I use it more universally and secularly to cover All beliefs
> So this is fair to atheists, independents of no organized faith, secular humanists, and political beliefs or other faith based or personal beliefs such as in marriage health care global warming creation/evolution etc.
> 
> The parties essentially espoused beliefs.
> 
> So I'm saying to petition parties their leaders and members to fund and manage their own social policies as secular equivalents of what churches do.
> 
> This can still be orchestrate on state and national levels like govt.  But have advantage of being private church like political religions that could qualify for 100 % deductions.
> 
> so everyone gets equal protection and exercise of beliefs without discriminating by creed whether religious or not.
> 
> 
> 
> So you are telling me I have to join the _____ Church now, if I have cancer, need food stamps, financial assistance, or a prescription drug filled?  Nope.  And you are stretching the definition beyond what religious freedom and free exercise means - to really simplify it, it means you are free to have belief in a higher being or not.  Religious freedom literally means organized religion or personal beliefs.   If I choose not to believe in a higher power, then I'm still covered by the first amendment.  So are secular humanists.  You still don't understand that civil marriage (as used in the law) is not faith based, nor is health care, global warming,  etc.   You are mixing too many items in here now.  Creationism means a higher being created the heavens and the earth a few thousand years ago.  Evolution means millions of years ago, we evolved up to what we are today.   A million years ago, our appendix had a profound use in the digestive process.  Now, not at all.  Global Warming is a proven fact, nothing that can be in and of itself voted on.  Healthcare - is a problem caused by insurance companies and billing offices of the medical profession.
> 
> You cannot have a political religion - it directly violates the first amendment.   There are laws that prevent a minister from endorsing a candidate from the pulpit.  That 100 percent deduction would actually be loss of it's 501.c3 status.
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin

1. "right to health care" is already a political belief under ACA
and religion if you look at the whole operation

People either believe in it or they don't
and YES it _IS BEING CONTESTED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
_
The Democratic platform at least in Texas states
"We BELIEVE health care is a right not a privilege"

So if you are saying "political religions" are unlawful,
well, the mandates of political parties already are that!

Welcome to the club contesting ACA mandates and exchanges
as unconstitutional, based on this national belief where
President Obama declared right to health care as "the law of the land"

(While people like me were contesting this as unconstitutional.)

2. if you don't believe in ACA insurance mandates,
or in religious based programs or terms,
that's why I'm saying we should use the Democratic party to create a secularized alternative.

And you and others who want to be under a secular health plan nationally
VOTE democratically on the terms of conditions.

So that way, you can keep religion out of it

NOTE: the prolife Christians would not contest this if they also get
their own platform that does have prolife only / no abortion, no drugs,
but spiritual healing to remove addictions or unnatural sexual behaviors, etc.
whatever they want too

Just don't make them pay for yours, and yes, you can
include or exclude whatever terms or conditions your group
agrees to pay for.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and occupied
> 
> I give up on trying to explain political beliefs to people
> and how to resolve biases in laws by recognizing people
> have a right to their beliefs, whether religious or political spiritual or secular.
> 
> Please tell me how you would word this
> so I can ask for legal help to sue or petition parties to separate tracks through the state.
> 
> I am trying to argue for the right of people of different beliefs to have
> separate tracks for paying their taxes and managing terms and agreements for social programs,
> including health care and marriage benefits, since obviously we don't all agree.
> 
> At this point, not only do people treat liberal beliefs as mental disorders to be shut out of govt altogether,
> but now even Faun is saying this of people who don't believe civil marriage laws are secular enough but
> are establishing beliefs by including gay couples which they don't believe are the same as traditional couples and marriage.
> 
> If people cannot even fathom that each other's beliefs are valid
> but see them as delusional or mental deficiency,
> isn't that grounds for separation?
> 
> In order to save freedom of choice from political beliefs seeking to regulate or restrict it through govt,
> can I please ask you help: How would you word a petition to lawmakers
> and party leaders to support the separation of social programs by party
> so that all taxpayers may be assured direct representation on either
> state or national levels through the party or track of their choice
> without affecting terms or conditions that other people or parties want to fund and represent by their beliefs?
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help write anything like this, because it goes directly against my beliefs, not to mention, some of this is quite obviously in violation of existing law.
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin 

The ACA mandates and exchanges were already set up with secular conditions.
You can just take that and make it for Democratic leaders party and members to be under.
And you're done.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're mistaken again. I am not dictating any laws. States are and states can dictate laws regardless of peoples' religious beliefs as long as they don't infringe on their freedom to exercise their religion or force them to act in a manner contradictory to their religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Faun
> when you demand that all people interpret marriage the same way to mean civil marriage
> you are dictating beliefs for people.
> 
> You implied that anyone who can't se e it that way is somehow "delusional"
> Well, that's what some people say about
> *atheists who can't see a Bible or Cross as historical but only see it as religious imposition
> * LGBT who are seen by some as mentally ill!!!
> 
> They can't impose their beliefs and neither can you or I.
> 
> So if people object to those laws due to their beliefs,
> I say resolve those objections until everyone agrees the laws are secular neutral and all inclusive.
> 
> You just SAID you believe those people have some "delusion or hallucination"
> 
> So no, it is NOT fair for you to impose YOUR beliefs about why they object religiously to marriage laws they disagree with on religious grounds.
> 
> You have become the same intolerant judges against diverse beliefs,
> assuming there is something DEFICIENT in that person because they have some belief you don't understand or agree with,
> SO MUCH that you seek to DEPRIVE others of their equal freedom to have EQUAL say in the same laws
> that YOU argue should include diverse beliefs and rights of others!
> 
> How contrary is that Faun???
> 
> I'm sorry you don't get it, but neither do people
> GET why atheists have to "sue to remove a cross," when that's not forcing anyone to change beliefs, and think something is "wrong or deficient" with atheist thinking when maybe that's just how their brains see the world nontheistically!
> 
> And you SOUND a lot like those who ASSUME
> transgender have "delusions and are imagining" they are the other gender,
> when that is part of their SPIRITUAL IDENTITY they aren't required to justify faith in!
> 
> Both end up discriminating against others for their beliefs.
> 
> Sorry but I don't believe in denigrating people as "delusional" just because
> you or I don't understand the REASON for their beliefs!
> 
> They have the right to those equally as the arguments you and I make for LGBT
> and the reasons for their beliefs and creeds as well!
> 
> You can judge them all you want, but you are acting the same as those
> you criticize for judging LGBT orientation/identity as "delusional" or mental disorders.
> 
> And neither should either belief be imposed on anyone else through govt
> or it's discriminating by creed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said, _"civil marriage is already secular,"_ which it is. You responded by stating not everyone believes that; which is what I pointed out is delusional and that no one is bound by such delusional beliefs.
> 
> And again... the topic is about same-sex marriage, not crosses.... not praying... not religion. It's a pity you're incapable of separating them from the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See ^ Faun you did it again.
> You assume that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."
> 
> Sorry but I disagree.
> 
> I know LOTS of independents, even a liberal lesbian friend who said the same thing I am saying in "sticking with CIVIL UNIONS,"
> Libertarians, Constitutionalists, both Christian and secular, who do NOT believe that those marriage laws are unbiased and "secular"
> but STILL are imposing beliefs by applying to gay couples which NOT ALL PEOPLE BELIEVE IN.
> 
> And they AGREE that sticking to Civil Unions would solve the problem.
> Some are still reluctant to remove ALL marriage and ONLY have Civil Unions for ALL people.
> 
> But more of the people who agree to "remove ALL marriage" are the Libertarians or similar approaches.
> 
> So if that is the common denominator, sure, I will go with that.
> 
> If you want to say ALL these diverse people are "delusional" for not agreeing to change civil marriage laws to include gay couples,
> that is YOUR assumption, but I found these people are actually MORE objective and MORE rational who
> could LET GO OF BELIEFS and agree to stick to what is neutral and secular.
> 
> You claim to let go, but if you have to paint anyone who believes otherwise as "delusional'
> that means you are still attaching bias to this and projecting onto people of different beliefs.
> 
> Unlike YOU, I am willing to include ALL people in how laws are written state by state.
> If you want to exclude and demonize people as being "delusional" that's not unbiased
> but you are already discriminating against others you don't understand or agree with.
> 
> sorry but an all-inclusive democratic process cannot be run by accusing people of being delusional
> just for having different religious biases.
> 
> I think if we are having THIS much trouble communicating,
> I could see removing marriage ALL TOGETHER and separating ALL social benefits
> by party so only LIKEMINDED people write their own terms and conditions for funding
> their own benefits collectively, and leave other people out, if both groups are just going
> to ACCUSE the other of being delusional or mentally ill.  people already think that
> of liberals, so again, I see that you think the same of them. At least it's equal.
> 
> but since two wrongs don't make it right, this still doesn't solve the problems.
> 
> I would highly recommend just separating social programs by political party,
> so nobody has to deal with others they consider "delusional."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said no such thing. Stop misrepresenting what I say. I said anyone who believes civil marriage is not secular is delusional.
> 
> I did not say _that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."_
> 
> And we're not doing away with marriage altogether because some folks find it objectionable any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interfaith marriage; or any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interracial marriages.
> 
> You've failed to articulate any reasonable argument to reject same-sex sex marriage or doing away with marriage entirely for all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES I just pointed out the reasons.
> that it is discriminating against people of either belief
> to impose one way or another.
> 
> Whichever side of marriage laws govt takes, it leaves the other discriminated against.
> People on both sides feel the other creed is establishing a bias in law and govt
> unless all the related issues are resolved.
> 
> So it is in govt and public best interest either to require
> * consensus on laws including how they are written funded and enforced
> * or separation of policies such as by state or by party if needed to solve the conflicts.
> 
> Thanks Faun
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you are wrong.  It is not discriminating against anyone after Obergefell was passed.  Until then, it was discriminating. Fundamentalist Christians may not agree with it, your lesbian friends may not agree with it, but they are wrong.  Consensus on laws?  Never going to happen.  We are a republic, and you forget the rights of a "few". I (and the state courts for the most part, and the majority of the SCOTUS) believes that civil marriage is open to all people, and it can be same sex couples or opposite sex couples.  In high school, I worked for a telemarketing company.  They had a policy of not selling to blacks.  If it was put to a vote, the majority would have agreed (within the company).  I went to the civil rights commission, reported them.  The next morning, the commission members were sitting with the head of our company.  I left, and on the evening news, watched the people being escorted out (seems like the company had a history of doing this).  You can't vote civil rights away, and that's what you propose to do.

The government ruled same sex couples couldn't be discriminated against by the states as it violated the constitution.   It didn't leave "the other side" discriminated against, because that discrimination was illegal.  You can't legislate those illegal acts into law. You can believe there is a bias, but there most certainly is not. So sayeth the courts.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said, _"civil marriage is already secular,"_ which it is. You responded by stating not everyone believes that; which is what I pointed out is delusional and that no one is bound by such delusional beliefs.
> 
> And again... the topic is about same-sex marriage, not crosses.... not praying... not religion. It's a pity you're incapable of separating them from the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See ^ Faun you did it again.
> You assume that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."
> 
> Sorry but I disagree.
> 
> I know LOTS of independents, even a liberal lesbian friend who said the same thing I am saying in "sticking with CIVIL UNIONS,"
> Libertarians, Constitutionalists, both Christian and secular, who do NOT believe that those marriage laws are unbiased and "secular"
> but STILL are imposing beliefs by applying to gay couples which NOT ALL PEOPLE BELIEVE IN.
> 
> And they AGREE that sticking to Civil Unions would solve the problem.
> Some are still reluctant to remove ALL marriage and ONLY have Civil Unions for ALL people.
> 
> But more of the people who agree to "remove ALL marriage" are the Libertarians or similar approaches.
> 
> So if that is the common denominator, sure, I will go with that.
> 
> If you want to say ALL these diverse people are "delusional" for not agreeing to change civil marriage laws to include gay couples,
> that is YOUR assumption, but I found these people are actually MORE objective and MORE rational who
> could LET GO OF BELIEFS and agree to stick to what is neutral and secular.
> 
> You claim to let go, but if you have to paint anyone who believes otherwise as "delusional'
> that means you are still attaching bias to this and projecting onto people of different beliefs.
> 
> Unlike YOU, I am willing to include ALL people in how laws are written state by state.
> If you want to exclude and demonize people as being "delusional" that's not unbiased
> but you are already discriminating against others you don't understand or agree with.
> 
> sorry but an all-inclusive democratic process cannot be run by accusing people of being delusional
> just for having different religious biases.
> 
> I think if we are having THIS much trouble communicating,
> I could see removing marriage ALL TOGETHER and separating ALL social benefits
> by party so only LIKEMINDED people write their own terms and conditions for funding
> their own benefits collectively, and leave other people out, if both groups are just going
> to ACCUSE the other of being delusional or mentally ill.  people already think that
> of liberals, so again, I see that you think the same of them. At least it's equal.
> 
> but since two wrongs don't make it right, this still doesn't solve the problems.
> 
> I would highly recommend just separating social programs by political party,
> so nobody has to deal with others they consider "delusional."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said no such thing. Stop misrepresenting what I say. I said anyone who believes civil marriage is not secular is delusional.
> 
> I did not say _that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."_
> 
> And we're not doing away with marriage altogether because some folks find it objectionable any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interfaith marriage; or any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interracial marriages.
> 
> You've failed to articulate any reasonable argument to reject same-sex sex marriage or doing away with marriage entirely for all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES I just pointed out the reasons.
> that it is discriminating against people of either belief
> to impose one way or another.
> 
> Whichever side of marriage laws govt takes, it leaves the other discriminated against.
> People on both sides feel the other creed is establishing a bias in law and govt
> unless all the related issues are resolved.
> 
> So it is in govt and public best interest either to require
> * consensus on laws including how they are written funded and enforced
> * or separation of policies such as by state or by party if needed to solve the conflicts.
> 
> Thanks Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you've been told before, even though you can't understand it, same-sex marriage is not being imposed upon anyone who doesn't want it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered this before, several times.
> 
> I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"
> 
> If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
> then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."
> 
> Same principle. Faun
> 
> In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
> the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.
> 
> So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
> they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
> "if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."
> 
> Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
> And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
> Crosses
> Prayers
> God
> Jesus
> creation
> etc.
> from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
> and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
> and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.
> 
> Or that's discrimination by creed.
Click to expand...

Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed.   By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment.  I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs.  I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others.  Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and occupied
> 
> I give up on trying to explain political beliefs to people
> and how to resolve biases in laws by recognizing people
> have a right to their beliefs, whether religious or political spiritual or secular.
> 
> Please tell me how you would word this
> so I can ask for legal help to sue or petition parties to separate tracks through the state.
> 
> I am trying to argue for the right of people of different beliefs to have
> separate tracks for paying their taxes and managing terms and agreements for social programs,
> including health care and marriage benefits, since obviously we don't all agree.
> 
> At this point, not only do people treat liberal beliefs as mental disorders to be shut out of govt altogether,
> but now even Faun is saying this of people who don't believe civil marriage laws are secular enough but
> are establishing beliefs by including gay couples which they don't believe are the same as traditional couples and marriage.
> 
> If people cannot even fathom that each other's beliefs are valid
> but see them as delusional or mental deficiency,
> isn't that grounds for separation?
> 
> In order to save freedom of choice from political beliefs seeking to regulate or restrict it through govt,
> can I please ask you help: How would you word a petition to lawmakers
> and party leaders to support the separation of social programs by party
> so that all taxpayers may be assured direct representation on either
> state or national levels through the party or track of their choice
> without affecting terms or conditions that other people or parties want to fund and represent by their beliefs?
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help write anything like this, because it goes directly against my beliefs, not to mention, some of this is quite obviously in violation of existing law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> The ACA mandates and exchanges were already set up with secular conditions.
> You can just take that and make it for Democratic leaders party and members to be under.
> And you're done.
Click to expand...

Reference the point of law that allows that to happen?   You can't, because you can't mandate based on someone's political affiliation.  IT IS ILLEGAL.  IT IS THE EPITOME OF DISCRIMINATION.  Take it from someone with 35 years of experience with EEO, Civil Rights, and direct interface with the EEOC several times a week.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Here Faun
> here is a response I posted to someone else
> who argued that homosexuality is NOT proven scientifically to be a born innate fixed condition
> [and who APPEARS TO CORRELATE homosexuality and transgender identity with "mental health problems"]
> 
> ====================================
> _The other author is Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the leading psychiatrists in the world. He was psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore from 1975 to 2001. These scientists reviewed hundreds of peer reviewed studies on sexual orientation and gender identity from the biological, psychological and social sciences. Their conclusions were as follows:_.........................
> 
> _the belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property – that people are “born that way” –* is not supported by scientific evidence.*
> The belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex – so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ – *is not supported by scientific evidence*._.......................
> 
> _Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behaviour will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood._..............
> 
> _Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity._.............................. .............
> 
> _The second bombshell was exploded by a top researcher for the American Psychological Association (APA), lesbian activist, Dr. Lisa Diamond, co-author-in-chief of ‘the APA Handbook’ of sexuality and psychology and one of the APA’s most respected members. She admitted that sexual orientation was “fluid” and not unchangeable. By doing so, Dr. Diamond confirmed that the myth that “homosexuals can’t change” is now a dead-end theory_
> ===========================================================
> 
> Dear sec
> Yes and no
> 1. studies on identical twins do not show correlation in orientation.
> some studies were inflated to show higher than 50%, but it's definitely NOT 100% as a genetic cause would show
> One source: Homosexuality Can it be Healed by Dr. Francis MacNutt
> for interview of Judith MacNutt on 20 cases of homosexual clients healed by spiritual therapy
> see: Interview - Francis & Judith MacNutt - Mastering Life
> 
> 2. homosexual and transgender identity can still be attributed to factors in the WOMB.
> studies on brains show a similarity between the brains of females and of gay males.
> Even if not genetic, it could be a condition by birth and not someone's choice.
> 
> When I look at people who claim to be spiritual soulmates, is that something
> either one of them chose? How they were incarnated as black or white, male or female?
> 
> 3. my argument is to treat LGBT beliefs orientation and gender as SPIRITUALLY determined.
> So this covers any and all beliefs equally, and does not discriminate against one or another.
> No matter what someone believes, since both sides are faith based and neither proven nor disproven
> by science, they remain free choice; and certain govt should never be abused to impose a faith-based bias
> or force someone to change their beliefs. These should all be included equally, whether for or against gay marriage
> or believing homosexuality is natural or unnatural, a choice of behavior or not, or it can or cannot change.
> 
> Some people can change, some cannot.
> Some believe the change is merely reverting back to default natural status at birth, and not really changing orientation
> So like someone's expression of identity as Muslim or Christian, atheist, liberal prochoice, or conservative prolife,
> I believe in treating one's beliefs about LGBT as a CREED and not denying disparaging or harassing people regardless
> what their views are, why, and if these change or not. Some people cannot help and cannot change how they believe.
> And that goes for both sides!


McHugh is not one of the top psychiatrists, unless you follow that with one of the top most discredited.  It most certainly is genetic - otherwise, feel free to explain how every mammal has a percentage of offspring that have same sex relations.    Again, it's a straight up lie that anyone has actually been converted.   The few people that "stuck", numbering under 5-10, were already determined to be bisexual, and just stopped sleeping with men for the time being.  You seem to confuse the sex act with the sexual preference - they are not the same.  Anyone can be forced into a SS act, it doesn't mean they are gay.  Anyone can be forced into a heterosexual act, it doesn't mean they are straight.  It's not spiritually determined - if it is, explain those gay mice.  Or even beyond mammals, explain the gay ducks..  How do you explain atheist gays?  You are too focused on making everyone happy - it has been proven (McHugh is about the last person of name standing, against the millions with the exact opposite opinion).  No one can change, they can simply abstain - and what usually happens is one of two things - they "backslide", resuming SS relations, or two, they kill themselves.   I lost a dear friend that way in high school.


----------



## Sneekin

Emily, you are missing the big picture.   You can't contest slavery, and you cannot contest SSM. Texas had a law prohibiting Sodomy (between two men) which was overturned in Lawrence V Texas in the early 90's.  They had an Amendment prohibiting SSM.  The courts, up to and including the SCOTUS found it to be in violation of the 14th Amendment.  Roe v Wade was in the 70's.  Your friends may not like any of them, they can complain all they want.  They are law.  As we found in Roe, some restrictions can be put in place.  The same can't be said with SSM and slavery.  Sorry your friends don't agree that the government doesn't have the right to rule, but the intent of the SCOTUS is to rule if a law is constitutional or not.   Obergefell was ruled, and it was determined that Texas and a few others were wrong, their amendment/laws were invalidated.   Your friends may not agree, but it's really a case of too bad, so sad,  it's law.  Are you wanting to overturn the 14th amendment as well?


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here Faun
> here is a response I posted to someone else
> who argued that homosexuality is NOT proven scientifically to be a born innate fixed condition
> [and who APPEARS TO CORRELATE homosexuality and transgender identity with "mental health problems"]
> 
> ====================================
> _The other author is Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the leading psychiatrists in the world. He was psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore from 1975 to 2001. These scientists reviewed hundreds of peer reviewed studies on sexual orientation and gender identity from the biological, psychological and social sciences. Their conclusions were as follows:_.........................
> 
> _the belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property – that people are “born that way” –* is not supported by scientific evidence.*
> The belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex – so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ – *is not supported by scientific evidence*._.......................
> 
> _Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behaviour will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood._..............
> 
> _Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity._.............................. .............
> 
> _The second bombshell was exploded by a top researcher for the American Psychological Association (APA), lesbian activist, Dr. Lisa Diamond, co-author-in-chief of ‘the APA Handbook’ of sexuality and psychology and one of the APA’s most respected members. She admitted that sexual orientation was “fluid” and not unchangeable. By doing so, Dr. Diamond confirmed that the myth that “homosexuals can’t change” is now a dead-end theory_
> ===========================================================
> 
> Dear sec
> Yes and no
> 1. studies on identical twins do not show correlation in orientation.
> some studies were inflated to show higher than 50%, but it's definitely NOT 100% as a genetic cause would show
> One source: Homosexuality Can it be Healed by Dr. Francis MacNutt
> for interview of Judith MacNutt on 20 cases of homosexual clients healed by spiritual therapy
> see: Interview - Francis & Judith MacNutt - Mastering Life
> 
> 2. homosexual and transgender identity can still be attributed to factors in the WOMB.
> studies on brains show a similarity between the brains of females and of gay males.
> Even if not genetic, it could be a condition by birth and not someone's choice.
> 
> When I look at people who claim to be spiritual soulmates, is that something
> either one of them chose? How they were incarnated as black or white, male or female?
> 
> 3. my argument is to treat LGBT beliefs orientation and gender as SPIRITUALLY determined.
> So this covers any and all beliefs equally, and does not discriminate against one or another.
> No matter what someone believes, since both sides are faith based and neither proven nor disproven
> by science, they remain free choice; and certain govt should never be abused to impose a faith-based bias
> or force someone to change their beliefs. These should all be included equally, whether for or against gay marriage
> or believing homosexuality is natural or unnatural, a choice of behavior or not, or it can or cannot change.
> 
> Some people can change, some cannot.
> Some believe the change is merely reverting back to default natural status at birth, and not really changing orientation
> So like someone's expression of identity as Muslim or Christian, atheist, liberal prochoice, or conservative prolife,
> I believe in treating one's beliefs about LGBT as a CREED and not denying disparaging or harassing people regardless
> what their views are, why, and if these change or not. Some people cannot help and cannot change how they believe.
> And that goes for both sides!
> 
> 
> 
> McHugh is not one of the top psychiatrists, unless you follow that with one of the top most discredited.  It most certainly is genetic - otherwise, feel free to explain how every mammal has a percentage of offspring that have same sex relations.    Again, it's a straight up lie that anyone has actually been converted.   The few people that "stuck", numbering under 5-10, were already determined to be bisexual, and just stopped sleeping with men for the time being.  You seem to confuse the sex act with the sexual preference - they are not the same.  Anyone can be forced into a SS act, it doesn't mean they are gay.  Anyone can be forced into a heterosexual act, it doesn't mean they are straight.  It's not spiritually determined - if it is, explain those gay mice.  Or even beyond mammals, explain the gay ducks..  How do you explain atheist gays?  You are too focused on making everyone happy - it has been proven (McHugh is about the last person of name standing, against the millions with the exact opposite opinion).  No one can change, they can simply abstain - and what usually happens is one of two things - they "backslide", resuming SS relations, or two, they kill themselves.   I lost a dear friend that way in high school.
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin
I believe it is spiritually determined and up to someone's process if they change or not.

No, it is not shown to be genetic because studies on identical twins may show a tendency
but not a correlation.

Whatever you cite about other mammals, the smaller % is argued as an anomaly and not natural.

Yes, I do believe people have changed, but what you are saying is anyone who has,
was always heterosexual to begin with and they weren't really homosexual.
And if they are naturally homosexual you are saying they don't change but suppress it.

What is your opinion about Chirlane McCray, is she bisexual and just "suppressing" her lesbian past or was it false and not her true self:
‘Are You Still a Lesbian?’ Bill de Blasio’s Wife Doesn’t Have an Answer

Here are more links to resources about people changing orientation.
So by your theory these were never gay to begin with or they couldn't come out as heterosexual:
How To Defeat Homosexual Activists 101 A Real Education
Obama has problem with this sex-identity group
Brothers Road | Brothers on a Road Less Traveled

That's fine, and I do hope the research on spiritual healing
will prove what is going on.

Neil Warren of eharmony wanted to team up with companies
to invest millions each to resolve this issue with research.
I think your angle is fair and proveable.
But I would apply the Christian Healing Ministries method that work internally to heal
people spiritually, and not other forms of reparative therapy that work externally and fail.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is in the marriage business...
> 
> They certify it and make it legal
> They provide tax breaks
> They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
> They supervise the dissolution of marriage
> 
> What do you want them to stop doing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
> because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
> such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
> and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
> choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.
> 
> Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
> or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
> and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
> due to their beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court has already ruled that as unconstitutional. Equal protection of our laws
> 
> How do you resolve married gay people moving between the states?
> They are married or they are not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
> if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
> If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state.
> 
> Some states don't require car insurance, if the driver has "ability to pay" and can prove it.
> So in that state, the same driver with the same car is under different rules.
> 
> States like Nevada have legalized prostitution, that only applies in that state.
> 
> For national policies on health care and other social benefits,
> I recommend to my fellow progressive Democrats and Greens
> to organize by party. So people can have collective representation
> and management of resources to fund policies that correspond
> and represent beliefs in marriage, health care, prison alternatives,
> educational priorities, etc.
> 
> if not everyone agrees on social policies through federal govt.
> AND by the Platform of the Veterans Party of America
> "ALL social legislation is Unconstitutional"
> then why not manage it by party and have taxpayers
> pay directly into the programs of choice?
> 
> I know tons of progressives who believe in paying
> for education and health care instead of funding
> war and the death penalty.
> 
> Why not give taxpayers that choice?
> 
> If it's organized by party then the responsibility
> for all the terms and agreements is delegated
> to one national group to represent its members,
> similar to states being responsible for representing its citizens.
> 
> Just proportionally delegate federal budgets to allot
> money to states, and states divide it by party by
> proportion of taxpayers and taxmoney coming in.
> so if GOP do not want to pay to federal govt
> except for military, they don't get federal funds for health care
> except for VA/vets if that's all they approve.
> If Dems want singlepayer health care and no death penalty,
> then that's where their tax money goes or doesn't go.
> 
> So each pays for their share and their members
> work out their terms and conditions, from prolife
> to gay marriage, whatever they believe or don't believe in.
> 
> If states can agree, then it's done by state.
> 
> This is if the population of states CAN'T agree,
> why not create two separate tracks and let
> taxpayers choose just like we do when we
> donate to parties or vote for platforms and reps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question
> 
> With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you  handle gay couples traveling between states?
> 
> Try to answer in less than 50 words
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered that already rightwinger
> each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
> civil marriage, civil unions.
> 
> And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
> If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.
> 
> What part of my answer did you not get
> and I will explain it again.
> 
> I answered two different ways
> 1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
> 2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
> that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
> it can be national without going through state or federal govt
> 
> There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
> nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.
Click to expand...

You did forget one fact.  The FEDERAL GoVERNMENT rolls up each of the 50 states and they are honored between each of the states.   Civil Union is still illegal, you've been told at least 20 plus times.  You cannot rename it for a class of people.  You also can't manage social benefits by party, illegal as well. WHY can't you grasp that?


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> Emily, you are missing the big picture.   You can't contest slavery, and you cannot contest SSM. Texas had a law prohibiting Sodomy (between two men) which was overturned in Lawrence V Texas in the early 90's.  They had an Amendment prohibiting SSM.  The courts, up to and including the SCOTUS found it to be in violation of the 14th Amendment.  Roe v Wade was in the 70's.  Your friends may not like any of them, they can complain all they want.  They are law.  As we found in Roe, some restrictions can be put in place.  The same can't be said with SSM and slavery.  Sorry your friends don't agree that the government doesn't have the right to rule, but the intent of the SCOTUS is to rule if a law is constitutional or not.   Obergefell was ruled, and it was determined that Texas and a few others were wrong, their amendment/laws were invalidated.   Your friends may not agree, but it's really a case of too bad, so sad,  it's law.  Are you wanting to overturn the 14th amendment as well?



I don't argue at all that unconstitutional bans be struck down because I agree with that part.
[I even believe Clinton and other politicians who passed DOMA owe restitution for costs and damages to taxpayers for passing an unconstitutional bill that people openly protested but weren't heard, same as with ACA mandates that were protested to begin with as unconstitutional. there should be consequence for that to ensure representation]

The part that I do not agree with is abusing govt to establish beliefs in marriage, either way.

Because beliefs are involved, people should decided by consensus, or someone's beliefs get discriminated against.
If they don't agree, then of course, the govt should not recognize that law which is biased against one sides beliefs or the others.

I also agree that bans on abortion had to be struck down because they
violate due process and discriminate by targeting women more than men,
when men are equally responsible for the sex and pregnancy, if not MORE in the case of rape and incest.

but striking down a bad law does not mean endorsing abortion as legal,
and people who don't believe in that can still argue to separate funding and policies to avoid
endorsing through govt what they believe is murder.

I do believe separating beliefs from govt should apply to all, even people I don't agree
or hold that belief to the same degree they do. Laws should remain neutral and all inclusive,
even if that means separating some policies so people can fund their beliefs accordingly
and not interfere with the equal choice of other taxpayers.

Sneekin


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here Faun
> here is a response I posted to someone else
> who argued that homosexuality is NOT proven scientifically to be a born innate fixed condition
> [and who APPEARS TO CORRELATE homosexuality and transgender identity with "mental health problems"]
> 
> ====================================
> _The other author is Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the leading psychiatrists in the world. He was psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore from 1975 to 2001. These scientists reviewed hundreds of peer reviewed studies on sexual orientation and gender identity from the biological, psychological and social sciences. Their conclusions were as follows:_.........................
> 
> _the belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property – that people are “born that way” –* is not supported by scientific evidence.*
> The belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex – so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ – *is not supported by scientific evidence*._.......................
> 
> _Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behaviour will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood._..............
> 
> _Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity._.............................. .............
> 
> _The second bombshell was exploded by a top researcher for the American Psychological Association (APA), lesbian activist, Dr. Lisa Diamond, co-author-in-chief of ‘the APA Handbook’ of sexuality and psychology and one of the APA’s most respected members. She admitted that sexual orientation was “fluid” and not unchangeable. By doing so, Dr. Diamond confirmed that the myth that “homosexuals can’t change” is now a dead-end theory_
> ===========================================================
> 
> Dear sec
> Yes and no
> 1. studies on identical twins do not show correlation in orientation.
> some studies were inflated to show higher than 50%, but it's definitely NOT 100% as a genetic cause would show
> One source: Homosexuality Can it be Healed by Dr. Francis MacNutt
> for interview of Judith MacNutt on 20 cases of homosexual clients healed by spiritual therapy
> see: Interview - Francis & Judith MacNutt - Mastering Life
> 
> 2. homosexual and transgender identity can still be attributed to factors in the WOMB.
> studies on brains show a similarity between the brains of females and of gay males.
> Even if not genetic, it could be a condition by birth and not someone's choice.
> 
> When I look at people who claim to be spiritual soulmates, is that something
> either one of them chose? How they were incarnated as black or white, male or female?
> 
> 3. my argument is to treat LGBT beliefs orientation and gender as SPIRITUALLY determined.
> So this covers any and all beliefs equally, and does not discriminate against one or another.
> No matter what someone believes, since both sides are faith based and neither proven nor disproven
> by science, they remain free choice; and certain govt should never be abused to impose a faith-based bias
> or force someone to change their beliefs. These should all be included equally, whether for or against gay marriage
> or believing homosexuality is natural or unnatural, a choice of behavior or not, or it can or cannot change.
> 
> Some people can change, some cannot.
> Some believe the change is merely reverting back to default natural status at birth, and not really changing orientation
> So like someone's expression of identity as Muslim or Christian, atheist, liberal prochoice, or conservative prolife,
> I believe in treating one's beliefs about LGBT as a CREED and not denying disparaging or harassing people regardless
> what their views are, why, and if these change or not. Some people cannot help and cannot change how they believe.
> And that goes for both sides!
> 
> 
> 
> McHugh is not one of the top psychiatrists, unless you follow that with one of the top most discredited.  It most certainly is genetic - otherwise, feel free to explain how every mammal has a percentage of offspring that have same sex relations.    Again, it's a straight up lie that anyone has actually been converted.   The few people that "stuck", numbering under 5-10, were already determined to be bisexual, and just stopped sleeping with men for the time being.  You seem to confuse the sex act with the sexual preference - they are not the same.  Anyone can be forced into a SS act, it doesn't mean they are gay.  Anyone can be forced into a heterosexual act, it doesn't mean they are straight.  It's not spiritually determined - if it is, explain those gay mice.  Or even beyond mammals, explain the gay ducks..  How do you explain atheist gays?  You are too focused on making everyone happy - it has been proven (McHugh is about the last person of name standing, against the millions with the exact opposite opinion).  No one can change, they can simply abstain - and what usually happens is one of two things - they "backslide", resuming SS relations, or two, they kill themselves.   I lost a dear friend that way in high school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> I believe it is spiritually determined and up to someone's process if they change or not.
> 
> No, it is not shown to be genetic because studies on identical twins may show a tendency
> but not a correlation.
> 
> Whatever you cite about other mammals, the smaller % is argued as an anomaly and not natural.
> 
> Yes, I do believe people have changed, but what you are saying is anyone who has,
> was always heterosexual to begin with and they weren't really homosexual.
> And if they are naturally homosexual you are saying they don't change but suppress it.
> 
> What is your opinion about Chirlane McCray, is she bisexual and just "suppressing" her lesbian past or was it false and not her true self:
> ‘Are You Still a Lesbian?’ Bill de Blasio’s Wife Doesn’t Have an Answer
> 
> Here are more links to resources about people changing orientation.
> So by your theory these were never gay to begin with or they couldn't come out as heterosexual:
> How To Defeat Homosexual Activists 101 A Real Education
> Obama has problem with this sex-identity group
> Brothers Road | Brothers on a Road Less Traveled
> 
> That's fine, and I do hope the research on spiritual healing
> will prove what is going on.
> 
> Neil Warren of eharmony wanted to team up with companies
> to invest millions each to resolve this issue with research.
> I think your angle is fair and proveable.
> But I would apply the Christian Healing Ministries method that work internally to heal
> people's spiritually, and not other forms of reparative therapy that work externally and fail.
Click to expand...

Bill DeBlasio's wife is bisexual.  McHugh has been discredited.  If you have ever gone through this conversion therapy, or seen it performed, you would know better.  It's illegal in most states because it leads to suicide in adults and mostly children.   Are you pro suicide for gay children?  

I've been intimately involved with the therapy, various treatments, and various researches as I worked on my undergrad and grad degrees, you have not.  I find your comments ludicrous.  To quote the most discredited man in history is sad.  Neil had to do that - eharmony was sued for not allowing SS relations to be pursued when he founded the corporation.  It took years and lawsuits.  

You are lying now about what I said - I said they were BISEXUAL, not Heterosexual.   You apparently are unaware of how frequent this occurs.   You can have 2 boys that start having sex in their early teens, and consider themselves 100 percent gay, into their 30's and 40's.  Then they have sex with a woman after too many drinks - and now, they are straight?  Nope - bisexual.  DeBlasio's wife only had sex with women.  She was an outspoken lesbian.   She met Bill, fell in love, the rest is history.  Those people would go through conversion therapy and be "cured".   Not that 15 year old boy that vomits every time he see's a naked female.  You'll just have someone who doesn't have sex with anyone.


----------



## Sbiker

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> See ^ Faun you did it again.
> You assume that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."
> 
> Sorry but I disagree.
> 
> I know LOTS of independents, even a liberal lesbian friend who said the same thing I am saying in "sticking with CIVIL UNIONS,"
> Libertarians, Constitutionalists, both Christian and secular, who do NOT believe that those marriage laws are unbiased and "secular"
> but STILL are imposing beliefs by applying to gay couples which NOT ALL PEOPLE BELIEVE IN.
> 
> And they AGREE that sticking to Civil Unions would solve the problem.
> Some are still reluctant to remove ALL marriage and ONLY have Civil Unions for ALL people.
> 
> But more of the people who agree to "remove ALL marriage" are the Libertarians or similar approaches.
> 
> So if that is the common denominator, sure, I will go with that.
> 
> If you want to say ALL these diverse people are "delusional" for not agreeing to change civil marriage laws to include gay couples,
> that is YOUR assumption, but I found these people are actually MORE objective and MORE rational who
> could LET GO OF BELIEFS and agree to stick to what is neutral and secular.
> 
> You claim to let go, but if you have to paint anyone who believes otherwise as "delusional'
> that means you are still attaching bias to this and projecting onto people of different beliefs.
> 
> Unlike YOU, I am willing to include ALL people in how laws are written state by state.
> If you want to exclude and demonize people as being "delusional" that's not unbiased
> but you are already discriminating against others you don't understand or agree with.
> 
> sorry but an all-inclusive democratic process cannot be run by accusing people of being delusional
> just for having different religious biases.
> 
> I think if we are having THIS much trouble communicating,
> I could see removing marriage ALL TOGETHER and separating ALL social benefits
> by party so only LIKEMINDED people write their own terms and conditions for funding
> their own benefits collectively, and leave other people out, if both groups are just going
> to ACCUSE the other of being delusional or mentally ill.  people already think that
> of liberals, so again, I see that you think the same of them. At least it's equal.
> 
> but since two wrongs don't make it right, this still doesn't solve the problems.
> 
> I would highly recommend just separating social programs by political party,
> so nobody has to deal with others they consider "delusional."
> 
> 
> 
> I said no such thing. Stop misrepresenting what I say. I said anyone who believes civil marriage is not secular is delusional.
> 
> I did not say _that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."_
> 
> And we're not doing away with marriage altogether because some folks find it objectionable any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interfaith marriage; or any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interracial marriages.
> 
> You've failed to articulate any reasonable argument to reject same-sex sex marriage or doing away with marriage entirely for all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES I just pointed out the reasons.
> that it is discriminating against people of either belief
> to impose one way or another.
> 
> Whichever side of marriage laws govt takes, it leaves the other discriminated against.
> People on both sides feel the other creed is establishing a bias in law and govt
> unless all the related issues are resolved.
> 
> So it is in govt and public best interest either to require
> * consensus on laws including how they are written funded and enforced
> * or separation of policies such as by state or by party if needed to solve the conflicts.
> 
> Thanks Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you've been told before, even though you can't understand it, same-sex marriage is not being imposed upon anyone who doesn't want it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered this before, several times.
> 
> I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"
> 
> If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
> then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."
> 
> Same principle. Faun
> 
> In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
> the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.
> 
> So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
> they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
> "if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."
> 
> Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
> And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
> Crosses
> Prayers
> God
> Jesus
> creation
> etc.
> from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
> and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
> and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.
> 
> Or that's discrimination by creed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed.   By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment.  I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs.  I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others.  Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...


Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your analogies are not the same. Crosses are banned from public property because such a display can be construed as state established religion, which is strictly forbidden according to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> That is in no way analogous to same-sex marriage, which in no way, violates the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> You're again grasping at straws because you have no rational defense of your position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ????
> 
> Dear Faun
> Yes, it does constitute an establishment of beliefs
> if govt is abused to impose EITHER beliefs about marriage
> as "traditional only" or as "including gay couples and gay marriage"
> where other people dissent because they don't share those beliefs.
> 
> BOTH of those are biases in beliefs.
> 
> Sorry Faun Only if the public or people in a state AGREE
> to the laws can you or I say it isn't biased in beliefs. So that's what I am seeking:
> true inclusion, neutrality and equal representation of all people of all beliefs.
> 
> If one side objects because their beliefs or rights aren't represented equally,
> that means there IS A BIAS, or else why would they be objecting.
> 
> You are the one discrediting one side's beliefs as "delusional."
> 
> I'm the only one in this discussion attempting to include ALL beliefs equally
> and find a way that doesn't discriminate against one or the other.
> 
> I don't consider LGBT beliefs or orientation a "delusion" or "hallucination."
> 
> So don't blame bias on me when I am trying to be all inclusive
> and you already excluded other people's beliefs as delusions!
> 
> Shame on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what is unconstitutional about the belief that gay people should be legally allowed to marry the person of their choice regardless of gender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That this belief can be practiced under free exercise of religion,
> which govt can neither prohibit or establish, without endorsing it through govt laws that everyone is under (except as written and enforced by consent of the people where beliefs are involved)
> 
> So if either side believes a law isn't neutral enough but is biased one way or another,
> that is grounds for revising it until it is neutral enough to represent the public.
> 
> Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. This has been explained to you repeatedly and you just don't get it.
> 
> Seems you have nothing in terms of same-sex marriage being unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Dear Faun I don't know if you are living in a box or you just don't care or acknowledge the beliefs of others.
> Am I really the only person you know making these arguments:
> 1. about states rights
> 2. about civil unions instead of marriage through govt
> 3. about right to marriage being a political belief that not all people agree to apply to gay couples?
> 
> REALLY?
> 
> Maybe it's because I'm in Texas.
> And in Houston.
> 
> I have TONS of prolife Christian friends who do NOT believe abortion is a choice
> and do NOT believe in the govt endorsing gay marriage as natural.
> 
> I have stated these over and over.
> 
> If you are just citing the court case in Obergefell,
> well I know more people who contest that just like you would contest a court ruling endorsing slavery as legal property laws.
> 
> Sorry, but it's leaving out the consent and beliefs of other people in making that ruling.
> (the most I can interpret it to include the gist of it,
> is by religious freedom of course people have equal
> rights to marriage, and that's why it's not govt jurisidiction to decide)
> 
> You don't count the beliefs of these other people.
> It's not your fault, I think you truly do not see any violation occurring
> so you think it must be delusional.
> 
> It's the principle, that govt should not impose ANY beliefs about marriage
> that should remain the right of the people to CHOOSE.
> 
> The dissenters do NOT believe Govt has the authority to declare marriage
> rights beliefs or practices one way or another.
> 
> That's the issue.
> 
> I think it's so fundamental that you are missing it.
> You keep wanting to argue specific points,
> when it's the whole thing that is objected to.
> 
> Sorry if I cannot explain what each and every person is arguing
> who objects to this.
> 
> If you need to hear all the reasons and arguments (as each person
> says it differently) give me time and I will collect and list these for you.
> 
> In general they don't believe and don't consent.
> So I'm trying to find where they would agree.
> 
> Here is one way people are arguing Obergefell is unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary:
> Reclaiming the Rule of Law after Obergefell
> 
> And with the 4-5 decision, similar to the 4-5 ruling to approve ACA mandates
> also contested as unconstitutional,
> this seems to me to represent two sides of political beliefs,
> that are split fairly evenly, and just the majority BELIEF
> is being endorsed and enforced by govt. when both sides
> represent EQUAL BELIEFS, thus I would argue why not
> allow both choices, separate tracks and let people of
> BOTH beliefs each have their separate way to treat them equally.
Click to expand...

This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?

That aside, you made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. That's complete nonsense and something no one is claiming.

Either quote the portion from the Obergefell decision which sites freedom of religion or admit you have no position to stand on...


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are close.....
> 
> People can CHOOSE to marry a same sex partner or not
> 
> you might not like it.....But what business is it of yours?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger I'm saying to keep it out of govt if you want free choice.
> Keep the language secular where everyone agrees to it.
> 
> I've found more common agreement to keep Civil Unions in govt
> and manage contracts that way and NOT specify any conditions on
> the social relationships between the partners who form a legal contract or domestic partnership.
> 
> If brother and sister, or two neighbors want to run a household together and share contractual
> duties or legal guardianship, that has ZERO to do with if they are having romantic relations
> much less if they have to be husband and wife.
> 
> And if people don't agree on benefits policies, those are social values also,
> that can be separated by party if people cannot agree on state or federal laws for all people in that state or across the nation.
> 
> Not to worry rightwinger I already gave up trying to explain it.
> 
> I am happy enough to find the other people who get it,
> and maybe that's enough to separate our beliefs from govt
> and leave everyone else who believe in dominating one political belief "for all people"
> every time majority rule decides an election. I don't believe in that,
> but if you and others do, I cannot change your minds for you.
> 
> All I can do is sue or petition to separate my taxes and my representation
> from people like you who believe in violating each other's by majority rule
> and claim that gives you license to impose your beliefs, political or otherwise,
> onto others who don't agree. and call them delusional, just like people
> say that about liberals and try to censor them for it.
> 
> I believe this impositional bullying is a DANGER to the very liberal progressive
> ideals I believe in regarding free choice, and protecting beliefs and creeds from
> discrimination, exclusion, coercion, bullying, imposition, penalty, and deprivation of equal protection rights and liberties.
> 
> I understand you and others believe in protecting rights by establishing them through govt,
> but I believe this still requires consensus where political beliefs differ.
> 
> I don't believe in forcing or imposing them without consent, or it's not
> valid authority of law if not all people consent to that policy.  I believe
> in matters of belief, all objections and conflicts should be resolved to
> ensure equal representation and protection of interests, regardless of creed.
> 
> But my standards are higher than even very intelligent articulate people like
> you and Faun can handle.
> 
> so it's not fair to expect you to understand this and change your minds
> if you are set on seeing opponents with other beliefs as "delusional."
> 
> That's why opponents of liberal beliefs say the same thing, give up
> and just resort to voting liberals out of office.
> 
> You are danger to your own party principles and you don't even see it.
> Where's the inclusion, the free choice.
> Both sides have resorted to painting the other as delusional,
> and that's where I have to leave you to your own devices if that's the best I can expect from you.
> 
> Thanks for your best efforts!
> 
> Just know that people say the same thing and think
> liberals are "mentally ill" or "deluded" in depending on govt for rights when to them
> that is a false and dangerous premise.
> 
> Or they want "everyone else" to pay for their programs
> so when I advocate to separate tracks so taxpayers have a choice,
> they say "liberals will never support that because they want OTHER people
> to pay for their programs".
> 
> That makes no sense to me. If I and other Democrats believe in sustainable
> health care, we should be able to fund it ourselves. And if it's not affordable,
> something is wrong with the terms and conditions, and we'd have to change
> them such as requiring all people get help for criminal illness abuse or addiction
> if that's what driving costs up that could otherwise pay for health care.
> 
> I hope it's finally time to separate social programs and funding by party,
> Because I'm sick of fighting back and forth when all parties have enough
> resources to manage their own policies and not interfere with each other!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is in the marriage business...
> 
> They certify it and make it legal
> They provide tax breaks
> They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
> They supervise the dissolution of marriage
> 
> What do you want them to stop doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
> because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
> such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
> and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
> choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.
> 
> Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
> or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
> and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
> due to their beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't make laws based on peoples' feelings or religious objections. If we did, capital punishment would be unconstitutional, pork would be banned, cotton/wool blends would be punishable, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Faun I also believe in separating funding for the death penalty
> so people can have a free choice but it doesn't impose on other people's choice of funding.
> 
> This would take a lot of the "emotional hype" out of election campaigns
> if all issues were resolved one by one instead of lumped together,
> voting for one party to dominate while the other in the minority risks losing representation.
> 
> *A lot of fear based bullying going on now would be eliminated
> if we based laws on consensus or separation by party so everyone
> is equally represented and not forced to fund the beliefs of others.*
> 
> As for fabric, by the time the Greens Democrats and Social Workers
> organize labor pools and worker owned coops and business networks,
> maybe we will see more locally grown "hemp" fabric and/or whatever is more sustainable.
> maybe we won't rely so much on foreign slave labor for clothing and electronic devices
> if we organize labor and factories as campuses providing education, health care and housing
> as part of work-study programs to ensure students and workers have protection from abuse,
> even if working for barter or credit, or lower training wages in exchange for low cost housing and services.
> 
> *Religious beliefs and objections are part of how people express consent or dissent.
> I believe the right solutions will satisfy people's standards regardless if these are expressed religiously, politically, spiritually or by secular laws, business models, etc.*
> Faun
Click to expand...

That is complete and utter nonsense. We don't have two sets of laws; one for Democrats and one for Republicans.  Either laws are Constitutional or they're not. They're not Constitutional for one party but unconstitutional for another.


----------



## Faun

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here Faun
> here is a response I posted to someone else
> who argued that homosexuality is NOT proven scientifically to be a born innate fixed condition
> [and who APPEARS TO CORRELATE homosexuality and transgender identity with "mental health problems"]
> 
> ====================================
> _The other author is Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the leading psychiatrists in the world. He was psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore from 1975 to 2001. These scientists reviewed hundreds of peer reviewed studies on sexual orientation and gender identity from the biological, psychological and social sciences. Their conclusions were as follows:_.........................
> 
> _the belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property – that people are “born that way” –* is not supported by scientific evidence.*
> The belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex – so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ – *is not supported by scientific evidence*._.......................
> 
> _Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behaviour will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood._..............
> 
> _Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity._.............................. .............
> 
> _The second bombshell was exploded by a top researcher for the American Psychological Association (APA), lesbian activist, Dr. Lisa Diamond, co-author-in-chief of ‘the APA Handbook’ of sexuality and psychology and one of the APA’s most respected members. She admitted that sexual orientation was “fluid” and not unchangeable. By doing so, Dr. Diamond confirmed that the myth that “homosexuals can’t change” is now a dead-end theory_
> ===========================================================
> 
> Dear sec
> Yes and no
> 1. studies on identical twins do not show correlation in orientation.
> some studies were inflated to show higher than 50%, but it's definitely NOT 100% as a genetic cause would show
> One source: Homosexuality Can it be Healed by Dr. Francis MacNutt
> for interview of Judith MacNutt on 20 cases of homosexual clients healed by spiritual therapy
> see: Interview - Francis & Judith MacNutt - Mastering Life
> 
> 2. homosexual and transgender identity can still be attributed to factors in the WOMB.
> studies on brains show a similarity between the brains of females and of gay males.
> Even if not genetic, it could be a condition by birth and not someone's choice.
> 
> When I look at people who claim to be spiritual soulmates, is that something
> either one of them chose? How they were incarnated as black or white, male or female?
> 
> 3. my argument is to treat LGBT beliefs orientation and gender as SPIRITUALLY determined.
> So this covers any and all beliefs equally, and does not discriminate against one or another.
> No matter what someone believes, since both sides are faith based and neither proven nor disproven
> by science, they remain free choice; and certain govt should never be abused to impose a faith-based bias
> or force someone to change their beliefs. These should all be included equally, whether for or against gay marriage
> or believing homosexuality is natural or unnatural, a choice of behavior or not, or it can or cannot change.
> 
> Some people can change, some cannot.
> Some believe the change is merely reverting back to default natural status at birth, and not really changing orientation
> So like someone's expression of identity as Muslim or Christian, atheist, liberal prochoice, or conservative prolife,
> I believe in treating one's beliefs about LGBT as a CREED and not denying disparaging or harassing people regardless
> what their views are, why, and if these change or not. Some people cannot help and cannot change how they believe.
> And that goes for both sides!
> 
> 
> 
> McHugh is not one of the top psychiatrists, unless you follow that with one of the top most discredited.  It most certainly is genetic - otherwise, feel free to explain how every mammal has a percentage of offspring that have same sex relations.    Again, it's a straight up lie that anyone has actually been converted.   The few people that "stuck", numbering under 5-10, were already determined to be bisexual, and just stopped sleeping with men for the time being.  You seem to confuse the sex act with the sexual preference - they are not the same.  Anyone can be forced into a SS act, it doesn't mean they are gay.  Anyone can be forced into a heterosexual act, it doesn't mean they are straight.  It's not spiritually determined - if it is, explain those gay mice.  Or even beyond mammals, explain the gay ducks..  How do you explain atheist gays?  You are too focused on making everyone happy - it has been proven (McHugh is about the last person of name standing, against the millions with the exact opposite opinion).  No one can change, they can simply abstain - and what usually happens is one of two things - they "backslide", resuming SS relations, or two, they kill themselves.   I lost a dear friend that way in high school.
Click to expand...

It matters not what is the underlying "cause" or reasons for why people are gay. The bottom line is that everyone has the Constitutional right to life & liberty and everyone has the fundamental right to marry the person of their choice, with the exceptions generated by compelling interests, such as minors and consent.


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is in the marriage business...
> 
> They certify it and make it legal
> They provide tax breaks
> They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
> They supervise the dissolution of marriage
> 
> What do you want them to stop doing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
> because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
> such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
> and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
> choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.
> 
> Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
> or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
> and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
> due to their beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court has already ruled that as unconstitutional. Equal protection of our laws
> 
> How do you resolve married gay people moving between the states?
> They are married or they are not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
> if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
> If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state.
> 
> Some states don't require car insurance, if the driver has "ability to pay" and can prove it.
> So in that state, the same driver with the same car is under different rules.
> 
> States like Nevada have legalized prostitution, that only applies in that state.
> 
> For national policies on health care and other social benefits,
> I recommend to my fellow progressive Democrats and Greens
> to organize by party. So people can have collective representation
> and management of resources to fund policies that correspond
> and represent beliefs in marriage, health care, prison alternatives,
> educational priorities, etc.
> 
> if not everyone agrees on social policies through federal govt.
> AND by the Platform of the Veterans Party of America
> "ALL social legislation is Unconstitutional"
> then why not manage it by party and have taxpayers
> pay directly into the programs of choice?
> 
> I know tons of progressives who believe in paying
> for education and health care instead of funding
> war and the death penalty.
> 
> Why not give taxpayers that choice?
> 
> If it's organized by party then the responsibility
> for all the terms and agreements is delegated
> to one national group to represent its members,
> similar to states being responsible for representing its citizens.
> 
> Just proportionally delegate federal budgets to allot
> money to states, and states divide it by party by
> proportion of taxpayers and taxmoney coming in.
> so if GOP do not want to pay to federal govt
> except for military, they don't get federal funds for health care
> except for VA/vets if that's all they approve.
> If Dems want singlepayer health care and no death penalty,
> then that's where their tax money goes or doesn't go.
> 
> So each pays for their share and their members
> work out their terms and conditions, from prolife
> to gay marriage, whatever they believe or don't believe in.
> 
> If states can agree, then it's done by state.
> 
> This is if the population of states CAN'T agree,
> why not create two separate tracks and let
> taxpayers choose just like we do when we
> donate to parties or vote for platforms and reps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question
> 
> With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you  handle gay couples traveling between states?
> 
> Try to answer in less than 50 words
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered that already rightwinger
> each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
> civil marriage, civil unions.
> 
> And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
> If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.
> 
> What part of my answer did you not get
> and I will explain it again.
> 
> I answered two different ways
> 1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
> 2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
> that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
> it can be national without going through state or federal govt
> 
> There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
> nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.
Click to expand...


You still don't get it

First off...allowing same sex marriage by party or religious affiliation means gays can change religion or party in order to get married

You avoid the key issue. What happens when a married, same sex couple either travels or moves to a state where it is not recognized?

If a partner becomes seriously ill, does the spouse lose all marital rights?
What happens to the children of a same sex marriage when they move to a state that bans it?
If you move to a state that bans it....are you effectively divorced or just a non-person?


----------



## Faun

Sbiker said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said no such thing. Stop misrepresenting what I say. I said anyone who believes civil marriage is not secular is delusional.
> 
> I did not say _that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."_
> 
> And we're not doing away with marriage altogether because some folks find it objectionable any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interfaith marriage; or any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interracial marriages.
> 
> You've failed to articulate any reasonable argument to reject same-sex sex marriage or doing away with marriage entirely for all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES I just pointed out the reasons.
> that it is discriminating against people of either belief
> to impose one way or another.
> 
> Whichever side of marriage laws govt takes, it leaves the other discriminated against.
> People on both sides feel the other creed is establishing a bias in law and govt
> unless all the related issues are resolved.
> 
> So it is in govt and public best interest either to require
> * consensus on laws including how they are written funded and enforced
> * or separation of policies such as by state or by party if needed to solve the conflicts.
> 
> Thanks Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you've been told before, even though you can't understand it, same-sex marriage is not being imposed upon anyone who doesn't want it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered this before, several times.
> 
> I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"
> 
> If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
> then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."
> 
> Same principle. Faun
> 
> In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
> the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.
> 
> So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
> they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
> "if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."
> 
> Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
> And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
> Crosses
> Prayers
> God
> Jesus
> creation
> etc.
> from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
> and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
> and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.
> 
> Or that's discrimination by creed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed.   By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment.  I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs.  I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others.  Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.
Click to expand...

Huh? Are gay folks not human? Do they not have the same rights as straight folks? And marriage is about many aspects, reproduction is but one. Not everyone who gets married has kids; yet they still have the right to get married. And many couples who do marry, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, raise families through adoption.


----------



## Sneekin

Sbiker said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said no such thing. Stop misrepresenting what I say. I said anyone who believes civil marriage is not secular is delusional.
> 
> I did not say _that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."_
> 
> And we're not doing away with marriage altogether because some folks find it objectionable any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interfaith marriage; or any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interracial marriages.
> 
> You've failed to articulate any reasonable argument to reject same-sex sex marriage or doing away with marriage entirely for all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES I just pointed out the reasons.
> that it is discriminating against people of either belief
> to impose one way or another.
> 
> Whichever side of marriage laws govt takes, it leaves the other discriminated against.
> People on both sides feel the other creed is establishing a bias in law and govt
> unless all the related issues are resolved.
> 
> So it is in govt and public best interest either to require
> * consensus on laws including how they are written funded and enforced
> * or separation of policies such as by state or by party if needed to solve the conflicts.
> 
> Thanks Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you've been told before, even though you can't understand it, same-sex marriage is not being imposed upon anyone who doesn't want it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered this before, several times.
> 
> I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"
> 
> If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
> then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."
> 
> Same principle. Faun
> 
> In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
> the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.
> 
> So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
> they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
> "if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."
> 
> Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
> And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
> Crosses
> Prayers
> God
> Jesus
> creation
> etc.
> from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
> and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
> and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.
> 
> Or that's discrimination by creed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed.   By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment.  I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs.  I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others.  Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.
Click to expand...

Sbiker, first of all, note that they are civil rights, constitutional rights.  Next, sbiker, note that marriage most certainly is not a form of social agreement to make new members of society.   My father and stepmother entered into marriage after the death of my mother.  My stepmother was told by her doctor she would die if she became pregnant. When I entered the working world, I encountered literally thousands of people not wishing to have children - ever.    Using your logic, the elderly, infirm, and those not wanting children should not be permitted to get married.  This includes the millions of men and women with fertility problems.  Gay people have, and do have children.  Especially those in their 40's, 50's and beyond, who under societal pressure, married and had children.  They also adopt, they are now using surrogates at a higher percentage that heterosexuals.   

It's not a form of deception.  It's a fact of life.  You cannot deny my child the right to get married if she's infertile, or if her spouse is infertile, or if they decide not to have children.  You cannot deny her the right to get married if she is gay, either.  Better get your facts straight.   Marriage is not about making more children.  Marriage is a civil contract between two people (not two and some expected offspring) who meet the criteria for marriage (age, familial relationship, etc) within the confines of law.  The state laws in some states were overturned because they violated the 14th amendment.  Now move on, sbiker, and do some research.   Also read all the posts - this was brought up early on, more than likely in the first 5-10 pages.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily, you are missing the big picture.   You can't contest slavery, and you cannot contest SSM. Texas had a law prohibiting Sodomy (between two men) which was overturned in Lawrence V Texas in the early 90's.  They had an Amendment prohibiting SSM.  The courts, up to and including the SCOTUS found it to be in violation of the 14th Amendment.  Roe v Wade was in the 70's.  Your friends may not like any of them, they can complain all they want.  They are law.  As we found in Roe, some restrictions can be put in place.  The same can't be said with SSM and slavery.  Sorry your friends don't agree that the government doesn't have the right to rule, but the intent of the SCOTUS is to rule if a law is constitutional or not.   Obergefell was ruled, and it was determined that Texas and a few others were wrong, their amendment/laws were invalidated.   Your friends may not agree, but it's really a case of too bad, so sad,  it's law.  Are you wanting to overturn the 14th amendment as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't argue at all that unconstitutional bans be struck down because I agree with that part.
> [I even believe Clinton and other politicians who passed DOMA owe restitution for costs and damages to taxpayers for passing an unconstitutional bill that people openly protested but weren't heard, same as with ACA mandates that were protested to begin with as unconstitutional. there should be consequence for that to ensure representation]
> 
> The part that I do not agree with is abusing govt to establish beliefs in marriage, either way.
> 
> Because beliefs are involved, people should decided by consensus, or someone's beliefs get discriminated against.
> If they don't agree, then of course, the govt should not recognize that law which is biased against one sides beliefs or the others.
> 
> I also agree that bans on abortion had to be struck down because they
> violate due process and discriminate by targeting women more than men,
> when men are equally responsible for the sex and pregnancy, if not MORE in the case of rape and incest.
> 
> but striking down a bad law does not mean endorsing abortion as legal,
> and people who don't believe in that can still argue to separate funding and policies to avoid
> endorsing through govt what they believe is murder.
> 
> I do believe separating beliefs from govt should apply to all, even people I don't agree
> or hold that belief to the same degree they do. Laws should remain neutral and all inclusive,
> even if that means separating some policies so people can fund their beliefs accordingly
> and not interfere with the equal choice of other taxpayers.
> 
> Sneekin
Click to expand...

Emily, you can't ask anyone make restitution for DOMA - no one contested it. No one is abusing government to force people to change their minds.  No one has changed their beliefs.  Again, we are a republic, not a democracy, so beliefs cannot be voted on - or else, contrary to what you claim, if you vote on this belief, you will be guaranteeing discrimination, not avoiding it.  You also appear not to have a firm grasp on how government works.  You are unaware on how Roe worked - hint - it was primarily based on a woman's right to privacy.  You cannot ever provide separate funding - that's discriminatory.   If I'm not a taxpayer because I'm a 13 year old child raped by a father or brother, and pregnant because of incest, you claim I can't have an abortion?  You are ludicrous.  Laws remain legal.   Laws are neutral - no one is forcing you to 1) get married; 2) if married, marry a woman; or 3) if married, marry a man.   That's as neutral as it gets.  That's all inclusive, as well.  Taxpayers have a choice - get married or not, SSM or not.   It fulfills your wishes of equal choice.   You are claiming they have the right to straight up discriminate, and that is not true.  I don't want to pay taxes today.  Do I have equal choice to just say no, without penalty? NO. I don't want 33 percent going to the military, can I withhold that 33 percent without penalty? NO.  We voted in representatives.  They represent us.  You are blaming them for voting the will of the people, and not your personal will.  That's not government's fault.


----------



## Sneekin

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
> because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
> such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
> and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
> choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.
> 
> Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
> or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
> and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
> due to their beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has already ruled that as unconstitutional. Equal protection of our laws
> 
> How do you resolve married gay people moving between the states?
> They are married or they are not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
> if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
> If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state.
> 
> Some states don't require car insurance, if the driver has "ability to pay" and can prove it.
> So in that state, the same driver with the same car is under different rules.
> 
> States like Nevada have legalized prostitution, that only applies in that state.
> 
> For national policies on health care and other social benefits,
> I recommend to my fellow progressive Democrats and Greens
> to organize by party. So people can have collective representation
> and management of resources to fund policies that correspond
> and represent beliefs in marriage, health care, prison alternatives,
> educational priorities, etc.
> 
> if not everyone agrees on social policies through federal govt.
> AND by the Platform of the Veterans Party of America
> "ALL social legislation is Unconstitutional"
> then why not manage it by party and have taxpayers
> pay directly into the programs of choice?
> 
> I know tons of progressives who believe in paying
> for education and health care instead of funding
> war and the death penalty.
> 
> Why not give taxpayers that choice?
> 
> If it's organized by party then the responsibility
> for all the terms and agreements is delegated
> to one national group to represent its members,
> similar to states being responsible for representing its citizens.
> 
> Just proportionally delegate federal budgets to allot
> money to states, and states divide it by party by
> proportion of taxpayers and taxmoney coming in.
> so if GOP do not want to pay to federal govt
> except for military, they don't get federal funds for health care
> except for VA/vets if that's all they approve.
> If Dems want singlepayer health care and no death penalty,
> then that's where their tax money goes or doesn't go.
> 
> So each pays for their share and their members
> work out their terms and conditions, from prolife
> to gay marriage, whatever they believe or don't believe in.
> 
> If states can agree, then it's done by state.
> 
> This is if the population of states CAN'T agree,
> why not create two separate tracks and let
> taxpayers choose just like we do when we
> donate to parties or vote for platforms and reps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question
> 
> With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you  handle gay couples traveling between states?
> 
> Try to answer in less than 50 words
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered that already rightwinger
> each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
> civil marriage, civil unions.
> 
> And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
> If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.
> 
> What part of my answer did you not get
> and I will explain it again.
> 
> I answered two different ways
> 1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
> 2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
> that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
> it can be national without going through state or federal govt
> 
> There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
> nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't get it
> 
> First off...allowing same sex marriage by party or religious affiliation means gays can change religion or party in order to get married
> 
> You avoid the key issue. What happens when a married, same sex couple either travels or moves to a state where it is not recognized?
> 
> If a partner becomes seriously ill, does the spouse lose all marital rights?
> What happens to the children of a same sex marriage when they move to a state that bans it?
> If you move to a state that bans it....are you effectively divorced or just a non-person?
Click to expand...

Emily, please address rightwinger - these sum up what we all have been saying in under 100 words.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
> because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
> such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
> and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
> choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.
> 
> Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
> or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
> and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
> due to their beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has already ruled that as unconstitutional. Equal protection of our laws
> 
> How do you resolve married gay people moving between the states?
> They are married or they are not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
> if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
> If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state.
> 
> Some states don't require car insurance, if the driver has "ability to pay" and can prove it.
> So in that state, the same driver with the same car is under different rules.
> 
> States like Nevada have legalized prostitution, that only applies in that state.
> 
> For national policies on health care and other social benefits,
> I recommend to my fellow progressive Democrats and Greens
> to organize by party. So people can have collective representation
> and management of resources to fund policies that correspond
> and represent beliefs in marriage, health care, prison alternatives,
> educational priorities, etc.
> 
> if not everyone agrees on social policies through federal govt.
> AND by the Platform of the Veterans Party of America
> "ALL social legislation is Unconstitutional"
> then why not manage it by party and have taxpayers
> pay directly into the programs of choice?
> 
> I know tons of progressives who believe in paying
> for education and health care instead of funding
> war and the death penalty.
> 
> Why not give taxpayers that choice?
> 
> If it's organized by party then the responsibility
> for all the terms and agreements is delegated
> to one national group to represent its members,
> similar to states being responsible for representing its citizens.
> 
> Just proportionally delegate federal budgets to allot
> money to states, and states divide it by party by
> proportion of taxpayers and taxmoney coming in.
> so if GOP do not want to pay to federal govt
> except for military, they don't get federal funds for health care
> except for VA/vets if that's all they approve.
> If Dems want singlepayer health care and no death penalty,
> then that's where their tax money goes or doesn't go.
> 
> So each pays for their share and their members
> work out their terms and conditions, from prolife
> to gay marriage, whatever they believe or don't believe in.
> 
> If states can agree, then it's done by state.
> 
> This is if the population of states CAN'T agree,
> why not create two separate tracks and let
> taxpayers choose just like we do when we
> donate to parties or vote for platforms and reps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question
> 
> With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you  handle gay couples traveling between states?
> 
> Try to answer in less than 50 words
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered that already rightwinger
> each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
> civil marriage, civil unions.
> 
> And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
> If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.
> 
> What part of my answer did you not get
> and I will explain it again.
> 
> I answered two different ways
> 1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
> 2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
> that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
> it can be national without going through state or federal govt
> 
> There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
> nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did forget one fact.  The FEDERAL GoVERNMENT rolls up each of the 50 states and they are honored between each of the states.   Civil Union is still illegal, you've been told at least 20 plus times.  You cannot rename it for a class of people.  You also can't manage social benefits by party, illegal as well. WHY can't you grasp that?
Click to expand...

I am not saying only use it for a class of people. I am saying use NEUTRAL terms for EVERYONE. 

In other words for each state 
* if states use the term marriage then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term civil marriage then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term domestic partnership then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term civil contracts then EVERYONE can get that 
* if states use the term civil unions then EVERYONE can get that

Whatever term states use is for ALL people inclusively or else NOBODY gets that at all.

I think Faun understands I am saying don't use the term marriage for ANYBODY if it can't be used for EVERYONE. 

If people can't agree to terms of marriage for everyone then the state can't make those laws and force them on anyone using those terms.

If states agree that EVERYONE gets civil marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever TERM that state agrees on, then that is neutral because everyone gets the same and nobody gets anything different from the state.

Sneekin if you are just caught up in what civil unions meant in the past I'm talking about the present and future not the past:  if people in a state do not believe in states endorsing gay or same sex "marriages" they can be offered the choice either make ALL marriages open to ALL couples or make ALL couples only get civil unions from the states or domestic partnerships or whatever people of that state agree to call the licensing.

That way EVERYONE is treated the same such as by only getting civil contracts through the state and getting marriages through whatever traditions they believe in addition to the neutral licensing through the state.

Sneekin that's fine if you want more, if you live in a state that agrees to recognize marriage for all people as endorsed and licensed through the state Great! I'm all for that if people of that state agree.

But if they don't agree on terms unless a different set up is used, as long as EVERYONE is subject to the same and NOBODY gets more or less through the state, then at least that is equal.

I'm sorry this isn't clear Sneekin 
I don't know why it is not possible for ALL couples to get civil unions if that state cannot agree on terms of marriage. 

But if you have such conditions attached to the term civil union that it isn't a legal choice, that's how some people believe about marriage too !

So if you are saying no way can ALL people get civil unions but NO people should, then the same is true for marriage where either ALL people get to marry through the state or NO people should.

Just treat all people the SAME, either ALL or NONE, and that is fair to all people. Each state decides what terms it's citizens agree applies to ALL people with no exceptions and that's neutral law!

And yes, it's totally fine if all people in a state agree to majority rule passing marriage for all people!  But just like rules on references to religion, God. Cteation, prayer etc in schools it has to be by consent of the people where it is NOT the govt endorsing any beliefs the public doesn't agree the state should endorse. Keeping it neutral is one thing, but language endorsing one belief or another can still be struck down as biased.

Thanks and sorry if this wasn't clear


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily, you are missing the big picture.   You can't contest slavery, and you cannot contest SSM. Texas had a law prohibiting Sodomy (between two men) which was overturned in Lawrence V Texas in the early 90's.  They had an Amendment prohibiting SSM.  The courts, up to and including the SCOTUS found it to be in violation of the 14th Amendment.  Roe v Wade was in the 70's.  Your friends may not like any of them, they can complain all they want.  They are law.  As we found in Roe, some restrictions can be put in place.  The same can't be said with SSM and slavery.  Sorry your friends don't agree that the government doesn't have the right to rule, but the intent of the SCOTUS is to rule if a law is constitutional or not.   Obergefell was ruled, and it was determined that Texas and a few others were wrong, their amendment/laws were invalidated.   Your friends may not agree, but it's really a case of too bad, so sad,  it's law.  Are you wanting to overturn the 14th amendment as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't argue at all that unconstitutional bans be struck down because I agree with that part.
> [I even believe Clinton and other politicians who passed DOMA owe restitution for costs and damages to taxpayers for passing an unconstitutional bill that people openly protested but weren't heard, same as with ACA mandates that were protested to begin with as unconstitutional. there should be consequence for that to ensure representation]
> 
> The part that I do not agree with is abusing govt to establish beliefs in marriage, either way.
> 
> Because beliefs are involved, people should decided by consensus, or someone's beliefs get discriminated against.
> If they don't agree, then of course, the govt should not recognize that law which is biased against one sides beliefs or the others.
> 
> I also agree that bans on abortion had to be struck down because they
> violate due process and discriminate by targeting women more than men,
> when men are equally responsible for the sex and pregnancy, if not MORE in the case of rape and incest.
> 
> but striking down a bad law does not mean endorsing abortion as legal,
> and people who don't believe in that can still argue to separate funding and policies to avoid
> endorsing through govt what they believe is murder.
> 
> I do believe separating beliefs from govt should apply to all, even people I don't agree
> or hold that belief to the same degree they do. Laws should remain neutral and all inclusive,
> even if that means separating some policies so people can fund their beliefs accordingly
> and not interfere with the equal choice of other taxpayers.
> 
> Sneekin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, you can't ask anyone make restitution for DOMA - no one contested it. No one is abusing government to force people to change their minds.  No one has changed their beliefs.  Again, we are a republic, not a democracy, so beliefs cannot be voted on - or else, contrary to what you claim, if you vote on this belief, you will be guaranteeing discrimination, not avoiding it.  You also appear not to have a firm grasp on how government works.  You are unaware on how Roe worked - hint - it was primarily based on a woman's right to privacy.  You cannot ever provide separate funding - that's discriminatory.   If I'm not a taxpayer because I'm a 13 year old child raped by a father or brother, and pregnant because of incest, you claim I can't have an abortion?  You are ludicrous.  Laws remain legal.   Laws are neutral - no one is forcing you to 1) get married; 2) if married, marry a woman; or 3) if married, marry a man.   That's as neutral as it gets.  That's all inclusive, as well.  Taxpayers have a choice - get married or not, SSM or not.   It fulfills your wishes of equal choice.   You are claiming they have the right to straight up discriminate, and that is not true.  I don't want to pay taxes today.  Do I have equal choice to just say no, without penalty? NO. I don't want 33 percent going to the military, can I withhold that 33 percent without penalty? NO.  We voted in representatives.  They represent us.  You are blaming them for voting the will of the people, and not your personal will.  That's not government's fault.
Click to expand...

I am contesting both DOMA and ACA as unconstitutional Sneekin 
It's against the Constitution and Code of Ethics for Govt Service to pass discriminatory laws that should have been caught and revised in the first place to represent ALL people's beliefs and NOT waste taxpayers resources fighting after the fact.

If your consent and beliefs were not violated you don't have to contest it.

But my beliefs ARE violated every time laws and ruling are passed involving beliefs where one side gets endorsed or excluded by the state in favor of the other belief.

Sneekin imagine if you are like me, and if the progay rights are violated OR if the antigay beliefs are violated then either way my beliefs in consensus on laws are violated. Imagine that with prolife and prochoice, that by my constitutional beliefs about political beliefs both sides have to agree to how laws are written and enforced in order to be fully constitutional by my beliefs.

Same with gun rights, and with every partisan election. My beliefs are constantly violated because the majority believes that political beliefs do have the right to impose on others through Govt while I believe in consent of the governed as the final check.

SO yes I do believe I have the right to ASK for correction and restitution. But by consent of the governed if people don't agree I can't force my political beliefs on anyone.

I can just ASK that they be respected.

Is that clear? Thanks !


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has already ruled that as unconstitutional. Equal protection of our laws
> 
> How do you resolve married gay people moving between the states?
> They are married or they are not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
> if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
> If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state.
> 
> Some states don't require car insurance, if the driver has "ability to pay" and can prove it.
> So in that state, the same driver with the same car is under different rules.
> 
> States like Nevada have legalized prostitution, that only applies in that state.
> 
> For national policies on health care and other social benefits,
> I recommend to my fellow progressive Democrats and Greens
> to organize by party. So people can have collective representation
> and management of resources to fund policies that correspond
> and represent beliefs in marriage, health care, prison alternatives,
> educational priorities, etc.
> 
> if not everyone agrees on social policies through federal govt.
> AND by the Platform of the Veterans Party of America
> "ALL social legislation is Unconstitutional"
> then why not manage it by party and have taxpayers
> pay directly into the programs of choice?
> 
> I know tons of progressives who believe in paying
> for education and health care instead of funding
> war and the death penalty.
> 
> Why not give taxpayers that choice?
> 
> If it's organized by party then the responsibility
> for all the terms and agreements is delegated
> to one national group to represent its members,
> similar to states being responsible for representing its citizens.
> 
> Just proportionally delegate federal budgets to allot
> money to states, and states divide it by party by
> proportion of taxpayers and taxmoney coming in.
> so if GOP do not want to pay to federal govt
> except for military, they don't get federal funds for health care
> except for VA/vets if that's all they approve.
> If Dems want singlepayer health care and no death penalty,
> then that's where their tax money goes or doesn't go.
> 
> So each pays for their share and their members
> work out their terms and conditions, from prolife
> to gay marriage, whatever they believe or don't believe in.
> 
> If states can agree, then it's done by state.
> 
> This is if the population of states CAN'T agree,
> why not create two separate tracks and let
> taxpayers choose just like we do when we
> donate to parties or vote for platforms and reps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question
> 
> With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you  handle gay couples traveling between states?
> 
> Try to answer in less than 50 words
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered that already rightwinger
> each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
> civil marriage, civil unions.
> 
> And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
> If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.
> 
> What part of my answer did you not get
> and I will explain it again.
> 
> I answered two different ways
> 1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
> 2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
> that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
> it can be national without going through state or federal govt
> 
> There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
> nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did forget one fact.  The FEDERAL GoVERNMENT rolls up each of the 50 states and they are honored between each of the states.   Civil Union is still illegal, you've been told at least 20 plus times.  You cannot rename it for a class of people.  You also can't manage social benefits by party, illegal as well. WHY can't you grasp that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not saying only use it for a class of people. I am saying use NEUTRAL terms for EVERYONE.
> 
> In other words for each state
> * if states use the term marriage then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil marriage then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term domestic partnership then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil contracts then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil unions then EVERYONE can get that
> 
> Whatever term states use is for ALL people inclusively or else NOBODY gets that at all.
> 
> I think Faun understands I am saying don't use the term marriage for ANYBODY if it can't be used for EVERYONE.
> 
> If people can't agree to terms of marriage for everyone then the state can't make those laws and force them on anyone using those terms.
> 
> If states agree that EVERYONE gets civil marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever TERM that state agrees on, then that is neutral because everyone gets the same and nobody gets anything different from the state.
> 
> Sneekin if you are just caught up in what civil unions meant in the past I'm talking about the present and future not the past:  if people in a state do not believe in states endorsing gay or same sex "marriages" they can be offered the choice either make ALL marriages open to ALL couples or make ALL couples only get civil unions from the states or domestic partnerships or whatever people of that state agree to call the licensing.
> 
> That way EVERYONE is treated the same such as by only getting civil contracts through the state and getting marriages through whatever traditions they believe in addition to the neutral licensing through the state.
> 
> Sneekin that's fine if you want more, if you live in a state that agrees to recognize marriage for all people as endorsed and licensed through the state Great! I'm all for that if people of that state agree.
> 
> But if they don't agree on terms unless a different set up is used, as long as EVERYONE is subject to the same and NOBODY gets more or less through the state, then at least that is equal.
> 
> I'm sorry this isn't clear Sneekin
> I don't know why it is not possible for ALL couples to get civil unions if that state cannot agree on terms of marriage.
> 
> But if you have such conditions attached to the term civil union that it isn't a legal choice, that's how some people believe about marriage too !
> 
> So if you are saying no way can ALL people get civil unions but NO people should, then the same is true for marriage where either ALL people get to marry through the state or NO people should.
> 
> Just treat all people the SAME, either ALL or NONE, and that is fair to all people. Each state decides what terms it's citizens agree applies to ALL people with no exceptions and that's neutral law!
> 
> And yes, it's totally fine if all people in a state agree to majority rule passing marriage for all people!  But just like rules on references to religion, God. Cteation, prayer etc in schools it has to be by consent of the people where it is NOT the govt endorsing any beliefs the public doesn't agree the state should endorse. Keeping it neutral is one thing, but language endorsing one belief or another can still be struck down as biased.
> 
> Thanks and sorry if this wasn't clear
Click to expand...

There's already a word for it...

*Marriage*


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> ????
> 
> Dear Faun
> Yes, it does constitute an establishment of beliefs
> if govt is abused to impose EITHER beliefs about marriage
> as "traditional only" or as "including gay couples and gay marriage"
> where other people dissent because they don't share those beliefs.
> 
> BOTH of those are biases in beliefs.
> 
> Sorry Faun Only if the public or people in a state AGREE
> to the laws can you or I say it isn't biased in beliefs. So that's what I am seeking:
> true inclusion, neutrality and equal representation of all people of all beliefs.
> 
> If one side objects because their beliefs or rights aren't represented equally,
> that means there IS A BIAS, or else why would they be objecting.
> 
> You are the one discrediting one side's beliefs as "delusional."
> 
> I'm the only one in this discussion attempting to include ALL beliefs equally
> and find a way that doesn't discriminate against one or the other.
> 
> I don't consider LGBT beliefs or orientation a "delusion" or "hallucination."
> 
> So don't blame bias on me when I am trying to be all inclusive
> and you already excluded other people's beliefs as delusions!
> 
> Shame on you.
> 
> 
> 
> And what is unconstitutional about the belief that gay people should be legally allowed to marry the person of their choice regardless of gender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That this belief can be practiced under free exercise of religion,
> which govt can neither prohibit or establish, without endorsing it through govt laws that everyone is under (except as written and enforced by consent of the people where beliefs are involved)
> 
> So if either side believes a law isn't neutral enough but is biased one way or another,
> that is grounds for revising it until it is neutral enough to represent the public.
> 
> Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. This has been explained to you repeatedly and you just don't get it.
> 
> Seems you have nothing in terms of same-sex marriage being unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Dear Faun I don't know if you are living in a box or you just don't care or acknowledge the beliefs of others.
> Am I really the only person you know making these arguments:
> 1. about states rights
> 2. about civil unions instead of marriage through govt
> 3. about right to marriage being a political belief that not all people agree to apply to gay couples?
> 
> REALLY?
> 
> Maybe it's because I'm in Texas.
> And in Houston.
> 
> I have TONS of prolife Christian friends who do NOT believe abortion is a choice
> and do NOT believe in the govt endorsing gay marriage as natural.
> 
> I have stated these over and over.
> 
> If you are just citing the court case in Obergefell,
> well I know more people who contest that just like you would contest a court ruling endorsing slavery as legal property laws.
> 
> Sorry, but it's leaving out the consent and beliefs of other people in making that ruling.
> (the most I can interpret it to include the gist of it,
> is by religious freedom of course people have equal
> rights to marriage, and that's why it's not govt jurisidiction to decide)
> 
> You don't count the beliefs of these other people.
> It's not your fault, I think you truly do not see any violation occurring
> so you think it must be delusional.
> 
> It's the principle, that govt should not impose ANY beliefs about marriage
> that should remain the right of the people to CHOOSE.
> 
> The dissenters do NOT believe Govt has the authority to declare marriage
> rights beliefs or practices one way or another.
> 
> That's the issue.
> 
> I think it's so fundamental that you are missing it.
> You keep wanting to argue specific points,
> when it's the whole thing that is objected to.
> 
> Sorry if I cannot explain what each and every person is arguing
> who objects to this.
> 
> If you need to hear all the reasons and arguments (as each person
> says it differently) give me time and I will collect and list these for you.
> 
> In general they don't believe and don't consent.
> So I'm trying to find where they would agree.
> 
> Here is one way people are arguing Obergefell is unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary:
> Reclaiming the Rule of Law after Obergefell
> 
> And with the 4-5 decision, similar to the 4-5 ruling to approve ACA mandates
> also contested as unconstitutional,
> this seems to me to represent two sides of political beliefs,
> that are split fairly evenly, and just the majority BELIEF
> is being endorsed and enforced by govt. when both sides
> represent EQUAL BELIEFS, thus I would argue why not
> allow both choices, separate tracks and let people of
> BOTH beliefs each have their separate way to treat them equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?
> 
> That aside, you made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. That's complete nonsense and something no one is claiming.
> 
> Either quote the portion from the Obergefell decision which sites freedom of religion or admit you have no position to stand on...
Click to expand...


Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.

Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.

The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.

Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.

People generally don't see all the layers.
It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.

then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.

With each person their points may be different!

So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.

By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
And the process has involved these other areas that affect
how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.

Thanks for your patience.
This is not as easy as it looks to you.

If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
this is a very necessary part of the process,
to understand the layers of human perception
that are part of the puzzle.

When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
> if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
> If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state.
> 
> Some states don't require car insurance, if the driver has "ability to pay" and can prove it.
> So in that state, the same driver with the same car is under different rules.
> 
> States like Nevada have legalized prostitution, that only applies in that state.
> 
> For national policies on health care and other social benefits,
> I recommend to my fellow progressive Democrats and Greens
> to organize by party. So people can have collective representation
> and management of resources to fund policies that correspond
> and represent beliefs in marriage, health care, prison alternatives,
> educational priorities, etc.
> 
> if not everyone agrees on social policies through federal govt.
> AND by the Platform of the Veterans Party of America
> "ALL social legislation is Unconstitutional"
> then why not manage it by party and have taxpayers
> pay directly into the programs of choice?
> 
> I know tons of progressives who believe in paying
> for education and health care instead of funding
> war and the death penalty.
> 
> Why not give taxpayers that choice?
> 
> If it's organized by party then the responsibility
> for all the terms and agreements is delegated
> to one national group to represent its members,
> similar to states being responsible for representing its citizens.
> 
> Just proportionally delegate federal budgets to allot
> money to states, and states divide it by party by
> proportion of taxpayers and taxmoney coming in.
> so if GOP do not want to pay to federal govt
> except for military, they don't get federal funds for health care
> except for VA/vets if that's all they approve.
> If Dems want singlepayer health care and no death penalty,
> then that's where their tax money goes or doesn't go.
> 
> So each pays for their share and their members
> work out their terms and conditions, from prolife
> to gay marriage, whatever they believe or don't believe in.
> 
> If states can agree, then it's done by state.
> 
> This is if the population of states CAN'T agree,
> why not create two separate tracks and let
> taxpayers choose just like we do when we
> donate to parties or vote for platforms and reps.
> 
> 
> 
> In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question
> 
> With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you  handle gay couples traveling between states?
> 
> Try to answer in less than 50 words
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered that already rightwinger
> each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
> civil marriage, civil unions.
> 
> And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
> If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.
> 
> What part of my answer did you not get
> and I will explain it again.
> 
> I answered two different ways
> 1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
> 2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
> that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
> it can be national without going through state or federal govt
> 
> There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
> nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did forget one fact.  The FEDERAL GoVERNMENT rolls up each of the 50 states and they are honored between each of the states.   Civil Union is still illegal, you've been told at least 20 plus times.  You cannot rename it for a class of people.  You also can't manage social benefits by party, illegal as well. WHY can't you grasp that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not saying only use it for a class of people. I am saying use NEUTRAL terms for EVERYONE.
> 
> In other words for each state
> * if states use the term marriage then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil marriage then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term domestic partnership then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil contracts then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil unions then EVERYONE can get that
> 
> Whatever term states use is for ALL people inclusively or else NOBODY gets that at all.
> 
> I think Faun understands I am saying don't use the term marriage for ANYBODY if it can't be used for EVERYONE.
> 
> If people can't agree to terms of marriage for everyone then the state can't make those laws and force them on anyone using those terms.
> 
> If states agree that EVERYONE gets civil marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever TERM that state agrees on, then that is neutral because everyone gets the same and nobody gets anything different from the state.
> 
> Sneekin if you are just caught up in what civil unions meant in the past I'm talking about the present and future not the past:  if people in a state do not believe in states endorsing gay or same sex "marriages" they can be offered the choice either make ALL marriages open to ALL couples or make ALL couples only get civil unions from the states or domestic partnerships or whatever people of that state agree to call the licensing.
> 
> That way EVERYONE is treated the same such as by only getting civil contracts through the state and getting marriages through whatever traditions they believe in addition to the neutral licensing through the state.
> 
> Sneekin that's fine if you want more, if you live in a state that agrees to recognize marriage for all people as endorsed and licensed through the state Great! I'm all for that if people of that state agree.
> 
> But if they don't agree on terms unless a different set up is used, as long as EVERYONE is subject to the same and NOBODY gets more or less through the state, then at least that is equal.
> 
> I'm sorry this isn't clear Sneekin
> I don't know why it is not possible for ALL couples to get civil unions if that state cannot agree on terms of marriage.
> 
> But if you have such conditions attached to the term civil union that it isn't a legal choice, that's how some people believe about marriage too !
> 
> So if you are saying no way can ALL people get civil unions but NO people should, then the same is true for marriage where either ALL people get to marry through the state or NO people should.
> 
> Just treat all people the SAME, either ALL or NONE, and that is fair to all people. Each state decides what terms it's citizens agree applies to ALL people with no exceptions and that's neutral law!
> 
> And yes, it's totally fine if all people in a state agree to majority rule passing marriage for all people!  But just like rules on references to religion, God. Cteation, prayer etc in schools it has to be by consent of the people where it is NOT the govt endorsing any beliefs the public doesn't agree the state should endorse. Keeping it neutral is one thing, but language endorsing one belief or another can still be struck down as biased.
> 
> Thanks and sorry if this wasn't clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's already a word for it...
> 
> *Marriage*
Click to expand...


Yes Faun that would be simple.
And so would declaring the Democratic platform
and beliefs about right to health care and right to marriage a
POLITICAL RELIGION
and be done with it.

We could AGREE to list out the political beliefs
that each person or group holds sacred,
agree to respect these as inviolate for those people
and requiring consent of the governed and consensus
on laws and reforms on any of these areas,
and stop the fighting over forcing one g roup's
beliefs over another's by domination or coecion.

I WISH it were that simple Faun I do!

But people like you see your stances as RIGHTS and not BELIEFS.
and so do the right to life,
and so do the right to choose
and so do the right to guns advocates.

So it goes in circles, each combating the sacred
cows that the other group draws a line in a sand for
and refuses to let govt cross that line.

We all have our beliefs, and until we agree
to treat them the same, we keep competing and
repeating the same patterns over and over,
taking turns trying to run over the other or
run them out of govt. But that doesn't make
that person's beliefs or rights 'go away" it just
makes them come back and try to defend them
again, back and forth.  

Why don't we admit we have these sacred
rights and beliefs, and agree not to disparage them???

Seems simple to me Faun but 
as you can see, it isn't easy to see when
it's YOUR beliefs that you are defending as rights.
When other people do that to you or me and take
something that isn't our beliefs and shove it in our
faces as law, then we can see that it should be a choice
and not forced by law. But not when
the shoe is on the other foot. Both sides are like that!


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has already ruled that as unconstitutional. Equal protection of our laws
> 
> How do you resolve married gay people moving between the states?
> They are married or they are not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
> if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
> If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state.
> 
> Some states don't require car insurance, if the driver has "ability to pay" and can prove it.
> So in that state, the same driver with the same car is under different rules.
> 
> States like Nevada have legalized prostitution, that only applies in that state.
> 
> For national policies on health care and other social benefits,
> I recommend to my fellow progressive Democrats and Greens
> to organize by party. So people can have collective representation
> and management of resources to fund policies that correspond
> and represent beliefs in marriage, health care, prison alternatives,
> educational priorities, etc.
> 
> if not everyone agrees on social policies through federal govt.
> AND by the Platform of the Veterans Party of America
> "ALL social legislation is Unconstitutional"
> then why not manage it by party and have taxpayers
> pay directly into the programs of choice?
> 
> I know tons of progressives who believe in paying
> for education and health care instead of funding
> war and the death penalty.
> 
> Why not give taxpayers that choice?
> 
> If it's organized by party then the responsibility
> for all the terms and agreements is delegated
> to one national group to represent its members,
> similar to states being responsible for representing its citizens.
> 
> Just proportionally delegate federal budgets to allot
> money to states, and states divide it by party by
> proportion of taxpayers and taxmoney coming in.
> so if GOP do not want to pay to federal govt
> except for military, they don't get federal funds for health care
> except for VA/vets if that's all they approve.
> If Dems want singlepayer health care and no death penalty,
> then that's where their tax money goes or doesn't go.
> 
> So each pays for their share and their members
> work out their terms and conditions, from prolife
> to gay marriage, whatever they believe or don't believe in.
> 
> If states can agree, then it's done by state.
> 
> This is if the population of states CAN'T agree,
> why not create two separate tracks and let
> taxpayers choose just like we do when we
> donate to parties or vote for platforms and reps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question
> 
> With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you  handle gay couples traveling between states?
> 
> Try to answer in less than 50 words
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered that already rightwinger
> each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
> civil marriage, civil unions.
> 
> And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
> If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.
> 
> What part of my answer did you not get
> and I will explain it again.
> 
> I answered two different ways
> 1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
> 2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
> that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
> it can be national without going through state or federal govt
> 
> There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
> nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did forget one fact.  The FEDERAL GoVERNMENT rolls up each of the 50 states and they are honored between each of the states.   Civil Union is still illegal, you've been told at least 20 plus times.  You cannot rename it for a class of people.  You also can't manage social benefits by party, illegal as well. WHY can't you grasp that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not saying only use it for a class of people. I am saying use NEUTRAL terms for EVERYONE.
> 
> In other words for each state
> * if states use the term marriage then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil marriage then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term domestic partnership then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil contracts then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil unions then EVERYONE can get that
> 
> Whatever term states use is for ALL people inclusively or else NOBODY gets that at all.
> 
> I think Faun understands I am saying don't use the term marriage for ANYBODY if it can't be used for EVERYONE.
> 
> If people can't agree to terms of marriage for everyone then the state can't make those laws and force them on anyone using those terms.
> 
> If states agree that EVERYONE gets civil marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever TERM that state agrees on, then that is neutral because everyone gets the same and nobody gets anything different from the state.
> 
> Sneekin if you are just caught up in what civil unions meant in the past I'm talking about the present and future not the past:  if people in a state do not believe in states endorsing gay or same sex "marriages" they can be offered the choice either make ALL marriages open to ALL couples or make ALL couples only get civil unions from the states or domestic partnerships or whatever people of that state agree to call the licensing.
> 
> That way EVERYONE is treated the same such as by only getting civil contracts through the state and getting marriages through whatever traditions they believe in addition to the neutral licensing through the state.
> 
> Sneekin that's fine if you want more, if you live in a state that agrees to recognize marriage for all people as endorsed and licensed through the state Great! I'm all for that if people of that state agree.
> 
> But if they don't agree on terms unless a different set up is used, as long as EVERYONE is subject to the same and NOBODY gets more or less through the state, then at least that is equal.
> 
> I'm sorry this isn't clear Sneekin
> I don't know why it is not possible for ALL couples to get civil unions if that state cannot agree on terms of marriage.
> 
> But if you have such conditions attached to the term civil union that it isn't a legal choice, that's how some people believe about marriage too !
> 
> So if you are saying no way can ALL people get civil unions but NO people should, then the same is true for marriage where either ALL people get to marry through the state or NO people should.
> 
> Just treat all people the SAME, either ALL or NONE, and that is fair to all people. Each state decides what terms it's citizens agree applies to ALL people with no exceptions and that's neutral law!
> 
> And yes, it's totally fine if all people in a state agree to majority rule passing marriage for all people!  But just like rules on references to religion, God. Cteation, prayer etc in schools it has to be by consent of the people where it is NOT the govt endorsing any beliefs the public doesn't agree the state should endorse. Keeping it neutral is one thing, but language endorsing one belief or another can still be struck down as biased.
> 
> Thanks and sorry if this wasn't clear
Click to expand...

SIGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...............................

The states already are using the term marriage.   No one gets more Or less.  I understand perfectly.  You are trying to coin a new term for an existing word, marriage.  You keep claiming it's religious, it's not.  It's nothing more than a civil contract between two people.  PERIOD.    You cannot be married by a church, unless the pastor removes his "pastor hat" and puts on his "secular hat".   End of Discussion, Emily.  Why are you so hellbent on spending BILLIONS of dollars, to end up with the same problem.  Can we just call it Chocolate Coconut Hot Fudge Malt?   It would make just as much sense as your blather.  And no, Emily, it cannot be domestic partnership.  That has an entirely different set of rules, and it is normally offered by businesses.  

You seem to think this is something to vote on.   It's law already, since before this nation stood on it's own.  It's a constitutional right and a civil right, and would be illegal to vote on it, Emily.   It would take a constitutional amendment to do some of what you dream of doing, and you'll still end up with a two step process for Christians, and a single step process for secular marriage.  Already law.  Already agreed on.  Already voted on by the states. 

You stated "If people can't agree to terms of marriage for everyone then the state can't make those laws and force them on anyone using those terms."  The terms of marriage are already in place, Emily.  Please wrap your mind around that.   It's not going to change.   Even though you think Obergefell changed marriage laws, you are grossly mistaken.   It simply struck down a separate law, which said marraige was between a man and a woman, which was in violation of the 14th amendment.  Obergefell invalidated an illegal law, and left all of the rules of marriage (first cousins may or may not get married, no incest, must be of a certain age, etc) intact.  Sorry.  People are treated the same, I'd like you to provide evidence to the contrary.   Two people, either 2 males, 2 females, or 1 or each can get married.   That is nothing but same treatment, Emily.

You fail to grasp the concept of government, and how the constitution works.  You will never get your way, there will never be a unanimous renaming of the word marriage that will be used in both a secular and religious manner.   You may think you can do that, but it would be illegal.  You haven't justified any reason to rename marriage to another name, other than you simply don't like the word, apparently.   There are federal laws that address marraige across all 50 states.  Every state currently has reciprocity - if you get married in Texas, I have to recognize it in Illinois.  If you now call your marriage a domestic partnership, it wouldn't be recognized in Illinois.  And you still haven't addressed what's supposed to be done at the federal level.  You fail to grasp that your inheritance taxes are based on marital status.  So you become domestic partners, civil unionists,  civil marriage, but NOT marriage, then you will lose and have to pay a substantial penalty in inheritance tax.  Since my state doesn't pander to your ideas, my inheritance tax stays intact.  Try reading Windsor.   In many ways more important than Obergefell. 

_*United States v. Windsor*_, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) (Docket No. 12-307), is a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity." 

2013 - overturned DOMA
2014 - SSM recognized between states
2015 - SSM legal in all 50 states. 

_*Obergefell v. Hodges*_, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held in a 5–4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

You will note, this has noting to do with the first amendment and Freedom of Religion.

Please share with us why you are willing to spend billions of dollars at the Federal, State, County and Local levels in regards to existing laws (which normally must also have to be read, reviewed, voted upon by the public, etc, etc, etc) when the existing term Marriage is already in place at the civil level.  You may not like it, but it is case law.   Windsor is 3 years old.   Obergefell is 1.5.   The current president and the president elect both stated it's law, that's it, no further action will take place.  I'm curious to see how you manage to override the President AND the President-Elect.


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what is unconstitutional about the belief that gay people should be legally allowed to marry the person of their choice regardless of gender?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That this belief can be practiced under free exercise of religion,
> which govt can neither prohibit or establish, without endorsing it through govt laws that everyone is under (except as written and enforced by consent of the people where beliefs are involved)
> 
> So if either side believes a law isn't neutral enough but is biased one way or another,
> that is grounds for revising it until it is neutral enough to represent the public.
> 
> Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. This has been explained to you repeatedly and you just don't get it.
> 
> Seems you have nothing in terms of same-sex marriage being unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Dear Faun I don't know if you are living in a box or you just don't care or acknowledge the beliefs of others.
> Am I really the only person you know making these arguments:
> 1. about states rights
> 2. about civil unions instead of marriage through govt
> 3. about right to marriage being a political belief that not all people agree to apply to gay couples?
> 
> REALLY?
> 
> Maybe it's because I'm in Texas.
> And in Houston.
> 
> I have TONS of prolife Christian friends who do NOT believe abortion is a choice
> and do NOT believe in the govt endorsing gay marriage as natural.
> 
> I have stated these over and over.
> 
> If you are just citing the court case in Obergefell,
> well I know more people who contest that just like you would contest a court ruling endorsing slavery as legal property laws.
> 
> Sorry, but it's leaving out the consent and beliefs of other people in making that ruling.
> (the most I can interpret it to include the gist of it,
> is by religious freedom of course people have equal
> rights to marriage, and that's why it's not govt jurisidiction to decide)
> 
> You don't count the beliefs of these other people.
> It's not your fault, I think you truly do not see any violation occurring
> so you think it must be delusional.
> 
> It's the principle, that govt should not impose ANY beliefs about marriage
> that should remain the right of the people to CHOOSE.
> 
> The dissenters do NOT believe Govt has the authority to declare marriage
> rights beliefs or practices one way or another.
> 
> That's the issue.
> 
> I think it's so fundamental that you are missing it.
> You keep wanting to argue specific points,
> when it's the whole thing that is objected to.
> 
> Sorry if I cannot explain what each and every person is arguing
> who objects to this.
> 
> If you need to hear all the reasons and arguments (as each person
> says it differently) give me time and I will collect and list these for you.
> 
> In general they don't believe and don't consent.
> So I'm trying to find where they would agree.
> 
> Here is one way people are arguing Obergefell is unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary:
> Reclaiming the Rule of Law after Obergefell
> 
> And with the 4-5 decision, similar to the 4-5 ruling to approve ACA mandates
> also contested as unconstitutional,
> this seems to me to represent two sides of political beliefs,
> that are split fairly evenly, and just the majority BELIEF
> is being endorsed and enforced by govt. when both sides
> represent EQUAL BELIEFS, thus I would argue why not
> allow both choices, separate tracks and let people of
> BOTH beliefs each have their separate way to treat them equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?
> 
> That aside, you made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. That's complete nonsense and something no one is claiming.
> 
> Either quote the portion from the Obergefell decision which sites freedom of religion or admit you have no position to stand on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.
> 
> Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.
> 
> The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.
> 
> Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
> takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
> ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.
> 
> People generally don't see all the layers.
> It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
> I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
> in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.
> 
> then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.
> 
> With each person their points may be different!
> 
> So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
> doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.
> 
> By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
> But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
> And the process has involved these other areas that affect
> how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.
> 
> Thanks for your patience.
> This is not as easy as it looks to you.
> 
> If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
> instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
> this is a very necessary part of the process,
> to understand the layers of human perception
> that are part of the puzzle.
> 
> When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
> that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.
Click to expand...

Emily

What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason

Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question
> 
> With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you  handle gay couples traveling between states?
> 
> Try to answer in less than 50 words
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered that already rightwinger
> each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
> civil marriage, civil unions.
> 
> And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
> If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.
> 
> What part of my answer did you not get
> and I will explain it again.
> 
> I answered two different ways
> 1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
> 2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
> that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
> it can be national without going through state or federal govt
> 
> There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
> nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did forget one fact.  The FEDERAL GoVERNMENT rolls up each of the 50 states and they are honored between each of the states.   Civil Union is still illegal, you've been told at least 20 plus times.  You cannot rename it for a class of people.  You also can't manage social benefits by party, illegal as well. WHY can't you grasp that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not saying only use it for a class of people. I am saying use NEUTRAL terms for EVERYONE.
> 
> In other words for each state
> * if states use the term marriage then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil marriage then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term domestic partnership then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil contracts then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil unions then EVERYONE can get that
> 
> Whatever term states use is for ALL people inclusively or else NOBODY gets that at all.
> 
> I think Faun understands I am saying don't use the term marriage for ANYBODY if it can't be used for EVERYONE.
> 
> If people can't agree to terms of marriage for everyone then the state can't make those laws and force them on anyone using those terms.
> 
> If states agree that EVERYONE gets civil marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever TERM that state agrees on, then that is neutral because everyone gets the same and nobody gets anything different from the state.
> 
> Sneekin if you are just caught up in what civil unions meant in the past I'm talking about the present and future not the past:  if people in a state do not believe in states endorsing gay or same sex "marriages" they can be offered the choice either make ALL marriages open to ALL couples or make ALL couples only get civil unions from the states or domestic partnerships or whatever people of that state agree to call the licensing.
> 
> That way EVERYONE is treated the same such as by only getting civil contracts through the state and getting marriages through whatever traditions they believe in addition to the neutral licensing through the state.
> 
> Sneekin that's fine if you want more, if you live in a state that agrees to recognize marriage for all people as endorsed and licensed through the state Great! I'm all for that if people of that state agree.
> 
> But if they don't agree on terms unless a different set up is used, as long as EVERYONE is subject to the same and NOBODY gets more or less through the state, then at least that is equal.
> 
> I'm sorry this isn't clear Sneekin
> I don't know why it is not possible for ALL couples to get civil unions if that state cannot agree on terms of marriage.
> 
> But if you have such conditions attached to the term civil union that it isn't a legal choice, that's how some people believe about marriage too !
> 
> So if you are saying no way can ALL people get civil unions but NO people should, then the same is true for marriage where either ALL people get to marry through the state or NO people should.
> 
> Just treat all people the SAME, either ALL or NONE, and that is fair to all people. Each state decides what terms it's citizens agree applies to ALL people with no exceptions and that's neutral law!
> 
> And yes, it's totally fine if all people in a state agree to majority rule passing marriage for all people!  But just like rules on references to religion, God. Cteation, prayer etc in schools it has to be by consent of the people where it is NOT the govt endorsing any beliefs the public doesn't agree the state should endorse. Keeping it neutral is one thing, but language endorsing one belief or another can still be struck down as biased.
> 
> Thanks and sorry if this wasn't clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's already a word for it...
> 
> *Marriage*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Faun that would be simple.
> And so would declaring the Democratic platform
> and beliefs about right to health care and right to marriage a
> POLITICAL RELIGION
> and be done with it.
> 
> We could AGREE to list out the political beliefs
> that each person or group holds sacred,
> agree to respect these as inviolate for those people
> and requiring consent of the governed and consensus
> on laws and reforms on any of these areas,
> and stop the fighting over forcing one g roup's
> beliefs over another's by domination or coecion.
> 
> I WISH it were that simple Faun I do!
> 
> But people like you see your stances as RIGHTS and not BELIEFS.
> and so do the right to life,
> and so do the right to choose
> and so do the right to guns advocates.
> 
> So it goes in circles, each combating the sacred
> cows that the other group draws a line in a sand for
> and refuses to let govt cross that line.
> 
> We all have our beliefs, and until we agree
> to treat them the same, we keep competing and
> repeating the same patterns over and over,
> taking turns trying to run over the other or
> run them out of govt. But that doesn't make
> that person's beliefs or rights 'go away" it just
> makes them come back and try to defend them
> again, back and forth.
> 
> Why don't we admit we have these sacred
> rights and beliefs, and agree not to disparage them???
> 
> Seems simple to me Faun but
> as you can see, it isn't easy to see when
> it's YOUR beliefs that you are defending as rights.
> When other people do that to you or me and take
> something that isn't our beliefs and shove it in our
> faces as law, then we can see that it should be a choice
> and not forced by law. But not when
> the shoe is on the other foot. Both sides are like that!
Click to expand...

Sorry, that violates the Amendment 1 to the constitution.  No state religion (let alone, by political party - and please address what happens when the democratic or republican party goes the way of the Whig party - are those married under those laws now invalidated?)  We legally can't have laws applicable to a single political party, Emily.  Where did you get your law degree at?


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Emily:




Are you seriously saying that it would be legal for the Republican Party to be the only party to carry weapons,??   You are now hitting my career field - contrary to what you are claiming is legal, it is patently illegal to deny a class of people (this time, Democrats, Green Party, whoever) a right to employment?   Or a right to marriage?  Or that the green party can only have domestic partnerships, and the democrats only civil unions, and the socialist party none?  Not only is it illegal, but pardon me, straight up stupid.  Since marriage is state by state,  have separate laws potentially, state by state, not to mention quadrupling the tax code for marriage, and 1138 other existing benefits.


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> That this belief can be practiced under free exercise of religion,
> which govt can neither prohibit or establish, without endorsing it through govt laws that everyone is under (except as written and enforced by consent of the people where beliefs are involved)
> 
> So if either side believes a law isn't neutral enough but is biased one way or another,
> that is grounds for revising it until it is neutral enough to represent the public.
> 
> Faun
> 
> 
> 
> No one made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. This has been explained to you repeatedly and you just don't get it.
> 
> Seems you have nothing in terms of same-sex marriage being unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Dear Faun I don't know if you are living in a box or you just don't care or acknowledge the beliefs of others.
> Am I really the only person you know making these arguments:
> 1. about states rights
> 2. about civil unions instead of marriage through govt
> 3. about right to marriage being a political belief that not all people agree to apply to gay couples?
> 
> REALLY?
> 
> Maybe it's because I'm in Texas.
> And in Houston.
> 
> I have TONS of prolife Christian friends who do NOT believe abortion is a choice
> and do NOT believe in the govt endorsing gay marriage as natural.
> 
> I have stated these over and over.
> 
> If you are just citing the court case in Obergefell,
> well I know more people who contest that just like you would contest a court ruling endorsing slavery as legal property laws.
> 
> Sorry, but it's leaving out the consent and beliefs of other people in making that ruling.
> (the most I can interpret it to include the gist of it,
> is by religious freedom of course people have equal
> rights to marriage, and that's why it's not govt jurisidiction to decide)
> 
> You don't count the beliefs of these other people.
> It's not your fault, I think you truly do not see any violation occurring
> so you think it must be delusional.
> 
> It's the principle, that govt should not impose ANY beliefs about marriage
> that should remain the right of the people to CHOOSE.
> 
> The dissenters do NOT believe Govt has the authority to declare marriage
> rights beliefs or practices one way or another.
> 
> That's the issue.
> 
> I think it's so fundamental that you are missing it.
> You keep wanting to argue specific points,
> when it's the whole thing that is objected to.
> 
> Sorry if I cannot explain what each and every person is arguing
> who objects to this.
> 
> If you need to hear all the reasons and arguments (as each person
> says it differently) give me time and I will collect and list these for you.
> 
> In general they don't believe and don't consent.
> So I'm trying to find where they would agree.
> 
> Here is one way people are arguing Obergefell is unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary:
> Reclaiming the Rule of Law after Obergefell
> 
> And with the 4-5 decision, similar to the 4-5 ruling to approve ACA mandates
> also contested as unconstitutional,
> this seems to me to represent two sides of political beliefs,
> that are split fairly evenly, and just the majority BELIEF
> is being endorsed and enforced by govt. when both sides
> represent EQUAL BELIEFS, thus I would argue why not
> allow both choices, separate tracks and let people of
> BOTH beliefs each have their separate way to treat them equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?
> 
> That aside, you made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. That's complete nonsense and something no one is claiming.
> 
> Either quote the portion from the Obergefell decision which sites freedom of religion or admit you have no position to stand on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.
> 
> Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.
> 
> The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.
> 
> Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
> takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
> ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.
> 
> People generally don't see all the layers.
> It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
> I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
> in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.
> 
> then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.
> 
> With each person their points may be different!
> 
> So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
> doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.
> 
> By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
> But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
> And the process has involved these other areas that affect
> how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.
> 
> Thanks for your patience.
> This is not as easy as it looks to you.
> 
> If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
> instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
> this is a very necessary part of the process,
> to understand the layers of human perception
> that are part of the puzzle.
> 
> When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
> that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily
> 
> What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason
> 
> Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns
Click to expand...


1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!

PRECISELY rightwinger!

2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.

So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.

BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.

A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other.  To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision.  So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what is unconstitutional about the belief that gay people should be legally allowed to marry the person of their choice regardless of gender?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That this belief can be practiced under free exercise of religion,
> which govt can neither prohibit or establish, without endorsing it through govt laws that everyone is under (except as written and enforced by consent of the people where beliefs are involved)
> 
> So if either side believes a law isn't neutral enough but is biased one way or another,
> that is grounds for revising it until it is neutral enough to represent the public.
> 
> Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. This has been explained to you repeatedly and you just don't get it.
> 
> Seems you have nothing in terms of same-sex marriage being unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Dear Faun I don't know if you are living in a box or you just don't care or acknowledge the beliefs of others.
> Am I really the only person you know making these arguments:
> 1. about states rights
> 2. about civil unions instead of marriage through govt
> 3. about right to marriage being a political belief that not all people agree to apply to gay couples?
> 
> REALLY?
> 
> Maybe it's because I'm in Texas.
> And in Houston.
> 
> I have TONS of prolife Christian friends who do NOT believe abortion is a choice
> and do NOT believe in the govt endorsing gay marriage as natural.
> 
> I have stated these over and over.
> 
> If you are just citing the court case in Obergefell,
> well I know more people who contest that just like you would contest a court ruling endorsing slavery as legal property laws.
> 
> Sorry, but it's leaving out the consent and beliefs of other people in making that ruling.
> (the most I can interpret it to include the gist of it,
> is by religious freedom of course people have equal
> rights to marriage, and that's why it's not govt jurisidiction to decide)
> 
> You don't count the beliefs of these other people.
> It's not your fault, I think you truly do not see any violation occurring
> so you think it must be delusional.
> 
> It's the principle, that govt should not impose ANY beliefs about marriage
> that should remain the right of the people to CHOOSE.
> 
> The dissenters do NOT believe Govt has the authority to declare marriage
> rights beliefs or practices one way or another.
> 
> That's the issue.
> 
> I think it's so fundamental that you are missing it.
> You keep wanting to argue specific points,
> when it's the whole thing that is objected to.
> 
> Sorry if I cannot explain what each and every person is arguing
> who objects to this.
> 
> If you need to hear all the reasons and arguments (as each person
> says it differently) give me time and I will collect and list these for you.
> 
> In general they don't believe and don't consent.
> So I'm trying to find where they would agree.
> 
> Here is one way people are arguing Obergefell is unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary:
> Reclaiming the Rule of Law after Obergefell
> 
> And with the 4-5 decision, similar to the 4-5 ruling to approve ACA mandates
> also contested as unconstitutional,
> this seems to me to represent two sides of political beliefs,
> that are split fairly evenly, and just the majority BELIEF
> is being endorsed and enforced by govt. when both sides
> represent EQUAL BELIEFS, thus I would argue why not
> allow both choices, separate tracks and let people of
> BOTH beliefs each have their separate way to treat them equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?
> 
> That aside, you made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. That's complete nonsense and something no one is claiming.
> 
> Either quote the portion from the Obergefell decision which sites freedom of religion or admit you have no position to stand on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.
> 
> Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.
> 
> The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.
> 
> Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
> takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
> ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.
> 
> People generally don't see all the layers.
> It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
> I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
> in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.
> 
> then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.
> 
> With each person their points may be different!
> 
> So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
> doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.
> 
> By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
> But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
> And the process has involved these other areas that affect
> how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.
> 
> Thanks for your patience.
> This is not as easy as it looks to you.
> 
> If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
> instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
> this is a very necessary part of the process,
> to understand the layers of human perception
> that are part of the puzzle.
> 
> When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
> that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.
Click to expand...

I don't care what the reasons of objection are -- you said same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion.

You can't back that nonsense up and it's the foundation of your argument.

You're done.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> [Q
> A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other.  To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision.  So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!



Loving v. Virginia.

Virginia did not want the Lovings to be able to be married because they were a mixed race couple. The Supreme Court overturned that state law- exactly as it overturned Obergefeil. 

Now I understand you believe that the Supreme Court should not have overturned Virginia's law- because it 'coerced' the people of Virginia who were against mixed race marriage- but I think that the Supreme Court was correct. 

Now apparently you don't want Virginia to have any marriage laws at all- even though that would mean 'coercing' the majority of Virginians to your point of view. 

The Constitution will result in some citizens being unhappy with the laws- and some unhappy when their pet laws are overturned.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question
> 
> With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you  handle gay couples traveling between states?
> 
> Try to answer in less than 50 words
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered that already rightwinger
> each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
> civil marriage, civil unions.
> 
> And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
> If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.
> 
> What part of my answer did you not get
> and I will explain it again.
> 
> I answered two different ways
> 1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
> 2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
> that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
> it can be national without going through state or federal govt
> 
> There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
> nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did forget one fact.  The FEDERAL GoVERNMENT rolls up each of the 50 states and they are honored between each of the states.   Civil Union is still illegal, you've been told at least 20 plus times.  You cannot rename it for a class of people.  You also can't manage social benefits by party, illegal as well. WHY can't you grasp that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not saying only use it for a class of people. I am saying use NEUTRAL terms for EVERYONE.
> 
> In other words for each state
> * if states use the term marriage then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil marriage then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term domestic partnership then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil contracts then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil unions then EVERYONE can get that
> 
> Whatever term states use is for ALL people inclusively or else NOBODY gets that at all.
> 
> I think Faun understands I am saying don't use the term marriage for ANYBODY if it can't be used for EVERYONE.
> 
> If people can't agree to terms of marriage for everyone then the state can't make those laws and force them on anyone using those terms.
> 
> If states agree that EVERYONE gets civil marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever TERM that state agrees on, then that is neutral because everyone gets the same and nobody gets anything different from the state.
> 
> Sneekin if you are just caught up in what civil unions meant in the past I'm talking about the present and future not the past:  if people in a state do not believe in states endorsing gay or same sex "marriages" they can be offered the choice either make ALL marriages open to ALL couples or make ALL couples only get civil unions from the states or domestic partnerships or whatever people of that state agree to call the licensing.
> 
> That way EVERYONE is treated the same such as by only getting civil contracts through the state and getting marriages through whatever traditions they believe in addition to the neutral licensing through the state.
> 
> Sneekin that's fine if you want more, if you live in a state that agrees to recognize marriage for all people as endorsed and licensed through the state Great! I'm all for that if people of that state agree.
> 
> But if they don't agree on terms unless a different set up is used, as long as EVERYONE is subject to the same and NOBODY gets more or less through the state, then at least that is equal.
> 
> I'm sorry this isn't clear Sneekin
> I don't know why it is not possible for ALL couples to get civil unions if that state cannot agree on terms of marriage.
> 
> But if you have such conditions attached to the term civil union that it isn't a legal choice, that's how some people believe about marriage too !
> 
> So if you are saying no way can ALL people get civil unions but NO people should, then the same is true for marriage where either ALL people get to marry through the state or NO people should.
> 
> Just treat all people the SAME, either ALL or NONE, and that is fair to all people. Each state decides what terms it's citizens agree applies to ALL people with no exceptions and that's neutral law!
> 
> And yes, it's totally fine if all people in a state agree to majority rule passing marriage for all people!  But just like rules on references to religion, God. Cteation, prayer etc in schools it has to be by consent of the people where it is NOT the govt endorsing any beliefs the public doesn't agree the state should endorse. Keeping it neutral is one thing, but language endorsing one belief or another can still be struck down as biased.
> 
> Thanks and sorry if this wasn't clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's already a word for it...
> 
> *Marriage*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Faun that would be simple.
> And so would declaring the Democratic platform
> and beliefs about right to health care and right to marriage a
> POLITICAL RELIGION
> and be done with it.
> 
> We could AGREE to list out the political beliefs
> that each person or group holds sacred,
> agree to respect these as inviolate for those people
> and requiring consent of the governed and consensus
> on laws and reforms on any of these areas,
> and stop the fighting over forcing one g roup's
> beliefs over another's by domination or coecion.
> 
> I WISH it were that simple Faun I do!
> 
> But people like you see your stances as RIGHTS and not BELIEFS.
> and so do the right to life,
> and so do the right to choose
> and so do the right to guns advocates.
> 
> So it goes in circles, each combating the sacred
> cows that the other group draws a line in a sand for
> and refuses to let govt cross that line.
> 
> We all have our beliefs, and until we agree
> to treat them the same, we keep competing and
> repeating the same patterns over and over,
> taking turns trying to run over the other or
> run them out of govt. But that doesn't make
> that person's beliefs or rights 'go away" it just
> makes them come back and try to defend them
> again, back and forth.
> 
> Why don't we admit we have these sacred
> rights and beliefs, and agree not to disparage them???
> 
> Seems simple to me Faun but
> as you can see, it isn't easy to see when
> it's YOUR beliefs that you are defending as rights.
> When other people do that to you or me and take
> something that isn't our beliefs and shove it in our
> faces as law, then we can see that it should be a choice
> and not forced by law. But not when
> the shoe is on the other foot. Both sides are like that!
Click to expand...

It is that simple. No one has to abandon marriage in America because some people oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage is here to stay and it now includes marriage between couples of the same sex.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily, you are missing the big picture.   You can't contest slavery, and you cannot contest SSM. Texas had a law prohibiting Sodomy (between two men) which was overturned in Lawrence V Texas in the early 90's.  They had an Amendment prohibiting SSM.  The courts, up to and including the SCOTUS found it to be in violation of the 14th Amendment.  Roe v Wade was in the 70's.  Your friends may not like any of them, they can complain all they want.  They are law.  As we found in Roe, some restrictions can be put in place.  The same can't be said with SSM and slavery.  Sorry your friends don't agree that the government doesn't have the right to rule, but the intent of the SCOTUS is to rule if a law is constitutional or not.   Obergefell was ruled, and it was determined that Texas and a few others were wrong, their amendment/laws were invalidated.   Your friends may not agree, but it's really a case of too bad, so sad,  it's law.  Are you wanting to overturn the 14th amendment as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't argue at all that unconstitutional bans be struck down because I agree with that part.
> [I even believe Clinton and other politicians who passed DOMA owe restitution for costs and damages to taxpayers for passing an unconstitutional bill that people openly protested but weren't heard, same as with ACA mandates that were protested to begin with as unconstitutional. there should be consequence for that to ensure representation]
> 
> The part that I do not agree with is abusing govt to establish beliefs in marriage, either way.
> 
> Because beliefs are involved, people should decided by consensus, or someone's beliefs get discriminated against.
> If they don't agree, then of course, the govt should not recognize that law which is biased against one sides beliefs or the others.
> 
> I also agree that bans on abortion had to be struck down because they
> violate due process and discriminate by targeting women more than men,
> when men are equally responsible for the sex and pregnancy, if not MORE in the case of rape and incest.
> 
> but striking down a bad law does not mean endorsing abortion as legal,
> and people who don't believe in that can still argue to separate funding and policies to avoid
> endorsing through govt what they believe is murder.
> 
> I do believe separating beliefs from govt should apply to all, even people I don't agree
> or hold that belief to the same degree they do. Laws should remain neutral and all inclusive,
> even if that means separating some policies so people can fund their beliefs accordingly
> and not interfere with the equal choice of other taxpayers.
> 
> Sneekin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, you can't ask anyone make restitution for DOMA - no one contested it. No one is abusing government to force people to change their minds.  No one has changed their beliefs.  Again, we are a republic, not a democracy, so beliefs cannot be voted on - or else, contrary to what you claim, if you vote on this belief, you will be guaranteeing discrimination, not avoiding it.  You also appear not to have a firm grasp on how government works.  You are unaware on how Roe worked - hint - it was primarily based on a woman's right to privacy.  You cannot ever provide separate funding - that's discriminatory.   If I'm not a taxpayer because I'm a 13 year old child raped by a father or brother, and pregnant because of incest, you claim I can't have an abortion?  You are ludicrous.  Laws remain legal.   Laws are neutral - no one is forcing you to 1) get married; 2) if married, marry a woman; or 3) if married, marry a man.   That's as neutral as it gets.  That's all inclusive, as well.  Taxpayers have a choice - get married or not, SSM or not.   It fulfills your wishes of equal choice.   You are claiming they have the right to straight up discriminate, and that is not true.  I don't want to pay taxes today.  Do I have equal choice to just say no, without penalty? NO. I don't want 33 percent going to the military, can I withhold that 33 percent without penalty? NO.  We voted in representatives.  They represent us.  You are blaming them for voting the will of the people, and not your personal will.  That's not government's fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am contesting both DOMA and ACA as unconstitutional Sneekin
> It's against the Constitution and Code of Ethics for Govt Service to pass discriminatory laws that should have been caught and revised in the first place to represent ALL people's beliefs and NOT waste taxpayers resources fighting after the fact.
> 
> If your consent and beliefs were not violated you don't have to contest it.
> 
> But my beliefs ARE violated every time laws and ruling are passed involving beliefs where one side gets endorsed or excluded by the state in favor of the other belief.
> 
> Sneekin imagine if you are like me, and if the progay rights are violated OR if the antigay beliefs are violated then either way my beliefs in consensus on laws are violated. Imagine that with prolife and prochoice, that by my constitutional beliefs about political beliefs both sides have to agree to how laws are written and enforced in order to be fully constitutional by my beliefs.
> 
> Same with gun rights, and with every partisan election. My beliefs are constantly violated because the majority believes that political beliefs do have the right to impose on others through Govt while I believe in consent of the governed as the final check.
> 
> SO yes I do believe I have the right to ASK for correction and restitution. But by consent of the governed if people don't agree I can't force my political beliefs on anyone.
> 
> I can just ASK that they be respected.
> 
> Is that clear? Thanks !
Click to expand...

DOMA - already overturned.   ACA?  Found to be constitutional, by the SCOTUS.  The word marriage?  Accepted by all.  Your rights are not violated.   Rights aren't determined by majority rules - that's a "democracy".  The US is NOT a democracy.   You are not owed correction, and restitution?  That makes me laugh.  You can ask away.  Be prepared to be laughed out of every court room and legislature.  You seem to think we can rename previously defined verbiage, written into law, apparently by the wave of your magic wand.  You cannot vote any of my rights away.......  What if 95 percent of the population votes and says we don't have the right to bear arms.  Does that become law?  No, because it would be patently illegal.  It violates the SECOND amendment.  You don't get to vote to rename marriage simply because you don't like it.   Whatever you would substitute for the word marriage, would have to apply both religiously and secularly - a concept that's been told to you, yet you fail to understand.


----------



## Sneekin

Emily, please reference what rights of yours are violated - that is, NAME THE LAWS/AMENDMENTS that are being broken.  Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it violates your rights.   You have a lot to learn, if you still believe that.  Provide me the name of your attorney that's handling the case, what stage it's at in the legal system,  and if it's made it to SCOTUS yet.    You see,  you think you are having your rights violated, because you don't like the evil gays using the word marriage when they get married.  You think we need different terms for religious versus secular marriage, which of course, as you've been told numerous times, is not legal - that is, it violates the rights of everyone.  In fact, just about every one of your suggestions violates the constitutional rights of gays, blacks, hispanics, elderly, male/female, religious, atheist, etc.  You cannot ever please all of the people, all of the time.   The evil gays are going to have a valid MARRIAGE LICENSE issued by the State of Texas, just the same as the Fundamental Christians will have.  Now, if the Fundies want to give up all of their legal rights, and call it Holy Matrimony (source:  The Bible), have at it.  Just don't complain when the spouses and children lose all of their rights, including inheritance, insurance, rights of survivorship, retirement rights, etc (unless they want to shell out 5-10K to immortalize the 1138 rights  that people that are "civilly" married are entitled to.   I'm all for dropping them, if they want to.  But I hope they realize that their offspring won't have parents that are legally married - making the children.....offspring from an unmarried woman....Waiting patiently for your list of rights being violated.  DOMA/ACA have already been ruled on - one no longer exists, both have been upheld by SCOTUS........


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. This has been explained to you repeatedly and you just don't get it.
> 
> Seems you have nothing in terms of same-sex marriage being unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Dear Faun I don't know if you are living in a box or you just don't care or acknowledge the beliefs of others.
> Am I really the only person you know making these arguments:
> 1. about states rights
> 2. about civil unions instead of marriage through govt
> 3. about right to marriage being a political belief that not all people agree to apply to gay couples?
> 
> REALLY?
> 
> Maybe it's because I'm in Texas.
> And in Houston.
> 
> I have TONS of prolife Christian friends who do NOT believe abortion is a choice
> and do NOT believe in the govt endorsing gay marriage as natural.
> 
> I have stated these over and over.
> 
> If you are just citing the court case in Obergefell,
> well I know more people who contest that just like you would contest a court ruling endorsing slavery as legal property laws.
> 
> Sorry, but it's leaving out the consent and beliefs of other people in making that ruling.
> (the most I can interpret it to include the gist of it,
> is by religious freedom of course people have equal
> rights to marriage, and that's why it's not govt jurisidiction to decide)
> 
> You don't count the beliefs of these other people.
> It's not your fault, I think you truly do not see any violation occurring
> so you think it must be delusional.
> 
> It's the principle, that govt should not impose ANY beliefs about marriage
> that should remain the right of the people to CHOOSE.
> 
> The dissenters do NOT believe Govt has the authority to declare marriage
> rights beliefs or practices one way or another.
> 
> That's the issue.
> 
> I think it's so fundamental that you are missing it.
> You keep wanting to argue specific points,
> when it's the whole thing that is objected to.
> 
> Sorry if I cannot explain what each and every person is arguing
> who objects to this.
> 
> If you need to hear all the reasons and arguments (as each person
> says it differently) give me time and I will collect and list these for you.
> 
> In general they don't believe and don't consent.
> So I'm trying to find where they would agree.
> 
> Here is one way people are arguing Obergefell is unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary:
> Reclaiming the Rule of Law after Obergefell
> 
> And with the 4-5 decision, similar to the 4-5 ruling to approve ACA mandates
> also contested as unconstitutional,
> this seems to me to represent two sides of political beliefs,
> that are split fairly evenly, and just the majority BELIEF
> is being endorsed and enforced by govt. when both sides
> represent EQUAL BELIEFS, thus I would argue why not
> allow both choices, separate tracks and let people of
> BOTH beliefs each have their separate way to treat them equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?
> 
> That aside, you made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. That's complete nonsense and something no one is claiming.
> 
> Either quote the portion from the Obergefell decision which sites freedom of religion or admit you have no position to stand on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.
> 
> Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.
> 
> The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.
> 
> Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
> takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
> ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.
> 
> People generally don't see all the layers.
> It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
> I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
> in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.
> 
> then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.
> 
> With each person their points may be different!
> 
> So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
> doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.
> 
> By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
> But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
> And the process has involved these other areas that affect
> how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.
> 
> Thanks for your patience.
> This is not as easy as it looks to you.
> 
> If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
> instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
> this is a very necessary part of the process,
> to understand the layers of human perception
> that are part of the puzzle.
> 
> When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
> that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily
> 
> What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason
> 
> Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
> 
> PRECISELY rightwinger!
> 
> 2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
> 
> So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
> 
> BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
> 
> A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other.  To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision.  So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
Click to expand...

Your entire premise is flawed.  If your father doesn't like your husband, the Government most certainly DOES recognize the marriage.   No one cares what your father thinks - he's free to his opinion - but not free to violate the law.  What might help you grasp what everyone else here is talking about - read Loving V Virginia - here's a BRIEF summary:

In Loving v. Virginia, decided on June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down Virginia's law prohibiting interracial marriages as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Your opinions (I stress, you have OPINIONS only, not alterations needed to existing laws) are the same as tens of thousands of people in Virginia and throughout the south. Even though Loving was decided June 12, 1967, those same people still thought it was wrong, and didn't want to consider them married, nor allow them to get married if they could.  Guess what.....interracial marriage is alive and well, 49 1/2 years later.  Should we rename it to something other than marriage?  Why not?   The majority of Christians were against interracial marriage, and they would have liked it renamed.  Of course, almost 50 years later there remains only a hundred or less Christian sects that prohibit interracial marriage, and my kids and grand kids are always shocked and amazed how racist their ancestors (most of whom are still alive) could be.  My grandchildren are shocked that anyone would be against SSM.  They've gone to school with gay and trans kids literally all the way through,  K-12 - they are in their early and mid 20's.  We aren't talking arranged marriage, either.


----------



## Sbiker

Faun said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES I just pointed out the reasons.
> that it is discriminating against people of either belief
> to impose one way or another.
> 
> Whichever side of marriage laws govt takes, it leaves the other discriminated against.
> People on both sides feel the other creed is establishing a bias in law and govt
> unless all the related issues are resolved.
> 
> So it is in govt and public best interest either to require
> * consensus on laws including how they are written funded and enforced
> * or separation of policies such as by state or by party if needed to solve the conflicts.
> 
> Thanks Faun
> 
> 
> 
> As you've been told before, even though you can't understand it, same-sex marriage is not being imposed upon anyone who doesn't want it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered this before, several times.
> 
> I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"
> 
> If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
> then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."
> 
> Same principle. Faun
> 
> In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
> the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.
> 
> So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
> they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
> "if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."
> 
> Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
> And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
> Crosses
> Prayers
> God
> Jesus
> creation
> etc.
> from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
> and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
> and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.
> 
> Or that's discrimination by creed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed.   By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment.  I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs.  I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others.  Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh? Are gay folks not human? Do they not have the same rights as straight folks? And marriage is about many aspects, reproduction is but one. Not everyone who gets married has kids; yet they still have the right to get married. And many couples who do marry, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, raise families through adoption.
Click to expand...


Marriage - is not a rights. It's obligations. Spouses form a new society cell - and society gives them upkeep to do it. I mean not only reproduction, but education too. I know, some families don't have children and don't want to educate anyone, but why we have to add in this system families, known good as not able to educate children?

You speaking about rights of gays - did you remembered about rights of children? Without imposed homosexualism and without domestic sexual abuse?

Otherwise, what is the reason of official marriage, if you want to have a sex? "Because God forbid it?" So, God forbid an homosexualism too...


----------



## Sbiker

Sneekin said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES I just pointed out the reasons.
> that it is discriminating against people of either belief
> to impose one way or another.
> 
> Whichever side of marriage laws govt takes, it leaves the other discriminated against.
> People on both sides feel the other creed is establishing a bias in law and govt
> unless all the related issues are resolved.
> 
> So it is in govt and public best interest either to require
> * consensus on laws including how they are written funded and enforced
> * or separation of policies such as by state or by party if needed to solve the conflicts.
> 
> Thanks Faun
> 
> 
> 
> As you've been told before, even though you can't understand it, same-sex marriage is not being imposed upon anyone who doesn't want it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered this before, several times.
> 
> I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"
> 
> If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
> then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."
> 
> Same principle. Faun
> 
> In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
> the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.
> 
> So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
> they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
> "if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."
> 
> Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
> And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
> Crosses
> Prayers
> God
> Jesus
> creation
> etc.
> from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
> and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
> and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.
> 
> Or that's discrimination by creed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed.   By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment.  I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs.  I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others.  Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sbiker, first of all, note that they are civil rights, constitutional rights.  Next, sbiker, note that marriage most certainly is not a form of social agreement to make new members of society.   My father and stepmother entered into marriage after the death of my mother.  My stepmother was told by her doctor she would die if she became pregnant. When I entered the working world, I encountered literally thousands of people not wishing to have children - ever.    Using your logic, the elderly, infirm, and those not wanting children should not be permitted to get married.  This includes the millions of men and women with fertility problems.  Gay people have, and do have children.  Especially those in their 40's, 50's and beyond, who under societal pressure, married and had children.  They also adopt, they are now using surrogates at a higher percentage that heterosexuals.
> 
> It's not a form of deception.  It's a fact of life.  You cannot deny my child the right to get married if she's infertile, or if her spouse is infertile, or if they decide not to have children.  You cannot deny her the right to get married if she is gay, either.  Better get your facts straight.   Marriage is not about making more children.  Marriage is a civil contract between two people (not two and some expected offspring) who meet the criteria for marriage (age, familial relationship, etc) within the confines of law.  The state laws in some states were overturned because they violated the 14th amendment.  Now move on, sbiker, and do some research.   Also read all the posts - this was brought up early on, more than likely in the first 5-10 pages.
Click to expand...


I don't have competences in US laws and only discuss, how it can be historically or logically. What is the main purpose of marriage? You mean, it's a sort of achievement, you got once, place it into frame and hang to wall and proud?

Marriage - it's not a rights. It's an obligation. It's a sort of job - for the both spouses. It's a target of help from government and church - to upkeep education to new born members of society.

Look, if somebody wants to be woodcutter - he trains, buys a license and works as woodcutter. If he don't want - he don't do it. Common peolple, which cannot be woodcutter - don't need a fake license! Why do you think, gays need to have? Maybe, because you're still discriminating them in your mind???


----------



## Faun

Sbiker said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you've been told before, even though you can't understand it, same-sex marriage is not being imposed upon anyone who doesn't want it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered this before, several times.
> 
> I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"
> 
> If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
> then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."
> 
> Same principle. Faun
> 
> In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
> the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.
> 
> So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
> they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
> "if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."
> 
> Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
> And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
> Crosses
> Prayers
> God
> Jesus
> creation
> etc.
> from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
> and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
> and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.
> 
> Or that's discrimination by creed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed.   By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment.  I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs.  I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others.  Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh? Are gay folks not human? Do they not have the same rights as straight folks? And marriage is about many aspects, reproduction is but one. Not everyone who gets married has kids; yet they still have the right to get married. And many couples who do marry, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, raise families through adoption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage - is not a rights. It's obligations. Spouses form a new society cell - and society gives them upkeep to do it. I mean not only reproduction, but education too. I know, some families don't have children and don't want to educate anyone, but why we have to add in this system families, known good as not able to educate children?
> 
> You speaking about rights of gays - did you remembered about rights of children? Without imposed homosexualism and without domestic sexual abuse?
> 
> Otherwise, what is the reason of official marriage, if you want to have a sex? "Because God forbid it?" So, God forbid an homosexualism too...
Click to expand...

Of course marriage is a right. That's been reaffirmed no less than 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.

*Maynard v. Hill*, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”


*Meyer v. Nebraska*, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.


*Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson*, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”


*Griswold v. Connecticut*, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”


*Loving v. Virginia*, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”


*Boddie v. Connecticut*, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “Marriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”


*Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur*, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”


*Moore v. City of East Cleveland*, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”


*Carey v. Population Services International*, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”


*Zablocki v. Redhail*, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”


*Turner v. Safley*, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”


*Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey*, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”


*M.L.B. v. S.L.J.*, 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”


*Lawrence v. Texas*, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
... so marriage is most certainly a right -- and the courts (and many states) determined there are no compelling interests to deny folks equal protection under the law by restricting them access to the right to marry the person of their choice even if that other person happens to be of the same gender.

The bigger question is .... why on Earth would you seek to let the government take away rights from anybody?


----------



## Faun

Sbiker said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you've been told before, even though you can't understand it, same-sex marriage is not being imposed upon anyone who doesn't want it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered this before, several times.
> 
> I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"
> 
> If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
> then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."
> 
> Same principle. Faun
> 
> In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
> the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.
> 
> So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
> they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
> "if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."
> 
> Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
> And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
> Crosses
> Prayers
> God
> Jesus
> creation
> etc.
> from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
> and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
> and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.
> 
> Or that's discrimination by creed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed.   By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment.  I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs.  I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others.  Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sbiker, first of all, note that they are civil rights, constitutional rights.  Next, sbiker, note that marriage most certainly is not a form of social agreement to make new members of society.   My father and stepmother entered into marriage after the death of my mother.  My stepmother was told by her doctor she would die if she became pregnant. When I entered the working world, I encountered literally thousands of people not wishing to have children - ever.    Using your logic, the elderly, infirm, and those not wanting children should not be permitted to get married.  This includes the millions of men and women with fertility problems.  Gay people have, and do have children.  Especially those in their 40's, 50's and beyond, who under societal pressure, married and had children.  They also adopt, they are now using surrogates at a higher percentage that heterosexuals.
> 
> It's not a form of deception.  It's a fact of life.  You cannot deny my child the right to get married if she's infertile, or if her spouse is infertile, or if they decide not to have children.  You cannot deny her the right to get married if she is gay, either.  Better get your facts straight.   Marriage is not about making more children.  Marriage is a civil contract between two people (not two and some expected offspring) who meet the criteria for marriage (age, familial relationship, etc) within the confines of law.  The state laws in some states were overturned because they violated the 14th amendment.  Now move on, sbiker, and do some research.   Also read all the posts - this was brought up early on, more than likely in the first 5-10 pages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the main purpose of marriage?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.

Marriage is a right. People get married for all sorts of reasons. Whatever their reason is, is up to them, not you, not the state. The state can't prevent a couple who qualify for marriage from getting married because they can't, or won't, procreate.


----------



## Sbiker

Faun said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I answered this before, several times.
> 
> I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"
> 
> If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
> then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."
> 
> Same principle. Faun
> 
> In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
> the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.
> 
> So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
> they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
> "if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."
> 
> Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
> And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
> Crosses
> Prayers
> God
> Jesus
> creation
> etc.
> from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
> and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
> and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.
> 
> Or that's discrimination by creed.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed.   By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment.  I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs.  I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others.  Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sbiker, first of all, note that they are civil rights, constitutional rights.  Next, sbiker, note that marriage most certainly is not a form of social agreement to make new members of society.   My father and stepmother entered into marriage after the death of my mother.  My stepmother was told by her doctor she would die if she became pregnant. When I entered the working world, I encountered literally thousands of people not wishing to have children - ever.    Using your logic, the elderly, infirm, and those not wanting children should not be permitted to get married.  This includes the millions of men and women with fertility problems.  Gay people have, and do have children.  Especially those in their 40's, 50's and beyond, who under societal pressure, married and had children.  They also adopt, they are now using surrogates at a higher percentage that heterosexuals.
> 
> It's not a form of deception.  It's a fact of life.  You cannot deny my child the right to get married if she's infertile, or if her spouse is infertile, or if they decide not to have children.  You cannot deny her the right to get married if she is gay, either.  Better get your facts straight.   Marriage is not about making more children.  Marriage is a civil contract between two people (not two and some expected offspring) who meet the criteria for marriage (age, familial relationship, etc) within the confines of law.  The state laws in some states were overturned because they violated the 14th amendment.  Now move on, sbiker, and do some research.   Also read all the posts - this was brought up early on, more than likely in the first 5-10 pages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the main purpose of marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> Marriage is a right. People get married for all sorts of reasons. Whatever their reason is, is up to them, not you, not the state. The state can't prevent a couple who qualify for marriage from getting married because they can't, or won't, procreate.
Click to expand...


Hmm... You're, offcourse, right, if we discussing marriage as a preferable rights for spouses.

But rights of one people ends where the rights of another people starts... What about children? What about rights or every children to grow in normal, traditional family? Children - are either not a property of adults, not a mature members of society, who could completely understand own rights and psychologically able to defend them!


----------



## Sbiker

Faun said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I answered this before, several times.
> 
> I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"
> 
> If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
> then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."
> 
> Same principle. Faun
> 
> In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
> the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.
> 
> So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
> they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
> "if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."
> 
> Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
> And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
> Crosses
> Prayers
> God
> Jesus
> creation
> etc.
> from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
> and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
> and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.
> 
> Or that's discrimination by creed.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed.   By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment.  I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs.  I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others.  Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh? Are gay folks not human? Do they not have the same rights as straight folks? And marriage is about many aspects, reproduction is but one. Not everyone who gets married has kids; yet they still have the right to get married. And many couples who do marry, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, raise families through adoption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage - is not a rights. It's obligations. Spouses form a new society cell - and society gives them upkeep to do it. I mean not only reproduction, but education too. I know, some families don't have children and don't want to educate anyone, but why we have to add in this system families, known good as not able to educate children?
> 
> You speaking about rights of gays - did you remembered about rights of children? Without imposed homosexualism and without domestic sexual abuse?
> 
> Otherwise, what is the reason of official marriage, if you want to have a sex? "Because God forbid it?" So, God forbid an homosexualism too...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course marriage is a right. That's been reaffirmed no less than 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.
> 
> *Maynard v. Hill*, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
> 
> 
> *Meyer v. Nebraska*, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
> 
> 
> *Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson*, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
> 
> 
> *Griswold v. Connecticut*, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
> 
> 
> *Loving v. Virginia*, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
> 
> 
> *Boddie v. Connecticut*, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “Marriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
> 
> 
> *Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur*, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
> 
> 
> *Moore v. City of East Cleveland*, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
> 
> 
> *Carey v. Population Services International*, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
> 
> 
> *Zablocki v. Redhail*, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
> 
> 
> *Turner v. Safley*, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
> 
> 
> *Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey*, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
> 
> 
> *M.L.B. v. S.L.J.*, 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
> 
> 
> *Lawrence v. Texas*, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
> ... so marriage is most certainly a right -- and the courts (and many states) determined there are no compelling interests to deny folks equal protection under the law by restricting them access to the right to marry the person of their choice even if that other person happens to be of the same gender.
> 
> The bigger question is .... why on Earth would you seek to let the government take away rights from anybody?
Click to expand...


Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?

Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...


----------



## Faun

Sbiker said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed.   By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment.  I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs.  I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others.  Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sbiker, first of all, note that they are civil rights, constitutional rights.  Next, sbiker, note that marriage most certainly is not a form of social agreement to make new members of society.   My father and stepmother entered into marriage after the death of my mother.  My stepmother was told by her doctor she would die if she became pregnant. When I entered the working world, I encountered literally thousands of people not wishing to have children - ever.    Using your logic, the elderly, infirm, and those not wanting children should not be permitted to get married.  This includes the millions of men and women with fertility problems.  Gay people have, and do have children.  Especially those in their 40's, 50's and beyond, who under societal pressure, married and had children.  They also adopt, they are now using surrogates at a higher percentage that heterosexuals.
> 
> It's not a form of deception.  It's a fact of life.  You cannot deny my child the right to get married if she's infertile, or if her spouse is infertile, or if they decide not to have children.  You cannot deny her the right to get married if she is gay, either.  Better get your facts straight.   Marriage is not about making more children.  Marriage is a civil contract between two people (not two and some expected offspring) who meet the criteria for marriage (age, familial relationship, etc) within the confines of law.  The state laws in some states were overturned because they violated the 14th amendment.  Now move on, sbiker, and do some research.   Also read all the posts - this was brought up early on, more than likely in the first 5-10 pages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the main purpose of marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> Marriage is a right. People get married for all sorts of reasons. Whatever their reason is, is up to them, not you, not the state. The state can't prevent a couple who qualify for marriage from getting married because they can't, or won't, procreate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm... You're, offcourse, right, if we discussing marriage as a preferable rights for spouses.
> 
> But rights of one people ends where the rights of another people starts... What about children? What about rights or every children to grow in normal, traditional family? Children - are either not a property of adults, not a mature members of society, who could completely understand own rights and psychologically able to defend them!
Click to expand...

There's nothing else but marriage in this discussion. There is unquestionably a right to marry.

And the courts, and most states, have determined there no compelling interests in denying gay folks that fundamental right to marry the person of their choice.


----------



## Faun

Sbiker said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed.   By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment.  I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs.  I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others.  Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh? Are gay folks not human? Do they not have the same rights as straight folks? And marriage is about many aspects, reproduction is but one. Not everyone who gets married has kids; yet they still have the right to get married. And many couples who do marry, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, raise families through adoption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage - is not a rights. It's obligations. Spouses form a new society cell - and society gives them upkeep to do it. I mean not only reproduction, but education too. I know, some families don't have children and don't want to educate anyone, but why we have to add in this system families, known good as not able to educate children?
> 
> You speaking about rights of gays - did you remembered about rights of children? Without imposed homosexualism and without domestic sexual abuse?
> 
> Otherwise, what is the reason of official marriage, if you want to have a sex? "Because God forbid it?" So, God forbid an homosexualism too...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course marriage is a right. That's been reaffirmed no less than 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.
> 
> *Maynard v. Hill*, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
> 
> 
> *Meyer v. Nebraska*, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
> 
> 
> *Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson*, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
> 
> 
> *Griswold v. Connecticut*, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
> 
> 
> *Loving v. Virginia*, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
> 
> 
> *Boddie v. Connecticut*, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “Marriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
> 
> 
> *Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur*, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
> 
> 
> *Moore v. City of East Cleveland*, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
> 
> 
> *Carey v. Population Services International*, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
> 
> 
> *Zablocki v. Redhail*, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
> 
> 
> *Turner v. Safley*, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
> 
> 
> *Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey*, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
> 
> 
> *M.L.B. v. S.L.J.*, 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
> 
> 
> *Lawrence v. Texas*, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
> ... so marriage is most certainly a right -- and the courts (and many states) determined there are no compelling interests to deny folks equal protection under the law by restricting them access to the right to marry the person of their choice even if that other person happens to be of the same gender.
> 
> The bigger question is .... why on Earth would you seek to let the government take away rights from anybody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
> On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?
> 
> Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...
Click to expand...

No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.


----------



## Sbiker

Faun said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? Are gay folks not human? Do they not have the same rights as straight folks? And marriage is about many aspects, reproduction is but one. Not everyone who gets married has kids; yet they still have the right to get married. And many couples who do marry, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, raise families through adoption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage - is not a rights. It's obligations. Spouses form a new society cell - and society gives them upkeep to do it. I mean not only reproduction, but education too. I know, some families don't have children and don't want to educate anyone, but why we have to add in this system families, known good as not able to educate children?
> 
> You speaking about rights of gays - did you remembered about rights of children? Without imposed homosexualism and without domestic sexual abuse?
> 
> Otherwise, what is the reason of official marriage, if you want to have a sex? "Because God forbid it?" So, God forbid an homosexualism too...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course marriage is a right. That's been reaffirmed no less than 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.
> 
> *Maynard v. Hill*, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
> 
> 
> *Meyer v. Nebraska*, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
> 
> 
> *Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson*, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
> 
> 
> *Griswold v. Connecticut*, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
> 
> 
> *Loving v. Virginia*, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
> 
> 
> *Boddie v. Connecticut*, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “Marriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
> 
> 
> *Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur*, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
> 
> 
> *Moore v. City of East Cleveland*, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
> 
> 
> *Carey v. Population Services International*, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
> 
> 
> *Zablocki v. Redhail*, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
> 
> 
> *Turner v. Safley*, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
> 
> 
> *Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey*, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
> 
> 
> *M.L.B. v. S.L.J.*, 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
> 
> 
> *Lawrence v. Texas*, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
> ... so marriage is most certainly a right -- and the courts (and many states) determined there are no compelling interests to deny folks equal protection under the law by restricting them access to the right to marry the person of their choice even if that other person happens to be of the same gender.
> 
> The bigger question is .... why on Earth would you seek to let the government take away rights from anybody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
> On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?
> 
> Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.
Click to expand...


Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...


----------



## Faun

Sbiker said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? Are gay folks not human? Do they not have the same rights as straight folks? And marriage is about many aspects, reproduction is but one. Not everyone who gets married has kids; yet they still have the right to get married. And many couples who do marry, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, raise families through adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage - is not a rights. It's obligations. Spouses form a new society cell - and society gives them upkeep to do it. I mean not only reproduction, but education too. I know, some families don't have children and don't want to educate anyone, but why we have to add in this system families, known good as not able to educate children?
> 
> You speaking about rights of gays - did you remembered about rights of children? Without imposed homosexualism and without domestic sexual abuse?
> 
> Otherwise, what is the reason of official marriage, if you want to have a sex? "Because God forbid it?" So, God forbid an homosexualism too...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course marriage is a right. That's been reaffirmed no less than 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.
> 
> *Maynard v. Hill*, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
> 
> 
> *Meyer v. Nebraska*, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
> 
> 
> *Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson*, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
> 
> 
> *Griswold v. Connecticut*, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
> 
> 
> *Loving v. Virginia*, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
> 
> 
> *Boddie v. Connecticut*, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “Marriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
> 
> 
> *Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur*, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
> 
> 
> *Moore v. City of East Cleveland*, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
> 
> 
> *Carey v. Population Services International*, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
> 
> 
> *Zablocki v. Redhail*, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
> 
> 
> *Turner v. Safley*, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
> 
> 
> *Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey*, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
> 
> 
> *M.L.B. v. S.L.J.*, 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
> 
> 
> *Lawrence v. Texas*, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
> ... so marriage is most certainly a right -- and the courts (and many states) determined there are no compelling interests to deny folks equal protection under the law by restricting them access to the right to marry the person of their choice even if that other person happens to be of the same gender.
> 
> The bigger question is .... why on Earth would you seek to let the government take away rights from anybody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
> On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?
> 
> Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if they think that. Their beliefs do not get to infringe upon the rights of others.

If they did, Americans wouldn't be allowed to eat pork as some religious folks find that offensive. They wouldn't be allowed to eat beef because some religious folks find that offensive. The list of rights we would lose would be endless.

As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.


----------



## Sbiker

Faun said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage - is not a rights. It's obligations. Spouses form a new society cell - and society gives them upkeep to do it. I mean not only reproduction, but education too. I know, some families don't have children and don't want to educate anyone, but why we have to add in this system families, known good as not able to educate children?
> 
> You speaking about rights of gays - did you remembered about rights of children? Without imposed homosexualism and without domestic sexual abuse?
> 
> Otherwise, what is the reason of official marriage, if you want to have a sex? "Because God forbid it?" So, God forbid an homosexualism too...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course marriage is a right. That's been reaffirmed no less than 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.
> 
> *Maynard v. Hill*, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
> 
> 
> *Meyer v. Nebraska*, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
> 
> 
> *Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson*, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
> 
> 
> *Griswold v. Connecticut*, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
> 
> 
> *Loving v. Virginia*, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
> 
> 
> *Boddie v. Connecticut*, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “Marriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
> 
> 
> *Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur*, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
> 
> 
> *Moore v. City of East Cleveland*, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
> 
> 
> *Carey v. Population Services International*, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
> 
> 
> *Zablocki v. Redhail*, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
> 
> 
> *Turner v. Safley*, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
> 
> 
> *Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey*, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
> 
> 
> *M.L.B. v. S.L.J.*, 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
> 
> 
> *Lawrence v. Texas*, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
> ... so marriage is most certainly a right -- and the courts (and many states) determined there are no compelling interests to deny folks equal protection under the law by restricting them access to the right to marry the person of their choice even if that other person happens to be of the same gender.
> 
> The bigger question is .... why on Earth would you seek to let the government take away rights from anybody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
> On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?
> 
> Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter if they think that. Their beliefs do not get to infringe upon the rights of others.
> 
> As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.
Click to expand...


If gays THINK they need a marriage like an achievement - let them to have it. If christians THINK they need a marriage as a Church ritual - ignore them... WHY? Do you really have much more gays in US than christians? Or, in fact, rights of gays are much more preferrable, than others?



> If they did, Americans wouldn't be allowed to eat pork as some religious folks find that offensive. They wouldn't be allowed to eat beef because some religious folks find that offensive. The list of rights we would lose would be endless.



Let's to continue this logic. Christianity forbids to murder of people, woodoo and vakhabism - allow. Let's make murdering legal. Do you still have any questions to 9/11?



> As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.



I don't even dispute the right of gays to invent own type of "marriage" and name it according in their traditions... But taking word "MARRIAGE" from christian tradition to pervert it publically - it's and act of aggression. Your example about pork is very good. While christians are "eating pork", gays are pulling out the piece of pork from their hands and publically using it as a toilet paper. But everyone, not only gays, must have a rights to eat own pork!


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> That this belief can be practiced under free exercise of religion,
> which govt can neither prohibit or establish, without endorsing it through govt laws that everyone is under (except as written and enforced by consent of the people where beliefs are involved)
> 
> So if either side believes a law isn't neutral enough but is biased one way or another,
> that is grounds for revising it until it is neutral enough to represent the public.
> 
> Faun
> 
> 
> 
> No one made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. This has been explained to you repeatedly and you just don't get it.
> 
> Seems you have nothing in terms of same-sex marriage being unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Dear Faun I don't know if you are living in a box or you just don't care or acknowledge the beliefs of others.
> Am I really the only person you know making these arguments:
> 1. about states rights
> 2. about civil unions instead of marriage through govt
> 3. about right to marriage being a political belief that not all people agree to apply to gay couples?
> 
> REALLY?
> 
> Maybe it's because I'm in Texas.
> And in Houston.
> 
> I have TONS of prolife Christian friends who do NOT believe abortion is a choice
> and do NOT believe in the govt endorsing gay marriage as natural.
> 
> I have stated these over and over.
> 
> If you are just citing the court case in Obergefell,
> well I know more people who contest that just like you would contest a court ruling endorsing slavery as legal property laws.
> 
> Sorry, but it's leaving out the consent and beliefs of other people in making that ruling.
> (the most I can interpret it to include the gist of it,
> is by religious freedom of course people have equal
> rights to marriage, and that's why it's not govt jurisidiction to decide)
> 
> You don't count the beliefs of these other people.
> It's not your fault, I think you truly do not see any violation occurring
> so you think it must be delusional.
> 
> It's the principle, that govt should not impose ANY beliefs about marriage
> that should remain the right of the people to CHOOSE.
> 
> The dissenters do NOT believe Govt has the authority to declare marriage
> rights beliefs or practices one way or another.
> 
> That's the issue.
> 
> I think it's so fundamental that you are missing it.
> You keep wanting to argue specific points,
> when it's the whole thing that is objected to.
> 
> Sorry if I cannot explain what each and every person is arguing
> who objects to this.
> 
> If you need to hear all the reasons and arguments (as each person
> says it differently) give me time and I will collect and list these for you.
> 
> In general they don't believe and don't consent.
> So I'm trying to find where they would agree.
> 
> Here is one way people are arguing Obergefell is unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary:
> Reclaiming the Rule of Law after Obergefell
> 
> And with the 4-5 decision, similar to the 4-5 ruling to approve ACA mandates
> also contested as unconstitutional,
> this seems to me to represent two sides of political beliefs,
> that are split fairly evenly, and just the majority BELIEF
> is being endorsed and enforced by govt. when both sides
> represent EQUAL BELIEFS, thus I would argue why not
> allow both choices, separate tracks and let people of
> BOTH beliefs each have their separate way to treat them equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?
> 
> That aside, you made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. That's complete nonsense and something no one is claiming.
> 
> Either quote the portion from the Obergefell decision which sites freedom of religion or admit you have no position to stand on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.
> 
> Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.
> 
> The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.
> 
> Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
> takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
> ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.
> 
> People generally don't see all the layers.
> It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
> I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
> in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.
> 
> then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.
> 
> With each person their points may be different!
> 
> So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
> doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.
> 
> By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
> But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
> And the process has involved these other areas that affect
> how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.
> 
> Thanks for your patience.
> This is not as easy as it looks to you.
> 
> If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
> instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
> this is a very necessary part of the process,
> to understand the layers of human perception
> that are part of the puzzle.
> 
> When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
> that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care what the reasons of objection are -- you said same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion.
> 
> You can't back that nonsense up and it's the foundation of your argument.
> 
> You're done.
Click to expand...

???

Faun 
It backs itself up!
Once you apply religious freedom to your INALIENABLE belief in your right to marry whoever you want,
Then you DON'T NEED to "justify" your beliefs because your free exercise of those beliefs is INALIENABLE.

Do you understand INALIENABLE Faun

If your rights and beliefs depend on courts or govt before you can have them, then they aren't INALIENABLE

Im saying you don't need to and never had to justify your beliefs in right to marry.

So if you are the one disparaging your own rights, and insisting they depend on govt, or insisting your beliefs depend on "justifying" them, why are you blaming me for that? I said a Muslim does NOT need to justify beliefs about pork, nor an atheist need to justify beliefs about God or crosses or lack of belief, and people who do or do not believe in gay marriage don't have to justify that either because both are entitled to their BELIEFS and these are inalienable.

Sorry you believe you have to depend on govt for your rights. I think they are natural and free exercise of religion, beliefs, will and choice covers your right to marry already. Nobody can stop anyone from setting up a ceremony and getting married unless you do it in such a way that imposes or forces other people to be responsible who aren't required to believe endorse or participate in your ceremony if they don't want to.
Just like any other cultural or religious tradition, these remain voluntary choice and can't be forced on people by law.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I answered that already rightwinger
> each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
> civil marriage, civil unions.
> 
> And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
> If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.
> 
> What part of my answer did you not get
> and I will explain it again.
> 
> I answered two different ways
> 1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
> 2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
> that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
> it can be national without going through state or federal govt
> 
> There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
> nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.
> 
> 
> 
> You did forget one fact.  The FEDERAL GoVERNMENT rolls up each of the 50 states and they are honored between each of the states.   Civil Union is still illegal, you've been told at least 20 plus times.  You cannot rename it for a class of people.  You also can't manage social benefits by party, illegal as well. WHY can't you grasp that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not saying only use it for a class of people. I am saying use NEUTRAL terms for EVERYONE.
> 
> In other words for each state
> * if states use the term marriage then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil marriage then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term domestic partnership then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil contracts then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil unions then EVERYONE can get that
> 
> Whatever term states use is for ALL people inclusively or else NOBODY gets that at all.
> 
> I think Faun understands I am saying don't use the term marriage for ANYBODY if it can't be used for EVERYONE.
> 
> If people can't agree to terms of marriage for everyone then the state can't make those laws and force them on anyone using those terms.
> 
> If states agree that EVERYONE gets civil marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever TERM that state agrees on, then that is neutral because everyone gets the same and nobody gets anything different from the state.
> 
> Sneekin if you are just caught up in what civil unions meant in the past I'm talking about the present and future not the past:  if people in a state do not believe in states endorsing gay or same sex "marriages" they can be offered the choice either make ALL marriages open to ALL couples or make ALL couples only get civil unions from the states or domestic partnerships or whatever people of that state agree to call the licensing.
> 
> That way EVERYONE is treated the same such as by only getting civil contracts through the state and getting marriages through whatever traditions they believe in addition to the neutral licensing through the state.
> 
> Sneekin that's fine if you want more, if you live in a state that agrees to recognize marriage for all people as endorsed and licensed through the state Great! I'm all for that if people of that state agree.
> 
> But if they don't agree on terms unless a different set up is used, as long as EVERYONE is subject to the same and NOBODY gets more or less through the state, then at least that is equal.
> 
> I'm sorry this isn't clear Sneekin
> I don't know why it is not possible for ALL couples to get civil unions if that state cannot agree on terms of marriage.
> 
> But if you have such conditions attached to the term civil union that it isn't a legal choice, that's how some people believe about marriage too !
> 
> So if you are saying no way can ALL people get civil unions but NO people should, then the same is true for marriage where either ALL people get to marry through the state or NO people should.
> 
> Just treat all people the SAME, either ALL or NONE, and that is fair to all people. Each state decides what terms it's citizens agree applies to ALL people with no exceptions and that's neutral law!
> 
> And yes, it's totally fine if all people in a state agree to majority rule passing marriage for all people!  But just like rules on references to religion, God. Cteation, prayer etc in schools it has to be by consent of the people where it is NOT the govt endorsing any beliefs the public doesn't agree the state should endorse. Keeping it neutral is one thing, but language endorsing one belief or another can still be struck down as biased.
> 
> Thanks and sorry if this wasn't clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's already a word for it...
> 
> *Marriage*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Faun that would be simple.
> And so would declaring the Democratic platform
> and beliefs about right to health care and right to marriage a
> POLITICAL RELIGION
> and be done with it.
> 
> We could AGREE to list out the political beliefs
> that each person or group holds sacred,
> agree to respect these as inviolate for those people
> and requiring consent of the governed and consensus
> on laws and reforms on any of these areas,
> and stop the fighting over forcing one g roup's
> beliefs over another's by domination or coecion.
> 
> I WISH it were that simple Faun I do!
> 
> But people like you see your stances as RIGHTS and not BELIEFS.
> and so do the right to life,
> and so do the right to choose
> and so do the right to guns advocates.
> 
> So it goes in circles, each combating the sacred
> cows that the other group draws a line in a sand for
> and refuses to let govt cross that line.
> 
> We all have our beliefs, and until we agree
> to treat them the same, we keep competing and
> repeating the same patterns over and over,
> taking turns trying to run over the other or
> run them out of govt. But that doesn't make
> that person's beliefs or rights 'go away" it just
> makes them come back and try to defend them
> again, back and forth.
> 
> Why don't we admit we have these sacred
> rights and beliefs, and agree not to disparage them???
> 
> Seems simple to me Faun but
> as you can see, it isn't easy to see when
> it's YOUR beliefs that you are defending as rights.
> When other people do that to you or me and take
> something that isn't our beliefs and shove it in our
> faces as law, then we can see that it should be a choice
> and not forced by law. But not when
> the shoe is on the other foot. Both sides are like that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is that simple. No one has to abandon marriage in America because some people oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage is here to stay and it now includes marriage between couples of the same sex.
Click to expand...

Consensus on marriage might be reached if hypocrites like you admit you don't tolerate Christian practices in public as you are demanding people tolerate LGBT beliefs expressions and practices in public policy!

If you want equal rights and respect Faun that means to respect the same of others but you DONT. You insist that people's beliefs opposed to gay marriage, which cause them to reject "marriage" applied to gay couples, are due to some delusion or other deficiency. Thus Faun you are discriminating against the beliefs of others as inferior yet demanding equality for LGBT beliefs which is contradictory. You think you are not discriminating or excluding others but you keep putting them down as wrong instead of treating and respecting the beliefs as equal as I am trying to do.

And then you put me down also for trying to find ways to include all beliefs in a consensus on laws.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Dear Faun I don't know if you are living in a box or you just don't care or acknowledge the beliefs of others.
> Am I really the only person you know making these arguments:
> 1. about states rights
> 2. about civil unions instead of marriage through govt
> 3. about right to marriage being a political belief that not all people agree to apply to gay couples?
> 
> REALLY?
> 
> Maybe it's because I'm in Texas.
> And in Houston.
> 
> I have TONS of prolife Christian friends who do NOT believe abortion is a choice
> and do NOT believe in the govt endorsing gay marriage as natural.
> 
> I have stated these over and over.
> 
> If you are just citing the court case in Obergefell,
> well I know more people who contest that just like you would contest a court ruling endorsing slavery as legal property laws.
> 
> Sorry, but it's leaving out the consent and beliefs of other people in making that ruling.
> (the most I can interpret it to include the gist of it,
> is by religious freedom of course people have equal
> rights to marriage, and that's why it's not govt jurisidiction to decide)
> 
> You don't count the beliefs of these other people.
> It's not your fault, I think you truly do not see any violation occurring
> so you think it must be delusional.
> 
> It's the principle, that govt should not impose ANY beliefs about marriage
> that should remain the right of the people to CHOOSE.
> 
> The dissenters do NOT believe Govt has the authority to declare marriage
> rights beliefs or practices one way or another.
> 
> That's the issue.
> 
> I think it's so fundamental that you are missing it.
> You keep wanting to argue specific points,
> when it's the whole thing that is objected to.
> 
> Sorry if I cannot explain what each and every person is arguing
> who objects to this.
> 
> If you need to hear all the reasons and arguments (as each person
> says it differently) give me time and I will collect and list these for you.
> 
> In general they don't believe and don't consent.
> So I'm trying to find where they would agree.
> 
> Here is one way people are arguing Obergefell is unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary:
> Reclaiming the Rule of Law after Obergefell
> 
> And with the 4-5 decision, similar to the 4-5 ruling to approve ACA mandates
> also contested as unconstitutional,
> this seems to me to represent two sides of political beliefs,
> that are split fairly evenly, and just the majority BELIEF
> is being endorsed and enforced by govt. when both sides
> represent EQUAL BELIEFS, thus I would argue why not
> allow both choices, separate tracks and let people of
> BOTH beliefs each have their separate way to treat them equally.
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?
> 
> That aside, you made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. That's complete nonsense and something no one is claiming.
> 
> Either quote the portion from the Obergefell decision which sites freedom of religion or admit you have no position to stand on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.
> 
> Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.
> 
> The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.
> 
> Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
> takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
> ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.
> 
> People generally don't see all the layers.
> It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
> I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
> in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.
> 
> then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.
> 
> With each person their points may be different!
> 
> So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
> doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.
> 
> By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
> But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
> And the process has involved these other areas that affect
> how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.
> 
> Thanks for your patience.
> This is not as easy as it looks to you.
> 
> If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
> instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
> this is a very necessary part of the process,
> to understand the layers of human perception
> that are part of the puzzle.
> 
> When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
> that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily
> 
> What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason
> 
> Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
> 
> PRECISELY rightwinger!
> 
> 2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
> 
> So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
> 
> BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
> 
> A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other.  To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision.  So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your entire premise is flawed.  If your father doesn't like your husband, the Government most certainly DOES recognize the marriage.   No one cares what your father thinks - he's free to his opinion - but not free to violate the law.  What might help you grasp what everyone else here is talking about - read Loving V Virginia - here's a BRIEF summary:
> 
> In Loving v. Virginia, decided on June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down Virginia's law prohibiting interracial marriages as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your opinions (I stress, you have OPINIONS only, not alterations needed to existing laws) are the same as tens of thousands of people in Virginia and throughout the south. Even though Loving was decided June 12, 1967, those same people still thought it was wrong, and didn't want to consider them married, nor allow them to get married if they could.  Guess what.....interracial marriage is alive and well, 49 1/2 years later.  Should we rename it to something other than marriage?  Why not?   The majority of Christians were against interracial marriage, and they would have liked it renamed.  Of course, almost 50 years later there remains only a hundred or less Christian sects that prohibit interracial marriage, and my kids and grand kids are always shocked and amazed how racist their ancestors (most of whom are still alive) could be.  My grandchildren are shocked that anyone would be against SSM.  They've gone to school with gay and trans kids literally all the way through,  K-12 - they are in their early and mid 20's.  We aren't talking arranged marriage, either.
Click to expand...

Dear Sneekin 
We are essentially saying the same thing
The govt recognizes the civil contracts and this is separate from any personal feelings or faith toward social relationships people aren't required by govt to recognize.

The part we're getting stuck on is how do states write and pass laws that distinguish the secular civil contracts that govt licenses vs the social and spiritual relations that remain private free choice.

You are saying my way of using secular civil terms for govt to use doesn't work.

I'm saying trying to attach and tie in the social relations to civil contracts is causing conflict so that should be removed.

If this can still be separated while using the term civil marriage, that's perfect.
But from what I've seen it isn't working either.

I guess we all need "marriage counseling"  to get the terms on the same page  so we don't keep arguing over who said what, who meant what, and why did you say it that way if you really meant something else. Etc.

But I will tell you this and same with the ACA mandates that need to be optional, if these unconstitutional laws aren't either fixed or acknowledged as imposing faith based political beliefs,
I will repeat my threat to go on hunger strike. Other people may find this tolerable to force laws one way, then challenge and fight after the fact, as part of the political process, but I find it can be smoother and more cost effective to resolve conflicts in advance before passing laws the First time!

Since I have no money to sue to publicize my petition that way, I have offered to either go on hunger strike to demand recognition for equal political beliefs and/or do an online fundraising campaign to bribe me not to go on strike but put the funds directly toward legal mediation to revise laws by consensus so the issues are resolved. 

Either way the point is to publicize and teach the importance of recognizing that people's political beliefs are inalienable to them. And it wastes public resources to fight against each other when we could be investing that energy in agreed solutions if we set that as the standard to begin with.

Sneekin because vast resources were spent to push and pass DONT as well as to fight to strike it down, those resources could have been spent solving instead of creating more conflicts to solve. Just settling it does not refund taxpayers for the costs that distract from other reforms we could have pursued with that same time and energy. So that's what I want to argue for, how mediation would save time and trouble as well as build relationships instead of dividing them!

And if you think ACA is settled we must live in different relatives or on different planets. I'm from Texas where all this federal intrusion was taken as an invitation to secede to get away from what is still seen as overreaching of federal govt into states rights.

Maybe I'm top Texan for you but I still see this as unconstitutional and unethical. Yes I totally agree to challenge it and demand reimbursement to taxpayers of trillions spent on ACA payouts to insurance interests I believe Obama and Democrats who voted OWE and should raise or collect and pay back Themselves to set up single payer systems for their constituents they promised this to in fulfilling their advertised belief in health care as a right,  or those Democrats are guilty of fraud and misrepresentation !

I totally commit to petitioning or suing for reimbursement of taxpayers money that went into funding the political belief that health care is a right.


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. This has been explained to you repeatedly and you just don't get it.
> 
> Seems you have nothing in terms of same-sex marriage being unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Dear Faun I don't know if you are living in a box or you just don't care or acknowledge the beliefs of others.
> Am I really the only person you know making these arguments:
> 1. about states rights
> 2. about civil unions instead of marriage through govt
> 3. about right to marriage being a political belief that not all people agree to apply to gay couples?
> 
> REALLY?
> 
> Maybe it's because I'm in Texas.
> And in Houston.
> 
> I have TONS of prolife Christian friends who do NOT believe abortion is a choice
> and do NOT believe in the govt endorsing gay marriage as natural.
> 
> I have stated these over and over.
> 
> If you are just citing the court case in Obergefell,
> well I know more people who contest that just like you would contest a court ruling endorsing slavery as legal property laws.
> 
> Sorry, but it's leaving out the consent and beliefs of other people in making that ruling.
> (the most I can interpret it to include the gist of it,
> is by religious freedom of course people have equal
> rights to marriage, and that's why it's not govt jurisidiction to decide)
> 
> You don't count the beliefs of these other people.
> It's not your fault, I think you truly do not see any violation occurring
> so you think it must be delusional.
> 
> It's the principle, that govt should not impose ANY beliefs about marriage
> that should remain the right of the people to CHOOSE.
> 
> The dissenters do NOT believe Govt has the authority to declare marriage
> rights beliefs or practices one way or another.
> 
> That's the issue.
> 
> I think it's so fundamental that you are missing it.
> You keep wanting to argue specific points,
> when it's the whole thing that is objected to.
> 
> Sorry if I cannot explain what each and every person is arguing
> who objects to this.
> 
> If you need to hear all the reasons and arguments (as each person
> says it differently) give me time and I will collect and list these for you.
> 
> In general they don't believe and don't consent.
> So I'm trying to find where they would agree.
> 
> Here is one way people are arguing Obergefell is unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary:
> Reclaiming the Rule of Law after Obergefell
> 
> And with the 4-5 decision, similar to the 4-5 ruling to approve ACA mandates
> also contested as unconstitutional,
> this seems to me to represent two sides of political beliefs,
> that are split fairly evenly, and just the majority BELIEF
> is being endorsed and enforced by govt. when both sides
> represent EQUAL BELIEFS, thus I would argue why not
> allow both choices, separate tracks and let people of
> BOTH beliefs each have their separate way to treat them equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?
> 
> That aside, you made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. That's complete nonsense and something no one is claiming.
> 
> Either quote the portion from the Obergefell decision which sites freedom of religion or admit you have no position to stand on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.
> 
> Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.
> 
> The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.
> 
> Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
> takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
> ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.
> 
> People generally don't see all the layers.
> It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
> I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
> in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.
> 
> then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.
> 
> With each person their points may be different!
> 
> So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
> doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.
> 
> By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
> But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
> And the process has involved these other areas that affect
> how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.
> 
> Thanks for your patience.
> This is not as easy as it looks to you.
> 
> If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
> instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
> this is a very necessary part of the process,
> to understand the layers of human perception
> that are part of the puzzle.
> 
> When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
> that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily
> 
> What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason
> 
> Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
> 
> PRECISELY rightwinger!
> 
> 2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
> 
> So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
> 
> BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
> 
> A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other.  To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision.  So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
Click to expand...


_BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy._

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper

It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Dear Faun I don't know if you are living in a box or you just don't care or acknowledge the beliefs of others.
> Am I really the only person you know making these arguments:
> 1. about states rights
> 2. about civil unions instead of marriage through govt
> 3. about right to marriage being a political belief that not all people agree to apply to gay couples?
> 
> REALLY?
> 
> Maybe it's because I'm in Texas.
> And in Houston.
> 
> I have TONS of prolife Christian friends who do NOT believe abortion is a choice
> and do NOT believe in the govt endorsing gay marriage as natural.
> 
> I have stated these over and over.
> 
> If you are just citing the court case in Obergefell,
> well I know more people who contest that just like you would contest a court ruling endorsing slavery as legal property laws.
> 
> Sorry, but it's leaving out the consent and beliefs of other people in making that ruling.
> (the most I can interpret it to include the gist of it,
> is by religious freedom of course people have equal
> rights to marriage, and that's why it's not govt jurisidiction to decide)
> 
> You don't count the beliefs of these other people.
> It's not your fault, I think you truly do not see any violation occurring
> so you think it must be delusional.
> 
> It's the principle, that govt should not impose ANY beliefs about marriage
> that should remain the right of the people to CHOOSE.
> 
> The dissenters do NOT believe Govt has the authority to declare marriage
> rights beliefs or practices one way or another.
> 
> That's the issue.
> 
> I think it's so fundamental that you are missing it.
> You keep wanting to argue specific points,
> when it's the whole thing that is objected to.
> 
> Sorry if I cannot explain what each and every person is arguing
> who objects to this.
> 
> If you need to hear all the reasons and arguments (as each person
> says it differently) give me time and I will collect and list these for you.
> 
> In general they don't believe and don't consent.
> So I'm trying to find where they would agree.
> 
> Here is one way people are arguing Obergefell is unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary:
> Reclaiming the Rule of Law after Obergefell
> 
> And with the 4-5 decision, similar to the 4-5 ruling to approve ACA mandates
> also contested as unconstitutional,
> this seems to me to represent two sides of political beliefs,
> that are split fairly evenly, and just the majority BELIEF
> is being endorsed and enforced by govt. when both sides
> represent EQUAL BELIEFS, thus I would argue why not
> allow both choices, separate tracks and let people of
> BOTH beliefs each have their separate way to treat them equally.
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?
> 
> That aside, you made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. That's complete nonsense and something no one is claiming.
> 
> Either quote the portion from the Obergefell decision which sites freedom of religion or admit you have no position to stand on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.
> 
> Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.
> 
> The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.
> 
> Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
> takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
> ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.
> 
> People generally don't see all the layers.
> It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
> I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
> in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.
> 
> then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.
> 
> With each person their points may be different!
> 
> So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
> doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.
> 
> By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
> But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
> And the process has involved these other areas that affect
> how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.
> 
> Thanks for your patience.
> This is not as easy as it looks to you.
> 
> If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
> instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
> this is a very necessary part of the process,
> to understand the layers of human perception
> that are part of the puzzle.
> 
> When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
> that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily
> 
> What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason
> 
> Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
> 
> PRECISELY rightwinger!
> 
> 2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
> 
> So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
> 
> BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
> 
> A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other.  To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision.  So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy._
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
> 
> It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
> In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
> If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
> Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
Click to expand...

rightwinger 
And people have to AGREE what's right
Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups" 
Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"


----------



## emilynghiem

Nope Faun it's not "gays taking rights from others" but biases in laws that deprive citizens of equal freedom by discriminating by creed. Both sides complain if the other bias is imposed by law. Neither side wants a faith based bias creeping into laws.


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?
> 
> That aside, you made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. That's complete nonsense and something no one is claiming.
> 
> Either quote the portion from the Obergefell decision which sites freedom of religion or admit you have no position to stand on...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.
> 
> Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.
> 
> The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.
> 
> Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
> takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
> ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.
> 
> People generally don't see all the layers.
> It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
> I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
> in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.
> 
> then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.
> 
> With each person their points may be different!
> 
> So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
> doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.
> 
> By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
> But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
> And the process has involved these other areas that affect
> how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.
> 
> Thanks for your patience.
> This is not as easy as it looks to you.
> 
> If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
> instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
> this is a very necessary part of the process,
> to understand the layers of human perception
> that are part of the puzzle.
> 
> When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
> that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily
> 
> What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason
> 
> Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
> 
> PRECISELY rightwinger!
> 
> 2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
> 
> So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
> 
> BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
> 
> A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other.  To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision.  So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy._
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
> 
> It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
> In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
> If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
> Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rightwinger
> And people have to AGREE what's right
> Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
> Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
Click to expand...


OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right

Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?

What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?




.


----------



## Faun

Sbiker said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course marriage is a right. That's been reaffirmed no less than 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.
> 
> *Maynard v. Hill*, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
> 
> 
> *Meyer v. Nebraska*, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
> 
> 
> *Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson*, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
> 
> 
> *Griswold v. Connecticut*, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
> 
> 
> *Loving v. Virginia*, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
> 
> 
> *Boddie v. Connecticut*, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “Marriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
> 
> 
> *Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur*, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
> 
> 
> *Moore v. City of East Cleveland*, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
> 
> 
> *Carey v. Population Services International*, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
> 
> 
> *Zablocki v. Redhail*, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
> 
> 
> *Turner v. Safley*, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
> 
> 
> *Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey*, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
> 
> 
> *M.L.B. v. S.L.J.*, 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
> 
> 
> *Lawrence v. Texas*, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
> ... so marriage is most certainly a right -- and the courts (and many states) determined there are no compelling interests to deny folks equal protection under the law by restricting them access to the right to marry the person of their choice even if that other person happens to be of the same gender.
> 
> The bigger question is .... why on Earth would you seek to let the government take away rights from anybody?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
> On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?
> 
> Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter if they think that. Their beliefs do not get to infringe upon the rights of others.
> 
> As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If gays THINK they need a marriage like an achievement - let them to have it. If christians THINK they need a marriage as a Church ritual - ignore them... WHY? Do you really have much more gays in US than christians? Or, in fact, rights of gays are much more preferrable, than others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they did, Americans wouldn't be allowed to eat pork as some religious folks find that offensive. They wouldn't be allowed to eat beef because some religious folks find that offensive. The list of rights we would lose would be endless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's to continue this logic. Christianity forbids to murder of people, woodoo and vakhabism - allow. Let's make murdering legal. Do you still have any questions to 9/11?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't even dispute the right of gays to invent own type of "marriage" and name it according in their traditions... But taking word "MARRIAGE" from christian tradition to pervert it publically - it's and act of aggression. Your example about pork is very good. While christians are "eating pork", gays are pulling out the piece of pork from their hands and publically using it as a toilet paper. But everyone, not only gays, must have a rights to eat own pork!
Click to expand...

Sorry, but Christians do not own the word, "marriage."

Marriage is a right and there is no compelling interest to deny gay people of that fundamental right.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. This has been explained to you repeatedly and you just don't get it.
> 
> Seems you have nothing in terms of same-sex marriage being unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Dear Faun I don't know if you are living in a box or you just don't care or acknowledge the beliefs of others.
> Am I really the only person you know making these arguments:
> 1. about states rights
> 2. about civil unions instead of marriage through govt
> 3. about right to marriage being a political belief that not all people agree to apply to gay couples?
> 
> REALLY?
> 
> Maybe it's because I'm in Texas.
> And in Houston.
> 
> I have TONS of prolife Christian friends who do NOT believe abortion is a choice
> and do NOT believe in the govt endorsing gay marriage as natural.
> 
> I have stated these over and over.
> 
> If you are just citing the court case in Obergefell,
> well I know more people who contest that just like you would contest a court ruling endorsing slavery as legal property laws.
> 
> Sorry, but it's leaving out the consent and beliefs of other people in making that ruling.
> (the most I can interpret it to include the gist of it,
> is by religious freedom of course people have equal
> rights to marriage, and that's why it's not govt jurisidiction to decide)
> 
> You don't count the beliefs of these other people.
> It's not your fault, I think you truly do not see any violation occurring
> so you think it must be delusional.
> 
> It's the principle, that govt should not impose ANY beliefs about marriage
> that should remain the right of the people to CHOOSE.
> 
> The dissenters do NOT believe Govt has the authority to declare marriage
> rights beliefs or practices one way or another.
> 
> That's the issue.
> 
> I think it's so fundamental that you are missing it.
> You keep wanting to argue specific points,
> when it's the whole thing that is objected to.
> 
> Sorry if I cannot explain what each and every person is arguing
> who objects to this.
> 
> If you need to hear all the reasons and arguments (as each person
> says it differently) give me time and I will collect and list these for you.
> 
> In general they don't believe and don't consent.
> So I'm trying to find where they would agree.
> 
> Here is one way people are arguing Obergefell is unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary:
> Reclaiming the Rule of Law after Obergefell
> 
> And with the 4-5 decision, similar to the 4-5 ruling to approve ACA mandates
> also contested as unconstitutional,
> this seems to me to represent two sides of political beliefs,
> that are split fairly evenly, and just the majority BELIEF
> is being endorsed and enforced by govt. when both sides
> represent EQUAL BELIEFS, thus I would argue why not
> allow both choices, separate tracks and let people of
> BOTH beliefs each have their separate way to treat them equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?
> 
> That aside, you made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. That's complete nonsense and something no one is claiming.
> 
> Either quote the portion from the Obergefell decision which sites freedom of religion or admit you have no position to stand on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.
> 
> Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.
> 
> The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.
> 
> Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
> takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
> ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.
> 
> People generally don't see all the layers.
> It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
> I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
> in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.
> 
> then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.
> 
> With each person their points may be different!
> 
> So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
> doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.
> 
> By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
> But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
> And the process has involved these other areas that affect
> how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.
> 
> Thanks for your patience.
> This is not as easy as it looks to you.
> 
> If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
> instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
> this is a very necessary part of the process,
> to understand the layers of human perception
> that are part of the puzzle.
> 
> When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
> that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care what the reasons of objection are -- you said same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion.
> 
> You can't back that nonsense up and it's the foundation of your argument.
> 
> You're done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???
> 
> Faun
> It backs itself up!
> Once you apply religious freedom to your INALIENABLE belief in your right to marry whoever you want,
> Then you DON'T NEED to "justify" your beliefs because your free exercise of those beliefs is INALIENABLE.
> 
> Do you understand INALIENABLE Faun
> 
> If your rights and beliefs depend on courts or govt before you can have them, then they aren't INALIENABLE
> 
> Im saying you don't need to and never had to justify your beliefs in right to marry.
> 
> So if you are the one disparaging your own rights, and insisting they depend on govt, or insisting your beliefs depend on "justifying" them, why are you blaming me for that? I said a Muslim does NOT need to justify beliefs about pork, nor an atheist need to justify beliefs about God or crosses or lack of belief, and people who do or do not believe in gay marriage don't have to justify that either because both are entitled to their BELIEFS and these are inalienable.
> 
> Sorry you believe you have to depend on govt for your rights. I think they are natural and free exercise of religion, beliefs, will and choice covers your right to marry already. Nobody can stop anyone from setting up a ceremony and getting married unless you do it in such a way that imposes or forces other people to be responsible who aren't required to believe endorse or participate in your ceremony if they don't want to.
> Just like any other cultural or religious tradition, these remain voluntary choice and can't be forced on people by law.
Click to expand...

Things do not back themselves up because you say they do. You have to prove your claims and you can't. You made the fallacious claim that same-sex marriage is practiced under the freedom to exercise religion.

Prove it by quoting the relevant text from the Obergefell decision saying anything about same-sex marriage is a right falling under the freedom to exercise religion...

As far as your nonsense that I depend on the government for my rights ... It's not that I depend on them for my rights -- I, along with everyone else, depends on ths government to secure my rights. That's a major role of our government. That's why gays can now marry the person of their choice just as straight folks can.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did forget one fact.  The FEDERAL GoVERNMENT rolls up each of the 50 states and they are honored between each of the states.   Civil Union is still illegal, you've been told at least 20 plus times.  You cannot rename it for a class of people.  You also can't manage social benefits by party, illegal as well. WHY can't you grasp that?
> 
> 
> 
> I am not saying only use it for a class of people. I am saying use NEUTRAL terms for EVERYONE.
> 
> In other words for each state
> * if states use the term marriage then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil marriage then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term domestic partnership then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil contracts then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil unions then EVERYONE can get that
> 
> Whatever term states use is for ALL people inclusively or else NOBODY gets that at all.
> 
> I think Faun understands I am saying don't use the term marriage for ANYBODY if it can't be used for EVERYONE.
> 
> If people can't agree to terms of marriage for everyone then the state can't make those laws and force them on anyone using those terms.
> 
> If states agree that EVERYONE gets civil marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever TERM that state agrees on, then that is neutral because everyone gets the same and nobody gets anything different from the state.
> 
> Sneekin if you are just caught up in what civil unions meant in the past I'm talking about the present and future not the past:  if people in a state do not believe in states endorsing gay or same sex "marriages" they can be offered the choice either make ALL marriages open to ALL couples or make ALL couples only get civil unions from the states or domestic partnerships or whatever people of that state agree to call the licensing.
> 
> That way EVERYONE is treated the same such as by only getting civil contracts through the state and getting marriages through whatever traditions they believe in addition to the neutral licensing through the state.
> 
> Sneekin that's fine if you want more, if you live in a state that agrees to recognize marriage for all people as endorsed and licensed through the state Great! I'm all for that if people of that state agree.
> 
> But if they don't agree on terms unless a different set up is used, as long as EVERYONE is subject to the same and NOBODY gets more or less through the state, then at least that is equal.
> 
> I'm sorry this isn't clear Sneekin
> I don't know why it is not possible for ALL couples to get civil unions if that state cannot agree on terms of marriage.
> 
> But if you have such conditions attached to the term civil union that it isn't a legal choice, that's how some people believe about marriage too !
> 
> So if you are saying no way can ALL people get civil unions but NO people should, then the same is true for marriage where either ALL people get to marry through the state or NO people should.
> 
> Just treat all people the SAME, either ALL or NONE, and that is fair to all people. Each state decides what terms it's citizens agree applies to ALL people with no exceptions and that's neutral law!
> 
> And yes, it's totally fine if all people in a state agree to majority rule passing marriage for all people!  But just like rules on references to religion, God. Cteation, prayer etc in schools it has to be by consent of the people where it is NOT the govt endorsing any beliefs the public doesn't agree the state should endorse. Keeping it neutral is one thing, but language endorsing one belief or another can still be struck down as biased.
> 
> Thanks and sorry if this wasn't clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's already a word for it...
> 
> *Marriage*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Faun that would be simple.
> And so would declaring the Democratic platform
> and beliefs about right to health care and right to marriage a
> POLITICAL RELIGION
> and be done with it.
> 
> We could AGREE to list out the political beliefs
> that each person or group holds sacred,
> agree to respect these as inviolate for those people
> and requiring consent of the governed and consensus
> on laws and reforms on any of these areas,
> and stop the fighting over forcing one g roup's
> beliefs over another's by domination or coecion.
> 
> I WISH it were that simple Faun I do!
> 
> But people like you see your stances as RIGHTS and not BELIEFS.
> and so do the right to life,
> and so do the right to choose
> and so do the right to guns advocates.
> 
> So it goes in circles, each combating the sacred
> cows that the other group draws a line in a sand for
> and refuses to let govt cross that line.
> 
> We all have our beliefs, and until we agree
> to treat them the same, we keep competing and
> repeating the same patterns over and over,
> taking turns trying to run over the other or
> run them out of govt. But that doesn't make
> that person's beliefs or rights 'go away" it just
> makes them come back and try to defend them
> again, back and forth.
> 
> Why don't we admit we have these sacred
> rights and beliefs, and agree not to disparage them???
> 
> Seems simple to me Faun but
> as you can see, it isn't easy to see when
> it's YOUR beliefs that you are defending as rights.
> When other people do that to you or me and take
> something that isn't our beliefs and shove it in our
> faces as law, then we can see that it should be a choice
> and not forced by law. But not when
> the shoe is on the other foot. Both sides are like that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is that simple. No one has to abandon marriage in America because some people oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage is here to stay and it now includes marriage between couples of the same sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Consensus on marriage might be reached if hypocrites like you admit you don't tolerate Christian practices in public as you are demanding people tolerate LGBT beliefs expressions and practices in public policy!
> 
> If you want equal rights and respect Faun that means to respect the same of others but you DONT. You insist that people's beliefs opposed to gay marriage, which cause them to reject "marriage" applied to gay couples, are due to some delusion or other deficiency. Thus Faun you are discriminating against the beliefs of others as inferior yet demanding equality for LGBT beliefs which is contradictory. You think you are not discriminating or excluding others but you keep putting them down as wrong instead of treating and respecting the beliefs as equal as I am trying to do.
> 
> And then you put me down also for trying to find ways to include all beliefs in a consensus on laws.
Click to expand...

We've been over this already....

Crosses are not allowed on public property because doing so violates the First Amendment.

You failed to show how same-sex marriage violates the Constitution, remember? All you can show is that it upsets some people; but as has been explained to you repeatedly -- we don't have laws to reflect people's hurt feelings.



emilynghiem said:


> You insist that people's beliefs opposed to gay marriage, which cause them to reject "marriage" applied to gay couples, are due to some delusion or other deficiency.


You're delirious. I never said anyone was delusional or deficient for opposing gay marriage.


----------



## Sbiker

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Dear Faun I don't know if you are living in a box or you just don't care or acknowledge the beliefs of others.
> Am I really the only person you know making these arguments:
> 1. about states rights
> 2. about civil unions instead of marriage through govt
> 3. about right to marriage being a political belief that not all people agree to apply to gay couples?
> 
> REALLY?
> 
> Maybe it's because I'm in Texas.
> And in Houston.
> 
> I have TONS of prolife Christian friends who do NOT believe abortion is a choice
> and do NOT believe in the govt endorsing gay marriage as natural.
> 
> I have stated these over and over.
> 
> If you are just citing the court case in Obergefell,
> well I know more people who contest that just like you would contest a court ruling endorsing slavery as legal property laws.
> 
> Sorry, but it's leaving out the consent and beliefs of other people in making that ruling.
> (the most I can interpret it to include the gist of it,
> is by religious freedom of course people have equal
> rights to marriage, and that's why it's not govt jurisidiction to decide)
> 
> You don't count the beliefs of these other people.
> It's not your fault, I think you truly do not see any violation occurring
> so you think it must be delusional.
> 
> It's the principle, that govt should not impose ANY beliefs about marriage
> that should remain the right of the people to CHOOSE.
> 
> The dissenters do NOT believe Govt has the authority to declare marriage
> rights beliefs or practices one way or another.
> 
> That's the issue.
> 
> I think it's so fundamental that you are missing it.
> You keep wanting to argue specific points,
> when it's the whole thing that is objected to.
> 
> Sorry if I cannot explain what each and every person is arguing
> who objects to this.
> 
> If you need to hear all the reasons and arguments (as each person
> says it differently) give me time and I will collect and list these for you.
> 
> In general they don't believe and don't consent.
> So I'm trying to find where they would agree.
> 
> Here is one way people are arguing Obergefell is unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary:
> Reclaiming the Rule of Law after Obergefell
> 
> And with the 4-5 decision, similar to the 4-5 ruling to approve ACA mandates
> also contested as unconstitutional,
> this seems to me to represent two sides of political beliefs,
> that are split fairly evenly, and just the majority BELIEF
> is being endorsed and enforced by govt. when both sides
> represent EQUAL BELIEFS, thus I would argue why not
> allow both choices, separate tracks and let people of
> BOTH beliefs each have their separate way to treat them equally.
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?
> 
> That aside, you made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. That's complete nonsense and something no one is claiming.
> 
> Either quote the portion from the Obergefell decision which sites freedom of religion or admit you have no position to stand on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.
> 
> Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.
> 
> The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.
> 
> Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
> takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
> ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.
> 
> People generally don't see all the layers.
> It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
> I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
> in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.
> 
> then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.
> 
> With each person their points may be different!
> 
> So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
> doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.
> 
> By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
> But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
> And the process has involved these other areas that affect
> how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.
> 
> Thanks for your patience.
> This is not as easy as it looks to you.
> 
> If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
> instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
> this is a very necessary part of the process,
> to understand the layers of human perception
> that are part of the puzzle.
> 
> When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
> that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily
> 
> What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason
> 
> Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
> 
> PRECISELY rightwinger!
> 
> 2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
> 
> So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
> 
> BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
> 
> A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other.  To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision.  So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy._
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
> 
> It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
> In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
> If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
> Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
Click to expand...


Offcourse, democracy is a system for society, where everyone can defend own rights - for warriors of Sparta, for Cossacs Round, for Wild West. If you want to defend someone - change the rules, but don't call it as Democracy ))


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?
> 
> That aside, you made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. That's complete nonsense and something no one is claiming.
> 
> Either quote the portion from the Obergefell decision which sites freedom of religion or admit you have no position to stand on...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.
> 
> Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.
> 
> The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.
> 
> Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
> takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
> ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.
> 
> People generally don't see all the layers.
> It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
> I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
> in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.
> 
> then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.
> 
> With each person their points may be different!
> 
> So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
> doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.
> 
> By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
> But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
> And the process has involved these other areas that affect
> how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.
> 
> Thanks for your patience.
> This is not as easy as it looks to you.
> 
> If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
> instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
> this is a very necessary part of the process,
> to understand the layers of human perception
> that are part of the puzzle.
> 
> When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
> that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily
> 
> What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason
> 
> Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
> 
> PRECISELY rightwinger!
> 
> 2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
> 
> So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
> 
> BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
> 
> A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other.  To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision.  So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy._
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
> 
> It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
> In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
> If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
> Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rightwinger
> And people have to AGREE what's right
> Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
> Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Rights are not determined by peoples' approval and consent. Your rights are not determined by my beliefs. A Christian's rights are not determined by Muslims' beliefs... black peoples' rights are not determined by white peoples' beliefs...

As you pointed out, rights are inalienable. The role of our government is to secure those rights -- just as they have done for gays regarding their right to marry the person of their choice.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Nope Faun it's not "gays taking rights from others" but biases in laws that deprive citizens of equal freedom by discriminating by creed. Both sides complain if the other bias is imposed by law. Neither side wants a faith based bias creeping into laws.


Then we're good here since same-sex marriage isn't faith based. It's equal protection under the law.


----------



## Sbiker

Faun said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
> On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?
> 
> Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...
> 
> 
> 
> No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter if they think that. Their beliefs do not get to infringe upon the rights of others.
> 
> As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If gays THINK they need a marriage like an achievement - let them to have it. If christians THINK they need a marriage as a Church ritual - ignore them... WHY? Do you really have much more gays in US than christians? Or, in fact, rights of gays are much more preferrable, than others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they did, Americans wouldn't be allowed to eat pork as some religious folks find that offensive. They wouldn't be allowed to eat beef because some religious folks find that offensive. The list of rights we would lose would be endless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's to continue this logic. Christianity forbids to murder of people, woodoo and vakhabism - allow. Let's make murdering legal. Do you still have any questions to 9/11?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't even dispute the right of gays to invent own type of "marriage" and name it according in their traditions... But taking word "MARRIAGE" from christian tradition to pervert it publically - it's and act of aggression. Your example about pork is very good. While christians are "eating pork", gays are pulling out the piece of pork from their hands and publically using it as a toilet paper. But everyone, not only gays, must have a rights to eat own pork!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but Christians do not own the word, "marriage."
> 
> Marriage is a right and there is no compelling interest to deny gay people of that fundamental right.
Click to expand...


The most part of modern marriage tradition - rutial, official record about and so on - was developed inside a Christian tradition. The word "marriage" came to English language from Latin, approximately in XIII century, through Christian books. So, using word "marriage" for gay enterntainment - just a kind of theft...


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.
> 
> Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.
> 
> The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.
> 
> Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
> takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
> ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.
> 
> People generally don't see all the layers.
> It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
> I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
> in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.
> 
> then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.
> 
> With each person their points may be different!
> 
> So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
> doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.
> 
> By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
> But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
> And the process has involved these other areas that affect
> how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.
> 
> Thanks for your patience.
> This is not as easy as it looks to you.
> 
> If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
> instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
> this is a very necessary part of the process,
> to understand the layers of human perception
> that are part of the puzzle.
> 
> When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
> that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Emily
> 
> What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason
> 
> Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
> 
> PRECISELY rightwinger!
> 
> 2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
> 
> So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
> 
> BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
> 
> A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other.  To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision.  So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy._
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
> 
> It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
> In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
> If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
> Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rightwinger
> And people have to AGREE what's right
> Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
> Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. Rights are not determined by peoples' approval and consent. Your rights are not determined by my beliefs. A Christian's rights are not determined by Muslims' beliefs... black peoples' rights are not determined by white peoples' beliefs...
> 
> As you pointed out, rights are inalienable. The role of our government is to secure those rights -- just as they have done for gays regarding their right to marry the person of their choice.
Click to expand...


Dear Faun but that's what you are saying when you depend on PEOPLE
ruling in Courts to recognize "right to marriage"

You are depending on consent of others, and that's what laws, govt and "social contracts" represent
the CONSENT of people which gives authority to law to govt.

I think we are saying the same things
that these rights and freedoms are inalienable
and nobody has the right to deprive them of others
(except due process of law in cases of crimes and penalties by law.)

somehow we are missing and talking past each other on the language
and process through govt, but we agree in spirit!

that's good enough for me, Faun as long as
we agree in spirit, the rest of the wording and legal process
CAN BE WORKED out by consensus.

The spirit of the laws comes first, then the process, letter and details follow.

I'm glad we agree in spirit, this is not a lost cause!


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
> On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?
> 
> Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...
> 
> 
> 
> No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter if they think that. Their beliefs do not get to infringe upon the rights of others.
> 
> As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If gays THINK they need a marriage like an achievement - let them to have it. If christians THINK they need a marriage as a Church ritual - ignore them... WHY? Do you really have much more gays in US than christians? Or, in fact, rights of gays are much more preferrable, than others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they did, Americans wouldn't be allowed to eat pork as some religious folks find that offensive. They wouldn't be allowed to eat beef because some religious folks find that offensive. The list of rights we would lose would be endless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's to continue this logic. Christianity forbids to murder of people, woodoo and vakhabism - allow. Let's make murdering legal. Do you still have any questions to 9/11?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't even dispute the right of gays to invent own type of "marriage" and name it according in their traditions... But taking word "MARRIAGE" from christian tradition to pervert it publically - it's and act of aggression. Your example about pork is very good. While christians are "eating pork", gays are pulling out the piece of pork from their hands and publically using it as a toilet paper. But everyone, not only gays, must have a rights to eat own pork!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but Christians do not own the word, "marriage."
> 
> Marriage is a right and there is no compelling interest to deny gay people of that fundamental right.
Click to expand...

No Faun but neither do you  "own the laws" that affect other people also!
Public laws must reflect the PUBLIC consent especially where BELIEFS are involved
or it's imposing a bias. If these are public laws, you and those who believe and think as you do are not the ONLY ones affected by these laws and who have a say in them. If you want total control, then write your own platforms and policies and you are free to live under those similar to private Catholic schools or programs that are prolife or proGod.

When dealing with state laws, these reflect consent of ALL people in that state.
and federal laws with all people of all states across the nation under those laws.

You wouldn't want me imposing my wording using the word "God"
just because I happen to interpret it universally to include atheists and nontheists.
If Atheists and nontheists don't see a term as universal as I do,
of course, it's natural to change and use different terms they can relate to in order to accommodate and include others!

Just because I was brought up by Buddhist parents who didn't object to YMCA being Christian
and Girl Scouts praying to God, doesn't mean ALL people should be "tolerant" the same way.
It's up to each person and I respect that.

Sorry that you don't see that this imposes any issue or bias you don't understand or think affects anyone.

(I will separately post a link to a thread and examples of related cases of conflicts with people
whose beliefs do not allow them to serve gay couples as married.)


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun here are examples where people ARE losing liberties they had before
because of public accommodations laws crossing into BELIEFS about LGBT and
requiring people to respect them or else change their operations policies
(posted on separate thread Should businesses be sued or church adoption programs shut down over gay beliefs?):

A. A lesbian couple wanting to have a wedding reception, Kate and Ming Linsley, sued the Wildflower Inn after being turned away. The lawsuit was settled in August after the inn agreed to pay $30,000 and stop hosting weddings and receptions.

By signing the settlement agreement, the inn owners agreed that any future “disparate treatment of same-sex couples” is illegal, including “discouragement of the couples from using the accommodations, facilities, advantages and privileges of any place of public accommodation.”

Washington has a law already on the books that guarantees “the right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement” regardless of sexual orientation.

^ NOTE 1 Faun: the same way you are saying nobody is being forced to have a gay wedding,
well nobody is FORCING that couple to use that facility when many other gay friendly services would love to have that business!

NOTE 2 please note my offer of how to solve these issues where the facility can still be used without imposing on staff who don't have to be present:
*"BTW how I would solve the business lawsuit cases
1. for the wedding sites, allow this to be rented but require the couple to bring in their own hired staff and pay for insurance to cover any damages to the site if the management does not want to be present at a gay wedding

2. have businesses and customers sign WAIVERS in advance protecting both from legal actions or costs
should there be disputes or conflicts for ANY REASON: require instead either mediation by mediator chosen by the customer, or if that fails, arbitration by arbiter chosen by the business; or else agree to REFRAIN from doing business if the dispute cannot be resolved by consensus of both parties to avoid legal issues or expenses. 

This would protect both sides, regardless of the reason, and regardless what their beliefs are that may conflict."*

B. RE Catholic adoption services:

"#1 - Catholic adoption agencies should not be "shut down" that don't accommodate gay couples. As private, privately funded, non-profit organizations they should be able to place children according to their religious doctrine. On the other hand if they are going to function under government contractors and function on the taxpayer's dime - then they need to comply with non-discrimination laws or not be eligible for the contract."

Unfortunately this policy HAS led to some adoption services shutting down that depended on govt support. so it has DEPRIVED people of ne eded services due to CLASHING beliefs that COULD have remained a private issue since BELIEFS are involved. [Govt COULD have adopted a NEUTRAL policy protecting ANY beliefs about LGBT orientation/identity from discrimination, instead of recognizing one position on this at the exception of the other, which I argue is biased.]

C. There are other cases of fines against bakers, photographers, and even florists
for not wanting to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs.
Some of these I agree with, some not.
If someone just buys flowers or a cake that is one thing,
but going TO a wedding off site to serve cakes or take photos is up to free choice.
Another business or vendor/contract staff can be sent, and not force people who don't believe in attending or witnessing or participating in certain activities that are BEHAVIOR -- not internal identity of the customer in the store buying or ordering something.

In these cases I would make a distinction between:
1. providing the goods or services to any customer regardless of beliefs or creeds
2. WITHOUT having to attend, witness or participate in the actual gay wedding service
which is BEHAVIOR and not the internalized identity/orientation that the customers have

I would also allow such services to be contracted out to staff who don't have those conflicts,
such as sending a photographer out to an adult party who doesn't mind the BEHAVIOR or THEME of the party
and not suing the people who don't agree to be there

In general I promote mediation and consensus as required to resolve conflicts over beliefs,
if any two parties are going to conduct business together, in order to save legal and public resources related to court actions.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily
> 
> What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason
> 
> Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
> 
> PRECISELY rightwinger!
> 
> 2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
> 
> So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
> 
> BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
> 
> A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other.  To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision.  So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy._
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
> 
> It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
> In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
> If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
> Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rightwinger
> And people have to AGREE what's right
> Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
> Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. Rights are not determined by peoples' approval and consent. Your rights are not determined by my beliefs. A Christian's rights are not determined by Muslims' beliefs... black peoples' rights are not determined by white peoples' beliefs...
> 
> As you pointed out, rights are inalienable. The role of our government is to secure those rights -- just as they have done for gays regarding their right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun but that's what you are saying when you depend on PEOPLE
> ruling in Courts to recognize "right to marriage"
> 
> You are depending on consent of others, and that's what laws, govt and "social contracts" represent
> the CONSENT of people which gives authority to law to govt.
> 
> I think we are saying the same things
> that these rights and freedoms are inalienable
> and nobody has the right to deprive them of others
> (except due process of law in cases of crimes and penalties by law.)
> 
> somehow we are missing and talking past each other on the language
> and process through govt, but we agree in spirit!
> 
> that's good enough for me, Faun as long as
> we agree in spirit, the rest of the wording and legal process
> CAN BE WORKED out by consensus.
> 
> The spirit of the laws comes first, then the process, letter and details follow.
> 
> I'm glad we agree in spirit, this is not a lost cause!
Click to expand...

We all depend on the government to secure our rights. That's a main purpose for having a government like ours.

In terms of same-sex marriage, nobody's rights were deprived.


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.
> 
> Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.
> 
> The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.
> 
> Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
> takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
> ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.
> 
> People generally don't see all the layers.
> It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
> I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
> in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.
> 
> then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.
> 
> With each person their points may be different!
> 
> So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
> doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.
> 
> By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
> But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
> And the process has involved these other areas that affect
> how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.
> 
> Thanks for your patience.
> This is not as easy as it looks to you.
> 
> If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
> instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
> this is a very necessary part of the process,
> to understand the layers of human perception
> that are part of the puzzle.
> 
> When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
> that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Emily
> 
> What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason
> 
> Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
> 
> PRECISELY rightwinger!
> 
> 2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
> 
> So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
> 
> BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
> 
> A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other.  To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision.  So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy._
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
> 
> It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
> In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
> If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
> Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rightwinger
> And people have to AGREE what's right
> Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
> Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right
> 
> Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
> Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
> 
> What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Dear rightwinger with Faith-Based laws, yes, people would have to agree 
or else all it takes is one atheist or nonbeliever in that thing to protest that
govt should not establish a faith based bias or belief,  and by principle that bias should be removed.

A good example of a faith based concept people happen to agree on:
JUSTICE
Even though this is completely faith-based and never proven or established as existing,
people have faith in it and AGREE to use these terms in our laws
and even inscribe them on public buildings.
Nobody complains because we AGREE on this even though it is FAITH BASED.

But when it comes to retributive justice and restorative justice,
no, people do not agree. thus we have fights going on over
the death penalty and taxpayers funding life imprisonment instead of executions etc.
I am asking to separate funding on that issue also!

Similar with abortion.
We generally agree murder is unlawful and punishable as a crime.
but some people believe abortion is murder, and others do not.
Until we agree on how to write or separate laws,
groups have be en fighting over this to defend their beliefs from each other's.

How cruel is this suffering and how long are we going to let it go on,
knowing neither side agrees to biases in laws by the other?

That's why I argue to separate funding by party,
set up separate representation and programs where people
do not feel threatened by any other group dictating their beliefs.
If political and/or religious beliefs prevent agreement on public laws,
then set up separate means similar to private religious schools
and treat partisan programs like private religious programs.
So people can get the same tax breaks for investing in their
own policies if the rest of the public doesn't agree to fund them.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter if they think that. Their beliefs do not get to infringe upon the rights of others.
> 
> As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If gays THINK they need a marriage like an achievement - let them to have it. If christians THINK they need a marriage as a Church ritual - ignore them... WHY? Do you really have much more gays in US than christians? Or, in fact, rights of gays are much more preferrable, than others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they did, Americans wouldn't be allowed to eat pork as some religious folks find that offensive. They wouldn't be allowed to eat beef because some religious folks find that offensive. The list of rights we would lose would be endless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's to continue this logic. Christianity forbids to murder of people, woodoo and vakhabism - allow. Let's make murdering legal. Do you still have any questions to 9/11?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't even dispute the right of gays to invent own type of "marriage" and name it according in their traditions... But taking word "MARRIAGE" from christian tradition to pervert it publically - it's and act of aggression. Your example about pork is very good. While christians are "eating pork", gays are pulling out the piece of pork from their hands and publically using it as a toilet paper. But everyone, not only gays, must have a rights to eat own pork!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but Christians do not own the word, "marriage."
> 
> Marriage is a right and there is no compelling interest to deny gay people of that fundamental right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Faun but neither do you  "own the laws" that affect other people also!
> Public laws must reflect the PUBLIC consent especially where BELIEFS are involved
> or it's imposing a bias. If these are public laws, you and those who believe and think as you do are not the ONLY ones affected by these laws and who have a say in them. If you want total control, then write your own platforms and policies and you are free to live under those similar to private Catholic schools or programs that are prolife or proGod.
> 
> When dealing with state laws, these reflect consent of ALL people in that state.
> and federal laws with all people of all states across the nation under those laws.
> 
> You wouldn't want me imposing my wording using the word "God"
> just because I happen to interpret it universally to include atheists and nontheists.
> If Atheists and nontheists don't see a term as universal as I do,
> of course, it's natural to change and use different terms they can relate to in order to accommodate and include others!
> 
> Just because I was brought up by Buddhist parents who didn't object to YMCA being Christian
> and Girl Scouts praying to God, doesn't mean ALL people should be "tolerant" the same way.
> It's up to each person and I respect that.
> 
> Sorry that you don't see that this imposes any issue or bias you don't understand or think affects anyone.
> 
> (I will separately post a link to a thread and examples of related cases of conflicts with people
> whose beliefs do not allow them to serve gay couples as married.)
Click to expand...

Of course I don't own laws. That's why I said, _your rights are not determined by my beliefs._  Regardless, you still lack any basis for claiming public laws require public consent. Complete nonsense. Public laws require constitutionailty.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun here are examples where people ARE losing liberties they had before
> because of public accommodations laws crossing into BELIEFS about LGBT and
> requiring people to respect them or else change their operations policies
> (posted on separate thread Should businesses be sued or church adoption programs shut down over gay beliefs?):
> 
> A. A lesbian couple wanting to have a wedding reception, Kate and Ming Linsley, sued the Wildflower Inn after being turned away. The lawsuit was settled in August after the inn agreed to pay $30,000 and stop hosting weddings and receptions.
> 
> By signing the settlement agreement, the inn owners agreed that any future “disparate treatment of same-sex couples” is illegal, including “discouragement of the couples from using the accommodations, facilities, advantages and privileges of any place of public accommodation.”
> 
> Washington has a law already on the books that guarantees “the right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement” regardless of sexual orientation.
> 
> ^ NOTE 1 Faun: the same way you are saying nobody is being forced to have a gay wedding,
> well nobody is FORCING that couple to use that facility when many other gay friendly services would love to have that business!
> 
> NOTE 2 please note my offer of how to solve these issues where the facility can still be used without imposing on staff who don't have to be present:
> *"BTW how I would solve the business lawsuit cases
> 1. for the wedding sites, allow this to be rented but require the couple to bring in their own hired staff and pay for insurance to cover any damages to the site if the management does not want to be present at a gay wedding
> 
> 2. have businesses and customers sign WAIVERS in advance protecting both from legal actions or costs
> should there be disputes or conflicts for ANY REASON: require instead either mediation by mediator chosen by the customer, or if that fails, arbitration by arbiter chosen by the business; or else agree to REFRAIN from doing business if the dispute cannot be resolved by consensus of both parties to avoid legal issues or expenses.
> 
> This would protect both sides, regardless of the reason, and regardless what their beliefs are that may conflict."*
> 
> B. RE Catholic adoption services:
> 
> "#1 - Catholic adoption agencies should not be "shut down" that don't accommodate gay couples. As private, privately funded, non-profit organizations they should be able to place children according to their religious doctrine. On the other hand if they are going to function under government contractors and function on the taxpayer's dime - then they need to comply with non-discrimination laws or not be eligible for the contract."
> 
> Unfortunately this policy HAS led to some adoption services shutting down that depended on govt support. so it has DEPRIVED people of ne eded services due to CLASHING beliefs that COULD have remained a private issue since BELIEFS are involved. [Govt COULD have adopted a NEUTRAL policy protecting ANY beliefs about LGBT orientation/identity from discrimination, instead of recognizing one position on this at the exception of the other, which I argue is biased.]
> 
> C. There are other cases of fines against bakers, photographers, and even florists
> for not wanting to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs.
> Some of these I agree with, some not.
> If someone just buys flowers or a cake that is one thing,
> but going TO a wedding off site to serve cakes or take photos is up to free choice.
> Another business or vendor/contract staff can be sent, and not force people who don't believe in attending or witnessing or participating in certain activities that are BEHAVIOR -- not internal identity of the customer in the store buying or ordering something.
> 
> In these cases I would make a distinction between:
> 1. providing the goods or services to any customer regardless of beliefs or creeds
> 2. WITHOUT having to attend, witness or participate in the actual gay wedding service
> which is BEHAVIOR and not the internalized identity/orientation that the customers have
> 
> I would also allow such services to be contracted out to staff who don't have those conflicts,
> such as sending a photographer out to an adult party who doesn't mind the BEHAVIOR or THEME of the party
> and not suing the people who don't agree to be there
> 
> In general I promote mediation and consensus as required to resolve conflicts over beliefs,
> if any two parties are going to conduct business together, in order to save legal and public resources related to court actions.


None of that has anything to do with same-sex marriage. You can't make your case so you're continuously diverting to other topics.  

The topic here is the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, not public accommodation laws.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily
> 
> What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason
> 
> Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
> 
> PRECISELY rightwinger!
> 
> 2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
> 
> So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
> 
> BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
> 
> A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other.  To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision.  So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy._
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
> 
> It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
> In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
> If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
> Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rightwinger
> And people have to AGREE what's right
> Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
> Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right
> 
> Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
> Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
> 
> What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger with Faith-Based laws, yes, people would have to agree
> or else all it takes is one atheist or nonbeliever in that thing to protest that
> govt should not establish a faith based bias or belief,  and by principle that bias should be removed.
> 
> A good example of a faith based concept people happen to agree on:
> JUSTICE
> Even though this is completely faith-based and never proven or established as existing,
> people have faith in it and AGREE to use these terms in our laws
> and even inscribe them on public buildings.
> Nobody complains because we AGREE on this even though it is FAITH BASED.
> 
> But when it comes to retributive justice and restorative justice,
> no, people do not agree. thus we have fights going on over
> the death penalty and taxpayers funding life imprisonment instead of executions etc.
> I am asking to separate funding on that issue also!
> 
> Similar with abortion.
> We generally agree murder is unlawful and punishable as a crime.
> but some people believe abortion is murder, and others do not.
> Until we agree on how to write or separate laws,
> groups have be en fighting over this to defend their beliefs from each other's.
> 
> How cruel is this suffering and how long are we going to let it go on,
> knowing neither side agrees to biases in laws by the other?
> 
> That's why I argue to separate funding by party,
> set up separate representation and programs where people
> do not feel threatened by any other group dictating their beliefs.
> If political and/or religious beliefs prevent agreement on public laws,
> then set up separate means similar to private religious schools
> and treat partisan programs like private religious programs.
> So people can get the same tax breaks for investing in their
> own policies if the rest of the public doesn't agree to fund them.
Click to expand...

For the umpteenth time, same-sex marriage is not a faith-based ruling. It's an equal protection ruling.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
> 
> PRECISELY rightwinger!
> 
> 2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
> 
> So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
> 
> BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
> 
> A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other.  To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision.  So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy._
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
> 
> It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
> In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
> If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
> Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rightwinger
> And people have to AGREE what's right
> Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
> Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. Rights are not determined by peoples' approval and consent. Your rights are not determined by my beliefs. A Christian's rights are not determined by Muslims' beliefs... black peoples' rights are not determined by white peoples' beliefs...
> 
> As you pointed out, rights are inalienable. The role of our government is to secure those rights -- just as they have done for gays regarding their right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun but that's what you are saying when you depend on PEOPLE
> ruling in Courts to recognize "right to marriage"
> 
> You are depending on consent of others, and that's what laws, govt and "social contracts" represent
> the CONSENT of people which gives authority to law to govt.
> 
> I think we are saying the same things
> that these rights and freedoms are inalienable
> and nobody has the right to deprive them of others
> (except due process of law in cases of crimes and penalties by law.)
> 
> somehow we are missing and talking past each other on the language
> and process through govt, but we agree in spirit!
> 
> that's good enough for me, Faun as long as
> we agree in spirit, the rest of the wording and legal process
> CAN BE WORKED out by consensus.
> 
> The spirit of the laws comes first, then the process, letter and details follow.
> 
> I'm glad we agree in spirit, this is not a lost cause!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all depend on the government to secure our rights. That's a main purpose for having a government like ours.
> 
> In terms of same-sex marriage, nobody's rights were deprived.
Click to expand...


Not in the same way Faun 
A. some people frame the process as rights being inherent by human nature created by God or Life,
and then the purpose of Constitutional laws is to LIMIT the powers of govt, to separate and check and balance
them so these natural rights and freedoms are preserved as given.
So the divine source of rights and freedoms and democratic process of self govt
is given by natural laws that exist independent of govt.
And govt is a reflection or representation of laws we agree on as contracts that
people agree on by consent, in order to carry authority of people as govt.

It's not the other way where
B. govt and laws are used to IMPOSE the collective will of the whole onto the individuals
to try to define and protect rights depending on govt as the source of that authority.
and then beliefs about God and natural laws are optional as people's religions under govt.

Where we agree on laws, such as agreeing that murder is punishable as a crime,
it does not matter if one person stacks their hierarchy as
B.  Govt as the default authority for all people, and any beliefs about God or religion second
A. Nature or God as the default source, and laws through Govt being a reflection of that

The problem is when we disagree on beliefs,
 then both sides prioritize differently and clash, both fearing the other is imposing their system from outside their own.
Instead, as you are attempting to do, we should focus on what
are the intents and affects of the actual laws and resolve issues that way.

The problem is people from different systems do not word or interpret terms the same way,
so that is part of the communication and consensus process. We can't ignore this factor.

Thanks Faun I think you and I agree on the basic spirit
but the process and how we talk about it needs work
so that neither side threatens to disparage or exclude the
belief system of the other including what are given rights under that system.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faun here are examples where people ARE losing liberties they had before
> because of public accommodations laws crossing into BELIEFS about LGBT and
> requiring people to respect them or else change their operations policies
> (posted on separate thread Should businesses be sued or church adoption programs shut down over gay beliefs?):
> 
> A. A lesbian couple wanting to have a wedding reception, Kate and Ming Linsley, sued the Wildflower Inn after being turned away. The lawsuit was settled in August after the inn agreed to pay $30,000 and stop hosting weddings and receptions.
> 
> By signing the settlement agreement, the inn owners agreed that any future “disparate treatment of same-sex couples” is illegal, including “discouragement of the couples from using the accommodations, facilities, advantages and privileges of any place of public accommodation.”
> 
> Washington has a law already on the books that guarantees “the right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement” regardless of sexual orientation.
> 
> ^ NOTE 1 Faun: the same way you are saying nobody is being forced to have a gay wedding,
> well nobody is FORCING that couple to use that facility when many other gay friendly services would love to have that business!
> 
> NOTE 2 please note my offer of how to solve these issues where the facility can still be used without imposing on staff who don't have to be present:
> *"BTW how I would solve the business lawsuit cases
> 1. for the wedding sites, allow this to be rented but require the couple to bring in their own hired staff and pay for insurance to cover any damages to the site if the management does not want to be present at a gay wedding
> 
> 2. have businesses and customers sign WAIVERS in advance protecting both from legal actions or costs
> should there be disputes or conflicts for ANY REASON: require instead either mediation by mediator chosen by the customer, or if that fails, arbitration by arbiter chosen by the business; or else agree to REFRAIN from doing business if the dispute cannot be resolved by consensus of both parties to avoid legal issues or expenses.
> 
> This would protect both sides, regardless of the reason, and regardless what their beliefs are that may conflict."*
> 
> B. RE Catholic adoption services:
> 
> "#1 - Catholic adoption agencies should not be "shut down" that don't accommodate gay couples. As private, privately funded, non-profit organizations they should be able to place children according to their religious doctrine. On the other hand if they are going to function under government contractors and function on the taxpayer's dime - then they need to comply with non-discrimination laws or not be eligible for the contract."
> 
> Unfortunately this policy HAS led to some adoption services shutting down that depended on govt support. so it has DEPRIVED people of ne eded services due to CLASHING beliefs that COULD have remained a private issue since BELIEFS are involved. [Govt COULD have adopted a NEUTRAL policy protecting ANY beliefs about LGBT orientation/identity from discrimination, instead of recognizing one position on this at the exception of the other, which I argue is biased.]
> 
> C. There are other cases of fines against bakers, photographers, and even florists
> for not wanting to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs.
> Some of these I agree with, some not.
> If someone just buys flowers or a cake that is one thing,
> but going TO a wedding off site to serve cakes or take photos is up to free choice.
> Another business or vendor/contract staff can be sent, and not force people who don't believe in attending or witnessing or participating in certain activities that are BEHAVIOR -- not internal identity of the customer in the store buying or ordering something.
> 
> In these cases I would make a distinction between:
> 1. providing the goods or services to any customer regardless of beliefs or creeds
> 2. WITHOUT having to attend, witness or participate in the actual gay wedding service
> which is BEHAVIOR and not the internalized identity/orientation that the customers have
> 
> I would also allow such services to be contracted out to staff who don't have those conflicts,
> such as sending a photographer out to an adult party who doesn't mind the BEHAVIOR or THEME of the party
> and not suing the people who don't agree to be there
> 
> In general I promote mediation and consensus as required to resolve conflicts over beliefs,
> if any two parties are going to conduct business together, in order to save legal and public resources related to court actions.
> 
> 
> 
> None of that has anything to do with same-sex marriage. You can't make your case so you're continuously diverting to other topics.
> 
> The topic here is the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, not public accommodation laws.
Click to expand...


Yes, and those are related Faun

If you don't want to affect other public institutions,
then "marriage" should be kept in private.

But if govt endorses certain beliefs about marriage
then this in turn affects other areas of public laws and institutions.

All the other examples I cited are related to govt endorsing BELIEFS about LGBT and marriage.
1. wedding sites and services affected
2. adoption services affected
in addition to what you and I do agree on which is
3. state laws needing to be neutral and void of faith based biases
that one side or the other objects to as not representing their beliefs equally

I guess you are saying these are separate cases,
but I'm saying the SAME arguments and solutions can be used
to resolve ALL of THESE.  So why have 3-5 areas of disputes by imposing
one side or the other,
when we can have a resolution across all these cases by agreeing NOT
to discriminate against either sides beliefs?


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily
> 
> What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason
> 
> Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
> 
> PRECISELY rightwinger!
> 
> 2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
> 
> So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
> 
> BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
> 
> A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other.  To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision.  So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy._
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
> 
> It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
> In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
> If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
> Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rightwinger
> And people have to AGREE what's right
> Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
> Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right
> 
> Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
> Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
> 
> What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger with Faith-Based laws, yes, people would have to agree
> or else all it takes is one atheist or nonbeliever in that thing to protest that
> govt should not establish a faith based bias or belief,  and by principle that bias should be removed.
> 
> A good example of a faith based concept people happen to agree on:
> JUSTICE
> Even though this is completely faith-based and never proven or established as existing,
> people have faith in it and AGREE to use these terms in our laws
> and even inscribe them on public buildings.
> Nobody complains because we AGREE on this even though it is FAITH BASED.
> 
> But when it comes to retributive justice and restorative justice,
> no, people do not agree. thus we have fights going on over
> the death penalty and taxpayers funding life imprisonment instead of executions etc.
> I am asking to separate funding on that issue also!
> 
> Similar with abortion.
> We generally agree murder is unlawful and punishable as a crime.
> but some people believe abortion is murder, and others do not.
> Until we agree on how to write or separate laws,
> groups have be en fighting over this to defend their beliefs from each other's.
> 
> How cruel is this suffering and how long are we going to let it go on,
> knowing neither side agrees to biases in laws by the other?
> 
> That's why I argue to separate funding by party,
> set up separate representation and programs where people
> do not feel threatened by any other group dictating their beliefs.
> If political and/or religious beliefs prevent agreement on public laws,
> then set up separate means similar to private religious schools
> and treat partisan programs like private religious programs.
> So people can get the same tax breaks for investing in their
> own policies if the rest of the public doesn't agree to fund them.
Click to expand...


The US does not have faith based laws nor should it

Why can't you answer the simple questions I asked?
Why do I get a 300 word diatribe on something unrelated to what I posted?

Now.....
Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?

What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy._
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
> 
> It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
> In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
> If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
> Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger
> And people have to AGREE what's right
> Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
> Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. Rights are not determined by peoples' approval and consent. Your rights are not determined by my beliefs. A Christian's rights are not determined by Muslims' beliefs... black peoples' rights are not determined by white peoples' beliefs...
> 
> As you pointed out, rights are inalienable. The role of our government is to secure those rights -- just as they have done for gays regarding their right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun but that's what you are saying when you depend on PEOPLE
> ruling in Courts to recognize "right to marriage"
> 
> You are depending on consent of others, and that's what laws, govt and "social contracts" represent
> the CONSENT of people which gives authority to law to govt.
> 
> I think we are saying the same things
> that these rights and freedoms are inalienable
> and nobody has the right to deprive them of others
> (except due process of law in cases of crimes and penalties by law.)
> 
> somehow we are missing and talking past each other on the language
> and process through govt, but we agree in spirit!
> 
> that's good enough for me, Faun as long as
> we agree in spirit, the rest of the wording and legal process
> CAN BE WORKED out by consensus.
> 
> The spirit of the laws comes first, then the process, letter and details follow.
> 
> I'm glad we agree in spirit, this is not a lost cause!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all depend on the government to secure our rights. That's a main purpose for having a government like ours.
> 
> In terms of same-sex marriage, nobody's rights were deprived.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in the same way Faun
> A. some people frame the process as rights being inherent by human nature created by God or Life,
> and then the purpose of Constitutional laws is to LIMIT the powers of govt, to separate and check and balance
> them so these natural rights and freedoms are preserved as given.
> So the divine source of rights and freedoms and democratic process of self govt
> is given by natural laws that exist independent of govt.
> And govt is a reflection or representation of laws we agree on as contracts that
> people agree on by consent, in order to carry authority of people as govt.
> 
> It's not the other way where
> B. govt and laws are used to IMPOSE the collective will of the whole onto the individuals
> to try to define and protect rights depending on govt as the source of that authority.
> and then beliefs about God and natural laws are optional as people's religions under govt.
> 
> Where we agree on laws, such as agreeing that murder is punishable as a crime,
> it does not matter if one person stacks their hierarchy as
> B.  Govt as the default authority for all people, and any beliefs about God or religion second
> A. Nature or God as the default source, and laws through Govt being a reflection of that
> 
> The problem is when we disagree on beliefs,
> then both sides prioritize differently and clash, both fearing the other is imposing their system from outside their own.
> Instead, as you are attempting to do, we should focus on what
> are the intents and affects of the actual laws and resolve issues that way.
> 
> The problem is people from different systems do not word or interpret terms the same way,
> so that is part of the communication and consensus process. We can't ignore this factor.
> 
> Thanks Faun I think you and I agree on the basic spirit
> but the process and how we talk about it needs work
> so that neither side threatens to disparage or exclude the
> belief system of the other including what are given rights under that system.
Click to expand...

No matter how many times you say it, we don't craft laws around peoples' feelings being hurt. Christians may not lime the idea that gay people can now marry each other, but the rights of Christians to marry have not been deprived. Christians' rights to practice their faith have not been deprived. The Constitution does not give a shit if same-sex marriage goes against their beliefs as long as it doesn't impose restrictions on their beliefs.


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.
> 
> Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.
> 
> The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.
> 
> Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
> takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
> ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.
> 
> People generally don't see all the layers.
> It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
> I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
> in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.
> 
> then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.
> 
> With each person their points may be different!
> 
> So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
> doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.
> 
> By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
> But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
> And the process has involved these other areas that affect
> how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.
> 
> Thanks for your patience.
> This is not as easy as it looks to you.
> 
> If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
> instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
> this is a very necessary part of the process,
> to understand the layers of human perception
> that are part of the puzzle.
> 
> When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
> that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Emily
> 
> What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason
> 
> Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
> 
> PRECISELY rightwinger!
> 
> 2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
> 
> So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
> 
> BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
> 
> A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other.  To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision.  So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy._
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
> 
> It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
> In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
> If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
> Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rightwinger
> And people have to AGREE what's right
> Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
> Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right
> 
> Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
> Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
> 
> What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> .
Click to expand...


*RE: What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
*
BTW rightwinger it's not a matter of not marrying
but endorsing it through the govt how we marry or don't marry

If marriage is kept private similar to communion, baptisms, prayer rituals,
inductions into faith, then anyone can still practice anything.
but just not try to incorporate or license it through govt unless we agree on
NEUTRAL universal terms.

These don't have to be the same for all states.

Nevada legalizes and licenses prostitution, doesn't mean all states
have to. Some can treat all domestic partnerships as civil unions, 
while other may well recognize them and call them marriages.

The point is either treat all people the same regardless of beliefs,
or remove that wording or policy from govt and keep it private.

Catholic schools and programs run their own policies
and have different terms of priesthood than other churches.
So if you keep things private, you have full freedom.
If you insist on injecting state into beliefs or beliefs into state together,
then anything passed on a state level has to represent those people
and not discriminate on the basis of creed. If people complain about
bias in belief or creed, that is violating equal rights of people also.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faun here are examples where people ARE losing liberties they had before
> because of public accommodations laws crossing into BELIEFS about LGBT and
> requiring people to respect them or else change their operations policies
> (posted on separate thread Should businesses be sued or church adoption programs shut down over gay beliefs?):
> 
> A. A lesbian couple wanting to have a wedding reception, Kate and Ming Linsley, sued the Wildflower Inn after being turned away. The lawsuit was settled in August after the inn agreed to pay $30,000 and stop hosting weddings and receptions.
> 
> By signing the settlement agreement, the inn owners agreed that any future “disparate treatment of same-sex couples” is illegal, including “discouragement of the couples from using the accommodations, facilities, advantages and privileges of any place of public accommodation.”
> 
> Washington has a law already on the books that guarantees “the right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement” regardless of sexual orientation.
> 
> ^ NOTE 1 Faun: the same way you are saying nobody is being forced to have a gay wedding,
> well nobody is FORCING that couple to use that facility when many other gay friendly services would love to have that business!
> 
> NOTE 2 please note my offer of how to solve these issues where the facility can still be used without imposing on staff who don't have to be present:
> *"BTW how I would solve the business lawsuit cases
> 1. for the wedding sites, allow this to be rented but require the couple to bring in their own hired staff and pay for insurance to cover any damages to the site if the management does not want to be present at a gay wedding
> 
> 2. have businesses and customers sign WAIVERS in advance protecting both from legal actions or costs
> should there be disputes or conflicts for ANY REASON: require instead either mediation by mediator chosen by the customer, or if that fails, arbitration by arbiter chosen by the business; or else agree to REFRAIN from doing business if the dispute cannot be resolved by consensus of both parties to avoid legal issues or expenses.
> 
> This would protect both sides, regardless of the reason, and regardless what their beliefs are that may conflict."*
> 
> B. RE Catholic adoption services:
> 
> "#1 - Catholic adoption agencies should not be "shut down" that don't accommodate gay couples. As private, privately funded, non-profit organizations they should be able to place children according to their religious doctrine. On the other hand if they are going to function under government contractors and function on the taxpayer's dime - then they need to comply with non-discrimination laws or not be eligible for the contract."
> 
> Unfortunately this policy HAS led to some adoption services shutting down that depended on govt support. so it has DEPRIVED people of ne eded services due to CLASHING beliefs that COULD have remained a private issue since BELIEFS are involved. [Govt COULD have adopted a NEUTRAL policy protecting ANY beliefs about LGBT orientation/identity from discrimination, instead of recognizing one position on this at the exception of the other, which I argue is biased.]
> 
> C. There are other cases of fines against bakers, photographers, and even florists
> for not wanting to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs.
> Some of these I agree with, some not.
> If someone just buys flowers or a cake that is one thing,
> but going TO a wedding off site to serve cakes or take photos is up to free choice.
> Another business or vendor/contract staff can be sent, and not force people who don't believe in attending or witnessing or participating in certain activities that are BEHAVIOR -- not internal identity of the customer in the store buying or ordering something.
> 
> In these cases I would make a distinction between:
> 1. providing the goods or services to any customer regardless of beliefs or creeds
> 2. WITHOUT having to attend, witness or participate in the actual gay wedding service
> which is BEHAVIOR and not the internalized identity/orientation that the customers have
> 
> I would also allow such services to be contracted out to staff who don't have those conflicts,
> such as sending a photographer out to an adult party who doesn't mind the BEHAVIOR or THEME of the party
> and not suing the people who don't agree to be there
> 
> In general I promote mediation and consensus as required to resolve conflicts over beliefs,
> if any two parties are going to conduct business together, in order to save legal and public resources related to court actions.
> 
> 
> 
> None of that has anything to do with same-sex marriage. You can't make your case so you're continuously diverting to other topics.
> 
> The topic here is the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, not public accommodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and those are related Faun
> 
> If you don't want to affect other public institutions,
> then "marriage" should be kept in private.
> 
> But if govt endorses certain beliefs about marriage
> then this in turn affects other areas of public laws and institutions.
> 
> All the other examples I cited are related to govt endorsing BELIEFS about LGBT and marriage.
> 1. wedding sites and services affected
> 2. adoption services affected
> in addition to what you and I do agree on which is
> 3. state laws needing to be neutral and void of faith based biases
> that one side or the other objects to as not representing their beliefs equally
> 
> I guess you are saying these are separate cases,
> but I'm saying the SAME arguments and solutions can be used
> to resolve ALL of THESE.  So why have 3-5 areas of disputes by imposing
> one side or the other,
> when we can have a resolution across all these cases by agreeing NOT
> to discriminate against either sides beliefs?
Click to expand...

No, they are not related at all. One is about equal protection and due process while the other is about public accommodation laws. Don't fool yourself into believing no one has noticed you can't prove your position on same-sex marriage, so you keep diverting in all sorts of directions.


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
> 
> PRECISELY rightwinger!
> 
> 2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
> 
> So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
> 
> BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
> 
> A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other.  To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision.  So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy._
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
> 
> It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
> In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
> If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
> Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rightwinger
> And people have to AGREE what's right
> Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
> Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right
> 
> Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
> Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
> 
> What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger with Faith-Based laws, yes, people would have to agree
> or else all it takes is one atheist or nonbeliever in that thing to protest that
> govt should not establish a faith based bias or belief,  and by principle that bias should be removed.
> 
> A good example of a faith based concept people happen to agree on:
> JUSTICE
> Even though this is completely faith-based and never proven or established as existing,
> people have faith in it and AGREE to use these terms in our laws
> and even inscribe them on public buildings.
> Nobody complains because we AGREE on this even though it is FAITH BASED.
> 
> But when it comes to retributive justice and restorative justice,
> no, people do not agree. thus we have fights going on over
> the death penalty and taxpayers funding life imprisonment instead of executions etc.
> I am asking to separate funding on that issue also!
> 
> Similar with abortion.
> We generally agree murder is unlawful and punishable as a crime.
> but some people believe abortion is murder, and others do not.
> Until we agree on how to write or separate laws,
> groups have be en fighting over this to defend their beliefs from each other's.
> 
> How cruel is this suffering and how long are we going to let it go on,
> knowing neither side agrees to biases in laws by the other?
> 
> That's why I argue to separate funding by party,
> set up separate representation and programs where people
> do not feel threatened by any other group dictating their beliefs.
> If political and/or religious beliefs prevent agreement on public laws,
> then set up separate means similar to private religious schools
> and treat partisan programs like private religious programs.
> So people can get the same tax breaks for investing in their
> own policies if the rest of the public doesn't agree to fund them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US does not have faith based laws nor should it
> 
> Why can't you answer the simple questions I asked?
> Why do I get a 300 word diatribe on something unrelated to what I posted?
> 
> Now.....
> Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
> Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
> 
> What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
Click to expand...


rightwinger they have to agree with each other
where marriage or other beliefs get mixed in with public policy

I don't have a say in other state laws, but I can have equal
voice in Texas law or Houston or Democratic Party if that's how we decide how to manage policies 
and benefits. I prefer by party, but others may want it through state.


----------



## Faun

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
> 
> PRECISELY rightwinger!
> 
> 2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
> 
> So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
> 
> BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
> 
> A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other.  To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision.  So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy._
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
> 
> It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
> In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
> If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
> Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rightwinger
> And people have to AGREE what's right
> Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
> Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right
> 
> Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
> Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
> 
> What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger with Faith-Based laws, yes, people would have to agree
> or else all it takes is one atheist or nonbeliever in that thing to protest that
> govt should not establish a faith based bias or belief,  and by principle that bias should be removed.
> 
> A good example of a faith based concept people happen to agree on:
> JUSTICE
> Even though this is completely faith-based and never proven or established as existing,
> people have faith in it and AGREE to use these terms in our laws
> and even inscribe them on public buildings.
> Nobody complains because we AGREE on this even though it is FAITH BASED.
> 
> But when it comes to retributive justice and restorative justice,
> no, people do not agree. thus we have fights going on over
> the death penalty and taxpayers funding life imprisonment instead of executions etc.
> I am asking to separate funding on that issue also!
> 
> Similar with abortion.
> We generally agree murder is unlawful and punishable as a crime.
> but some people believe abortion is murder, and others do not.
> Until we agree on how to write or separate laws,
> groups have be en fighting over this to defend their beliefs from each other's.
> 
> How cruel is this suffering and how long are we going to let it go on,
> knowing neither side agrees to biases in laws by the other?
> 
> That's why I argue to separate funding by party,
> set up separate representation and programs where people
> do not feel threatened by any other group dictating their beliefs.
> If political and/or religious beliefs prevent agreement on public laws,
> then set up separate means similar to private religious schools
> and treat partisan programs like private religious programs.
> So people can get the same tax breaks for investing in their
> own policies if the rest of the public doesn't agree to fund them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US does not have faith based laws nor should it
> 
> Why can't you answer the simple questions I asked?
> Why do I get a 300 word diatribe on something unrelated to what I posted?
> 
> Now.....
> Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
> Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
> 
> What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
Click to expand...

She's not answering your question because she doesn't like the answer.


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily
> 
> What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason
> 
> Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
> 
> PRECISELY rightwinger!
> 
> 2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
> 
> So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
> 
> BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
> 
> A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other.  To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision.  So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy._
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
> 
> It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
> In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
> If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
> Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rightwinger
> And people have to AGREE what's right
> Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
> Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right
> 
> Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
> Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
> 
> What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *RE: What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> *
> BTW rightwinger it's not a matter of not marrying
> but endorsing it through the govt how we marry or don't marry
> 
> If marriage is kept private similar to communion, baptisms, prayer rituals,
> inductions into faith, then anyone can still practice anything.
> but just not try to incorporate or license it through govt unless we agree on
> NEUTRAL universal terms.
> 
> These don't have to be the same for all states.
> 
> Nevada legalizes and licenses prostitution, doesn't mean all states
> have to. Some can treat all domestic partnerships as civil unions,
> while other may well recognize them and call them marriages.
> 
> The point is either treat all people the same regardless of beliefs,
> or remove that wording or policy from govt and keep it private.
> 
> Catholic schools and programs run their own policies
> and have different terms of priesthood than other churches.
> So if you keep things private, you have full freedom.
> If you insist on injecting state into beliefs or beliefs into state together,
> then anything passed on a state level has to represent those people
> and not discriminate on the basis of creed. If people complain about
> bias in belief or creed, that is violating equal rights of people also.
Click to expand...


200 words and you still don't answer a simple question

Emily....Do you speak like you write?

If someone says "Good morning Emily, how are you?"
Do they get a five minute response on something totally unrelated?


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily
> 
> What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason
> 
> Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
> 
> PRECISELY rightwinger!
> 
> 2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
> 
> So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
> 
> BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
> 
> A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other.  To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision.  So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy._
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
> 
> It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
> In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
> If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
> Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rightwinger
> And people have to AGREE what's right
> Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
> Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right
> 
> Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
> Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
> 
> What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *RE: What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> *
> BTW rightwinger it's not a matter of not marrying
> but endorsing it through the govt how we marry or don't marry
> 
> If marriage is kept private similar to communion, baptisms, prayer rituals,
> inductions into faith, then anyone can still practice anything.
> but just not try to incorporate or license it through govt unless we agree on
> NEUTRAL universal terms.
> 
> These don't have to be the same for all states.
> 
> Nevada legalizes and licenses prostitution, doesn't mean all states
> have to. Some can treat all domestic partnerships as civil unions,
> while other may well recognize them and call them marriages.
> 
> The point is either treat all people the same regardless of beliefs,
> or remove that wording or policy from govt and keep it private.
> 
> Catholic schools and programs run their own policies
> and have different terms of priesthood than other churches.
> So if you keep things private, you have full freedom.
> If you insist on injecting state into beliefs or beliefs into state together,
> then anything passed on a state level has to represent those people
> and not discriminate on the basis of creed. If people complain about
> bias in belief or creed, that is violating equal rights of people also.
Click to expand...

More diversions. Civil marriage is not a private act like baptism insofar it requires a public record. Since the government is involved in issuing marriage licenses, they have to do so for everyone who complies, which includes people seeking to marry someone of their same gender. That's equal protection. And we're not getting rid of marriage because some folks find that offensive.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faun here are examples where people ARE losing liberties they had before
> because of public accommodations laws crossing into BELIEFS about LGBT and
> requiring people to respect them or else change their operations policies
> (posted on separate thread Should businesses be sued or church adoption programs shut down over gay beliefs?):
> 
> A. A lesbian couple wanting to have a wedding reception, Kate and Ming Linsley, sued the Wildflower Inn after being turned away. The lawsuit was settled in August after the inn agreed to pay $30,000 and stop hosting weddings and receptions.
> 
> By signing the settlement agreement, the inn owners agreed that any future “disparate treatment of same-sex couples” is illegal, including “discouragement of the couples from using the accommodations, facilities, advantages and privileges of any place of public accommodation.”
> 
> Washington has a law already on the books that guarantees “the right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement” regardless of sexual orientation.
> 
> ^ NOTE 1 Faun: the same way you are saying nobody is being forced to have a gay wedding,
> well nobody is FORCING that couple to use that facility when many other gay friendly services would love to have that business!
> 
> NOTE 2 please note my offer of how to solve these issues where the facility can still be used without imposing on staff who don't have to be present:
> *"BTW how I would solve the business lawsuit cases
> 1. for the wedding sites, allow this to be rented but require the couple to bring in their own hired staff and pay for insurance to cover any damages to the site if the management does not want to be present at a gay wedding
> 
> 2. have businesses and customers sign WAIVERS in advance protecting both from legal actions or costs
> should there be disputes or conflicts for ANY REASON: require instead either mediation by mediator chosen by the customer, or if that fails, arbitration by arbiter chosen by the business; or else agree to REFRAIN from doing business if the dispute cannot be resolved by consensus of both parties to avoid legal issues or expenses.
> 
> This would protect both sides, regardless of the reason, and regardless what their beliefs are that may conflict."*
> 
> B. RE Catholic adoption services:
> 
> "#1 - Catholic adoption agencies should not be "shut down" that don't accommodate gay couples. As private, privately funded, non-profit organizations they should be able to place children according to their religious doctrine. On the other hand if they are going to function under government contractors and function on the taxpayer's dime - then they need to comply with non-discrimination laws or not be eligible for the contract."
> 
> Unfortunately this policy HAS led to some adoption services shutting down that depended on govt support. so it has DEPRIVED people of ne eded services due to CLASHING beliefs that COULD have remained a private issue since BELIEFS are involved. [Govt COULD have adopted a NEUTRAL policy protecting ANY beliefs about LGBT orientation/identity from discrimination, instead of recognizing one position on this at the exception of the other, which I argue is biased.]
> 
> C. There are other cases of fines against bakers, photographers, and even florists
> for not wanting to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs.
> Some of these I agree with, some not.
> If someone just buys flowers or a cake that is one thing,
> but going TO a wedding off site to serve cakes or take photos is up to free choice.
> Another business or vendor/contract staff can be sent, and not force people who don't believe in attending or witnessing or participating in certain activities that are BEHAVIOR -- not internal identity of the customer in the store buying or ordering something.
> 
> In these cases I would make a distinction between:
> 1. providing the goods or services to any customer regardless of beliefs or creeds
> 2. WITHOUT having to attend, witness or participate in the actual gay wedding service
> which is BEHAVIOR and not the internalized identity/orientation that the customers have
> 
> I would also allow such services to be contracted out to staff who don't have those conflicts,
> such as sending a photographer out to an adult party who doesn't mind the BEHAVIOR or THEME of the party
> and not suing the people who don't agree to be there
> 
> In general I promote mediation and consensus as required to resolve conflicts over beliefs,
> if any two parties are going to conduct business together, in order to save legal and public resources related to court actions.
> 
> 
> 
> None of that has anything to do with same-sex marriage. You can't make your case so you're continuously diverting to other topics.
> 
> The topic here is the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, not public accommodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and those are related Faun
> 
> If you don't want to affect other public institutions,
> then "marriage" should be kept in private.
> 
> But if govt endorses certain beliefs about marriage
> then this in turn affects other areas of public laws and institutions.
> 
> All the other examples I cited are related to govt endorsing BELIEFS about LGBT and marriage.
> 1. wedding sites and services affected
> 2. adoption services affected
> in addition to what you and I do agree on which is
> 3. state laws needing to be neutral and void of faith based biases
> that one side or the other objects to as not representing their beliefs equally
> 
> I guess you are saying these are separate cases,
> but I'm saying the SAME arguments and solutions can be used
> to resolve ALL of THESE.  So why have 3-5 areas of disputes by imposing
> one side or the other,
> when we can have a resolution across all these cases by agreeing NOT
> to discriminate against either sides beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they are not related at all. One is about equal protection and due process while the other is about public accommodation laws. Don't fool yourself into believing no one has noticed you can't prove your position on same-sex marriage, so you keep diverting in all sorts of directions.
Click to expand...


Dear Faun
1. I already said that BELIEFS about same sex marriage are already protected from each other
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and Civil Rights policies against discrimination by creed

2. these are not diversions. I am saying the SAME concepts apply to all these other areas.

So solving one problem solves them all.
The problem is not recognizing political beliefs as equal.

You only want to defend your beliefs and rights
but you don't recognize the same of others.

Whose fault is that?
Why are you blaming me for your inability to accommodate others?

I am trying to accommodate you and your beliefs.
Your messages are about trying to debunk and EXCLUDE or dismiss my beliefs.

So who is doing the discriminating here?
You are arguing why you should exclude 
"unless I prove to you why should something be included".

I am arguing how to include everyone equally!

*You are basically assuming other positions are false until proven true,
while holding your position as true unless proven false.

I am assuming all beliefs are true, and trying to include them all.*

Do you see the difference?


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
> 
> PRECISELY rightwinger!
> 
> 2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
> 
> So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
> 
> BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
> 
> A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other.  To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision.  So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy._
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
> 
> It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
> In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
> If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
> Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rightwinger
> And people have to AGREE what's right
> Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
> Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right
> 
> Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
> Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
> 
> What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *RE: What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> *
> BTW rightwinger it's not a matter of not marrying
> but endorsing it through the govt how we marry or don't marry
> 
> If marriage is kept private similar to communion, baptisms, prayer rituals,
> inductions into faith, then anyone can still practice anything.
> but just not try to incorporate or license it through govt unless we agree on
> NEUTRAL universal terms.
> 
> These don't have to be the same for all states.
> 
> Nevada legalizes and licenses prostitution, doesn't mean all states
> have to. Some can treat all domestic partnerships as civil unions,
> while other may well recognize them and call them marriages.
> 
> The point is either treat all people the same regardless of beliefs,
> or remove that wording or policy from govt and keep it private.
> 
> Catholic schools and programs run their own policies
> and have different terms of priesthood than other churches.
> So if you keep things private, you have full freedom.
> If you insist on injecting state into beliefs or beliefs into state together,
> then anything passed on a state level has to represent those people
> and not discriminate on the basis of creed. If people complain about
> bias in belief or creed, that is violating equal rights of people also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 200 words and you still don't answer a simple question
> 
> Emily....Do you speak like you write?
> 
> If someone says "Good morning Emily, how are you?"
> Do they get a five minute response on something totally unrelated?
Click to expand...


Yes, people do complain about that.

Because I include viewpoints of others equally in public policy,
then if you ask about abortion you can get about 5 different angles
that I would say all need to be accommodated in abortion laws.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy._
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
> 
> It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
> In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
> If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
> Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger
> And people have to AGREE what's right
> Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
> Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right
> 
> Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
> Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
> 
> What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger with Faith-Based laws, yes, people would have to agree
> or else all it takes is one atheist or nonbeliever in that thing to protest that
> govt should not establish a faith based bias or belief,  and by principle that bias should be removed.
> 
> A good example of a faith based concept people happen to agree on:
> JUSTICE
> Even though this is completely faith-based and never proven or established as existing,
> people have faith in it and AGREE to use these terms in our laws
> and even inscribe them on public buildings.
> Nobody complains because we AGREE on this even though it is FAITH BASED.
> 
> But when it comes to retributive justice and restorative justice,
> no, people do not agree. thus we have fights going on over
> the death penalty and taxpayers funding life imprisonment instead of executions etc.
> I am asking to separate funding on that issue also!
> 
> Similar with abortion.
> We generally agree murder is unlawful and punishable as a crime.
> but some people believe abortion is murder, and others do not.
> Until we agree on how to write or separate laws,
> groups have be en fighting over this to defend their beliefs from each other's.
> 
> How cruel is this suffering and how long are we going to let it go on,
> knowing neither side agrees to biases in laws by the other?
> 
> That's why I argue to separate funding by party,
> set up separate representation and programs where people
> do not feel threatened by any other group dictating their beliefs.
> If political and/or religious beliefs prevent agreement on public laws,
> then set up separate means similar to private religious schools
> and treat partisan programs like private religious programs.
> So people can get the same tax breaks for investing in their
> own policies if the rest of the public doesn't agree to fund them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US does not have faith based laws nor should it
> 
> Why can't you answer the simple questions I asked?
> Why do I get a 300 word diatribe on something unrelated to what I posted?
> 
> Now.....
> Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
> Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
> 
> What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rightwinger they have to agree with each other
> where marriage or other beliefs get mixed in with public policy
> 
> I don't have a say in other state laws, but I can have equal
> voice in Texas law or Houston or Democratic Party if that's how we decide how to manage policies
> and benefits. I prefer by party, but others may want it through state.
Click to expand...

There need not be agreement. Where do you get this nonsense from? Why are your rights dependent upon my approval?


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faun here are examples where people ARE losing liberties they had before
> because of public accommodations laws crossing into BELIEFS about LGBT and
> requiring people to respect them or else change their operations policies
> (posted on separate thread Should businesses be sued or church adoption programs shut down over gay beliefs?):
> 
> A. A lesbian couple wanting to have a wedding reception, Kate and Ming Linsley, sued the Wildflower Inn after being turned away. The lawsuit was settled in August after the inn agreed to pay $30,000 and stop hosting weddings and receptions.
> 
> By signing the settlement agreement, the inn owners agreed that any future “disparate treatment of same-sex couples” is illegal, including “discouragement of the couples from using the accommodations, facilities, advantages and privileges of any place of public accommodation.”
> 
> Washington has a law already on the books that guarantees “the right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement” regardless of sexual orientation.
> 
> ^ NOTE 1 Faun: the same way you are saying nobody is being forced to have a gay wedding,
> well nobody is FORCING that couple to use that facility when many other gay friendly services would love to have that business!
> 
> NOTE 2 please note my offer of how to solve these issues where the facility can still be used without imposing on staff who don't have to be present:
> *"BTW how I would solve the business lawsuit cases
> 1. for the wedding sites, allow this to be rented but require the couple to bring in their own hired staff and pay for insurance to cover any damages to the site if the management does not want to be present at a gay wedding
> 
> 2. have businesses and customers sign WAIVERS in advance protecting both from legal actions or costs
> should there be disputes or conflicts for ANY REASON: require instead either mediation by mediator chosen by the customer, or if that fails, arbitration by arbiter chosen by the business; or else agree to REFRAIN from doing business if the dispute cannot be resolved by consensus of both parties to avoid legal issues or expenses.
> 
> This would protect both sides, regardless of the reason, and regardless what their beliefs are that may conflict."*
> 
> B. RE Catholic adoption services:
> 
> "#1 - Catholic adoption agencies should not be "shut down" that don't accommodate gay couples. As private, privately funded, non-profit organizations they should be able to place children according to their religious doctrine. On the other hand if they are going to function under government contractors and function on the taxpayer's dime - then they need to comply with non-discrimination laws or not be eligible for the contract."
> 
> Unfortunately this policy HAS led to some adoption services shutting down that depended on govt support. so it has DEPRIVED people of ne eded services due to CLASHING beliefs that COULD have remained a private issue since BELIEFS are involved. [Govt COULD have adopted a NEUTRAL policy protecting ANY beliefs about LGBT orientation/identity from discrimination, instead of recognizing one position on this at the exception of the other, which I argue is biased.]
> 
> C. There are other cases of fines against bakers, photographers, and even florists
> for not wanting to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs.
> Some of these I agree with, some not.
> If someone just buys flowers or a cake that is one thing,
> but going TO a wedding off site to serve cakes or take photos is up to free choice.
> Another business or vendor/contract staff can be sent, and not force people who don't believe in attending or witnessing or participating in certain activities that are BEHAVIOR -- not internal identity of the customer in the store buying or ordering something.
> 
> In these cases I would make a distinction between:
> 1. providing the goods or services to any customer regardless of beliefs or creeds
> 2. WITHOUT having to attend, witness or participate in the actual gay wedding service
> which is BEHAVIOR and not the internalized identity/orientation that the customers have
> 
> I would also allow such services to be contracted out to staff who don't have those conflicts,
> such as sending a photographer out to an adult party who doesn't mind the BEHAVIOR or THEME of the party
> and not suing the people who don't agree to be there
> 
> In general I promote mediation and consensus as required to resolve conflicts over beliefs,
> if any two parties are going to conduct business together, in order to save legal and public resources related to court actions.
> 
> 
> 
> None of that has anything to do with same-sex marriage. You can't make your case so you're continuously diverting to other topics.
> 
> The topic here is the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, not public accommodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and those are related Faun
> 
> If you don't want to affect other public institutions,
> then "marriage" should be kept in private.
> 
> But if govt endorses certain beliefs about marriage
> then this in turn affects other areas of public laws and institutions.
> 
> All the other examples I cited are related to govt endorsing BELIEFS about LGBT and marriage.
> 1. wedding sites and services affected
> 2. adoption services affected
> in addition to what you and I do agree on which is
> 3. state laws needing to be neutral and void of faith based biases
> that one side or the other objects to as not representing their beliefs equally
> 
> I guess you are saying these are separate cases,
> but I'm saying the SAME arguments and solutions can be used
> to resolve ALL of THESE.  So why have 3-5 areas of disputes by imposing
> one side or the other,
> when we can have a resolution across all these cases by agreeing NOT
> to discriminate against either sides beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they are not related at all. One is about equal protection and due process while the other is about public accommodation laws. Don't fool yourself into believing no one has noticed you can't prove your position on same-sex marriage, so you keep diverting in all sorts of directions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. I already said that BELIEFS about same sex marriage are already protected from each other
> by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and Civil Rights policies against discrimination by creed
> 
> 2. these are not diversions. I am saying the SAME concepts apply to all these other areas.
> 
> So solving one problem solves them all.
> The problem is not recognizing political beliefs as equal.
> 
> You only want to defend your beliefs and rights
> but you don't recognize the same of others.
> 
> Whose fault is that?
> Why are you blaming me for your inability to accommodate others?
> 
> I am trying to accommodate you and your beliefs.
> Your messages are about trying to debunk and EXCLUDE or dismiss my beliefs.
> 
> So who is doing the discriminating here?
> You are arguing why you should exclude
> "unless I prove to you why should something be included".
> 
> I am arguing how to include everyone equally!
> 
> *You are basically assuming other positions are false until proven true,
> while holding your position as true unless proven false.
> 
> I am assuming all beliefs are true, and trying to include them all.*
> 
> Do you see the difference?
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the First Amendment protecting same-sex marriage. That's where you go off the rails every single time and why you're perplexed over the legality of Obergefell.


----------



## Syriusly

Sbiker said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you've been told before, even though you can't understand it, same-sex marriage is not being imposed upon anyone who doesn't want it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered this before, several times.
> 
> I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"
> 
> If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
> then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."
> 
> Same principle. Faun
> 
> In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
> the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.
> 
> So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
> they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
> "if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."
> 
> Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
> And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
> Crosses
> Prayers
> God
> Jesus
> creation
> etc.
> from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
> and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
> and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.
> 
> Or that's discrimination by creed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed.   By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment.  I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs.  I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others.  Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh? Are gay folks not human? Do they not have the same rights as straight folks? And marriage is about many aspects, reproduction is but one. Not everyone who gets married has kids; yet they still have the right to get married. And many couples who do marry, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, raise families through adoption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage - is not a rights. It's obligations. Spouses form a new society cell - and society gives them upkeep to do it. I mean not only reproduction, but education too. I know, some families don't have children and don't want to educate anyone, but why we have to add in this system families, known good as not able to educate children?
> 
> You speaking about rights of gays - did you remembered about rights of children? Without imposed homosexualism and without domestic sexual abuse?
> 
> Otherwise, what is the reason of official marriage, if you want to have a sex? "Because God forbid it?" So, God forbid an homosexualism too...
Click to expand...


Marriage is a right- but with marriage does come obligations.

What is the purpose of 'official marriage'? It is a legal recognition of a contract between two people- a contract that society believes benefits our society. 

I love this description from a famous Supreme Court case


_Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."_


----------



## Syriusly

Sbiker said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed.   By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment.  I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs.  I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others.  Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sbiker, first of all, note that they are civil rights, constitutional rights.  Next, sbiker, note that marriage most certainly is not a form of social agreement to make new members of society.   My father and stepmother entered into marriage after the death of my mother.  My stepmother was told by her doctor she would die if she became pregnant. When I entered the working world, I encountered literally thousands of people not wishing to have children - ever.    Using your logic, the elderly, infirm, and those not wanting children should not be permitted to get married.  This includes the millions of men and women with fertility problems.  Gay people have, and do have children.  Especially those in their 40's, 50's and beyond, who under societal pressure, married and had children.  They also adopt, they are now using surrogates at a higher percentage that heterosexuals.
> 
> It's not a form of deception.  It's a fact of life.  You cannot deny my child the right to get married if she's infertile, or if her spouse is infertile, or if they decide not to have children.  You cannot deny her the right to get married if she is gay, either.  Better get your facts straight.   Marriage is not about making more children.  Marriage is a civil contract between two people (not two and some expected offspring) who meet the criteria for marriage (age, familial relationship, etc) within the confines of law.  The state laws in some states were overturned because they violated the 14th amendment.  Now move on, sbiker, and do some research.   Also read all the posts - this was brought up early on, more than likely in the first 5-10 pages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the main purpose of marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> Marriage is a right. People get married for all sorts of reasons. Whatever their reason is, is up to them, not you, not the state. The state can't prevent a couple who qualify for marriage from getting married because they can't, or won't, procreate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm... You're, offcourse, right, if we discussing marriage as a preferable rights for spouses.
> 
> But rights of one people ends where the rights of another people starts... What about children? What about rights or every children to grow in normal, traditional family? Children - are either not a property of adults, not a mature members of society, who could completely understand own rights and psychologically able to defend them!
Click to expand...


What about children when it comes to marriage? Children do have rights- but our society has not recognized that children have a right to two married parents of any gender. 

In the United States married parents can divorce without any stated reason- no fault divorce- and children have no right to prevent a divorce. 

"normal traditional family'? What is that exactly? The majority of children not in a 'normal traditional family' are children whose parents have divorced, or who have had one or both parents abandon them. You are arbitrarily applying a different standard to gay parents than you apply to straight parents.

If you are concerned about children having two parents- why aren't you advocating for helping the majority of children without two parents? The children of divorce and abandonment?


----------



## Syriusly

Sbiker said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed.   By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment.  I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs.  I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others.  Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh? Are gay folks not human? Do they not have the same rights as straight folks? And marriage is about many aspects, reproduction is but one. Not everyone who gets married has kids; yet they still have the right to get married. And many couples who do marry, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, raise families through adoption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage - is not a rights. It's obligations. Spouses form a new society cell - and society gives them upkeep to do it. I mean not only reproduction, but education too. I know, some families don't have children and don't want to educate anyone, but why we have to add in this system families, known good as not able to educate children?
> 
> You speaking about rights of gays - did you remembered about rights of children? Without imposed homosexualism and without domestic sexual abuse?
> 
> Otherwise, what is the reason of official marriage, if you want to have a sex? "Because God forbid it?" So, God forbid an homosexualism too...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course marriage is a right. That's been reaffirmed no less than 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.
> 
> *Maynard v. Hill*, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
> 
> 
> *Meyer v. Nebraska*, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
> 
> 
> *Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson*, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
> 
> 
> *Griswold v. Connecticut*, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
> 
> 
> *Loving v. Virginia*, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
> 
> 
> *Boddie v. Connecticut*, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “Marriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
> 
> 
> *Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur*, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
> 
> 
> *Moore v. City of East Cleveland*, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
> 
> 
> *Carey v. Population Services International*, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
> 
> 
> *Zablocki v. Redhail*, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
> 
> 
> *Turner v. Safley*, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
> 
> 
> *Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey*, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
> 
> 
> *M.L.B. v. S.L.J.*, 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
> 
> 
> *Lawrence v. Texas*, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
> ... so marriage is most certainly a right -- and the courts (and many states) determined there are no compelling interests to deny folks equal protection under the law by restricting them access to the right to marry the person of their choice even if that other person happens to be of the same gender.
> 
> The bigger question is .... why on Earth would you seek to let the government take away rights from anybody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
> On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?
> 
> Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...
Click to expand...


How are the rights of any 'religious people' being taken away? No one is forcing any 'religious people' into gay marriage. No one is forcing them to have 'gay marriages' in their church. 

And what about the religious gays who belong to a church that does allow gay marriage? Why would you deny them their religious beliefs? 

The majority of Americans believe in marriage equality. That isn't the reason why gay couples have the right to marry each other- but it is a recognition that the majority of Americans have reached the same place as the law.


----------



## Syriusly

Sbiker said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? Are gay folks not human? Do they not have the same rights as straight folks? And marriage is about many aspects, reproduction is but one. Not everyone who gets married has kids; yet they still have the right to get married. And many couples who do marry, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, raise families through adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage - is not a rights. It's obligations. Spouses form a new society cell - and society gives them upkeep to do it. I mean not only reproduction, but education too. I know, some families don't have children and don't want to educate anyone, but why we have to add in this system families, known good as not able to educate children?
> 
> You speaking about rights of gays - did you remembered about rights of children? Without imposed homosexualism and without domestic sexual abuse?
> 
> Otherwise, what is the reason of official marriage, if you want to have a sex? "Because God forbid it?" So, God forbid an homosexualism too...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course marriage is a right. That's been reaffirmed no less than 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.
> 
> *Maynard v. Hill*, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
> 
> 
> *Meyer v. Nebraska*, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
> 
> 
> *Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson*, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
> 
> 
> *Griswold v. Connecticut*, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
> 
> 
> *Loving v. Virginia*, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
> 
> 
> *Boddie v. Connecticut*, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “Marriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
> 
> 
> *Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur*, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
> 
> 
> *Moore v. City of East Cleveland*, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
> 
> 
> *Carey v. Population Services International*, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
> 
> 
> *Zablocki v. Redhail*, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
> 
> 
> *Turner v. Safley*, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
> 
> 
> *Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey*, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
> 
> 
> *M.L.B. v. S.L.J.*, 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
> 
> 
> *Lawrence v. Texas*, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
> ... so marriage is most certainly a right -- and the courts (and many states) determined there are no compelling interests to deny folks equal protection under the law by restricting them access to the right to marry the person of their choice even if that other person happens to be of the same gender.
> 
> The bigger question is .... why on Earth would you seek to let the government take away rights from anybody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
> On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?
> 
> Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
Click to expand...


Correction- some religious folks are upset about 'gay marriage'- not all. 

Civil marriage is civil marriage- why would Christians be any more upset at the civil marriage of a gay couple than they would be of Donald Trump marrying for the third time?(check out what Jesus says about remarriage after divorce- which by the way is a sin according to the Catholic Church) Or of two Jews marrying, or of two Hindu's marrying?


----------



## Syriusly

Sbiker said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course marriage is a right. That's been reaffirmed no less than 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.
> 
> *Maynard v. Hill*, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
> 
> 
> *Meyer v. Nebraska*, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
> 
> 
> *Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson*, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
> 
> 
> *Griswold v. Connecticut*, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
> 
> 
> *Loving v. Virginia*, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
> 
> 
> *Boddie v. Connecticut*, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “Marriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
> 
> 
> *Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur*, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
> 
> 
> *Moore v. City of East Cleveland*, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
> 
> 
> *Carey v. Population Services International*, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
> 
> 
> *Zablocki v. Redhail*, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
> 
> 
> *Turner v. Safley*, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
> 
> 
> *Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey*, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
> 
> 
> *M.L.B. v. S.L.J.*, 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
> 
> 
> *Lawrence v. Texas*, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
> ... so marriage is most certainly a right -- and the courts (and many states) determined there are no compelling interests to deny folks equal protection under the law by restricting them access to the right to marry the person of their choice even if that other person happens to be of the same gender.
> 
> The bigger question is .... why on Earth would you seek to let the government take away rights from anybody?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
> On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?
> 
> Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter if they think that. Their beliefs do not get to infringe upon the rights of others.
> 
> As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If gays THINK they need a marriage like an achievement - let them to have it. If christians THINK they need a marriage as a Church ritual - ignore them... WHY? Do you really have much more gays in US than christians? Or, in fact, rights of gays are much more preferrable, than others?!
Click to expand...


Christians have every right to marry within their church- or they can have a civil marriage. 
Gay Christians who belong to some churches have the right to marry within their church- or they can have a civil marriage.

No rights have been taken away from anyone- instead- just as in Loving v. Virginia- the marriage rights of more Americans have been recognized.


----------



## Syriusly

Sbiker said:


> [
> I don't even dispute the right of gays to invent own type of "marriage" and name it according in their traditions... But taking word "MARRIAGE" from christian tradition to pervert it publically - it's and act of aggression. Your example about pork is very good. While christians are "eating pork", gays are pulling out the piece of pork from their hands and publically using it as a toilet paper. But everyone, not only gays, must have a rights to eat own pork!



Christians didn't invent marriage- marriage predates Christianity- and is hardly unique to Christianity. 

Let us use your 'pork' example- you essentially are saying that everyone should be prevented from eating pork because Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is sinful. 

We are saying that even if some religious are against eating pork, decisions on what to eat is a personal and civil matter, that we get to decide regardless of what people of some religions should be eaten.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Nope Faun it's not "gays taking rights from others" but biases in laws that deprive citizens of equal freedom by discriminating by creed. Both sides complain if the other bias is imposed by law. Neither side wants a faith based bias creeping into laws.



I refer to Loving v. Virginia again.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?
> 
> That aside, you made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. That's complete nonsense and something no one is claiming.
> 
> Either quote the portion from the Obergefell decision which sites freedom of religion or admit you have no position to stand on...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.
> 
> Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.
> 
> The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.
> 
> Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
> takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
> ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.
> 
> People generally don't see all the layers.
> It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
> I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
> in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.
> 
> then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.
> 
> With each person their points may be different!
> 
> So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
> doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.
> 
> By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
> But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
> And the process has involved these other areas that affect
> how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.
> 
> Thanks for your patience.
> This is not as easy as it looks to you.
> 
> If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
> instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
> this is a very necessary part of the process,
> to understand the layers of human perception
> that are part of the puzzle.
> 
> When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
> that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily
> 
> What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason
> 
> Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
> 
> PRECISELY rightwinger!
> 
> 2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
> 
> So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
> 
> BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
> 
> A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other.  To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision.  So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy._
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
> 
> It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
> In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
> If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
> Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rightwinger
> And people have to AGREE what's right
> Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
> Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
Click to expand...


And again- Loving v. Virginia.

If people have to agree what's right, mixed race couples would not have been able to legally marry in Virginia for at least another 20 years- and maybe not ever.


----------



## Syriusly

Sbiker said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter if they think that. Their beliefs do not get to infringe upon the rights of others.
> 
> As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If gays THINK they need a marriage like an achievement - let them to have it. If christians THINK they need a marriage as a Church ritual - ignore them... WHY? Do you really have much more gays in US than christians? Or, in fact, rights of gays are much more preferrable, than others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they did, Americans wouldn't be allowed to eat pork as some religious folks find that offensive. They wouldn't be allowed to eat beef because some religious folks find that offensive. The list of rights we would lose would be endless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's to continue this logic. Christianity forbids to murder of people, woodoo and vakhabism - allow. Let's make murdering legal. Do you still have any questions to 9/11?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't even dispute the right of gays to invent own type of "marriage" and name it according in their traditions... But taking word "MARRIAGE" from christian tradition to pervert it publically - it's and act of aggression. Your example about pork is very good. While christians are "eating pork", gays are pulling out the piece of pork from their hands and publically using it as a toilet paper. But everyone, not only gays, must have a rights to eat own pork!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but Christians do not own the word, "marriage."
> 
> Marriage is a right and there is no compelling interest to deny gay people of that fundamental right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The most part of modern marriage tradition - rutial, official record about and so on - was developed inside a Christian tradition. The word "marriage" came to English language from Latin, approximately in XIII century, through Christian books. So, using word "marriage" for gay enterntainment - just a kind of theft...
Click to expand...


No one is using the word 'marriage' for 'gay entertainment- except you. 

Marriage existed before Christianity and has always existed outside of Christianity. Which is why Jews and Muslims and Hindu's and Buddhists, etc can marry.

The word "marriage' comes from Latin- 'maritare'-  and predates Christianity in Rome.


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy._
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
> 
> It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
> In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
> If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
> Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger
> And people have to AGREE what's right
> Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
> Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right
> 
> Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
> Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
> 
> What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *RE: What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> *
> BTW rightwinger it's not a matter of not marrying
> but endorsing it through the govt how we marry or don't marry
> 
> If marriage is kept private similar to communion, baptisms, prayer rituals,
> inductions into faith, then anyone can still practice anything.
> but just not try to incorporate or license it through govt unless we agree on
> NEUTRAL universal terms.
> 
> These don't have to be the same for all states.
> 
> Nevada legalizes and licenses prostitution, doesn't mean all states
> have to. Some can treat all domestic partnerships as civil unions,
> while other may well recognize them and call them marriages.
> 
> The point is either treat all people the same regardless of beliefs,
> or remove that wording or policy from govt and keep it private.
> 
> Catholic schools and programs run their own policies
> and have different terms of priesthood than other churches.
> So if you keep things private, you have full freedom.
> If you insist on injecting state into beliefs or beliefs into state together,
> then anything passed on a state level has to represent those people
> and not discriminate on the basis of creed. If people complain about
> bias in belief or creed, that is violating equal rights of people also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 200 words and you still don't answer a simple question
> 
> Emily....Do you speak like you write?
> 
> If someone says "Good morning Emily, how are you?"
> Do they get a five minute response on something totally unrelated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, people do complain about that.
> 
> Because I include viewpoints of others equally in public policy,
> then if you ask about abortion you can get about 5 different angles
> that I would say all need to be accommodated in abortion laws.
Click to expand...


Emily
You seem like a very nice lady.....but I suspect you are a little nuts

None of what you are saying makes any sense, none of it can be practically applied and all of it is blatantly unconstitutional


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger
> And people have to AGREE what's right
> Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
> Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right
> 
> Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
> Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
> 
> What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger with Faith-Based laws, yes, people would have to agree
> or else all it takes is one atheist or nonbeliever in that thing to protest that
> govt should not establish a faith based bias or belief,  and by principle that bias should be removed.
> 
> A good example of a faith based concept people happen to agree on:
> JUSTICE
> Even though this is completely faith-based and never proven or established as existing,
> people have faith in it and AGREE to use these terms in our laws
> and even inscribe them on public buildings.
> Nobody complains because we AGREE on this even though it is FAITH BASED.
> 
> But when it comes to retributive justice and restorative justice,
> no, people do not agree. thus we have fights going on over
> the death penalty and taxpayers funding life imprisonment instead of executions etc.
> I am asking to separate funding on that issue also!
> 
> Similar with abortion.
> We generally agree murder is unlawful and punishable as a crime.
> but some people believe abortion is murder, and others do not.
> Until we agree on how to write or separate laws,
> groups have be en fighting over this to defend their beliefs from each other's.
> 
> How cruel is this suffering and how long are we going to let it go on,
> knowing neither side agrees to biases in laws by the other?
> 
> That's why I argue to separate funding by party,
> set up separate representation and programs where people
> do not feel threatened by any other group dictating their beliefs.
> If political and/or religious beliefs prevent agreement on public laws,
> then set up separate means similar to private religious schools
> and treat partisan programs like private religious programs.
> So people can get the same tax breaks for investing in their
> own policies if the rest of the public doesn't agree to fund them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US does not have faith based laws nor should it
> 
> Why can't you answer the simple questions I asked?
> Why do I get a 300 word diatribe on something unrelated to what I posted?
> 
> Now.....
> Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
> Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
> 
> What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rightwinger they have to agree with each other
> where marriage or other beliefs get mixed in with public policy
> 
> I don't have a say in other state laws, but I can have equal
> voice in Texas law or Houston or Democratic Party if that's how we decide how to manage policies
> and benefits. I prefer by party, but others may want it through state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There need not be agreement. Where do you get this nonsense from? Why are your rights dependent upon my approval?
Click to expand...


If people don't agree on BELIEFS Faun
(and I'm including political beliefs about contested rights
where conflicts are due to BELIEFS EQUALLY Free from govt regulation
under Constitutional rights as well, I'm not nitpicking over
disagreements due to secular differences or personal preferences)
it's in these areas where I'm saying 
1. people don't have to agree if we keep these PRIVATE out of govt
2. but if you force the issue like marriage to stay IN govt,
then people HAVE to agree where it involved BELIEFS,
because people's political beliefs are also inherent and can't be forced to change
by govt, not unless people CONSENT to by free will not by force of law.

Now where you and I are missing each other
1. I INCLUDE BOTH people like you who don't see any attachment to marriage but are treating it as civil only, not religious
AND people who automatically have beliefs involved that you don't
2. You are writing and interpreting and depending on laws
EXCLUDING these people you don't understand or agree with
because by YOUR system of thought it isn't affected or relevant
BUT TO THEM IT IS

I INCLUDE BOTH
YOU DO NOT

So that's why I'm arguing that we need laws to
include ALL people where these involve BELIEFS
IF they are going to be PUBLIC and represent ALL PEOPLE
not just people who think and see it as all secular as you do,
but also those who don't see or believe the same as you do.

If these are PUBLIC LAWS then all the public should have
equal say.

And YES, Faun the fact that you and others
don't even frame or see it the same way due to
differences in BELIEFS -- THAT'S THE ISSUE
I'M TRYING TO ADDRESS and include!!!


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if they think that. Their beliefs do not get to infringe upon the rights of others.
> 
> As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If gays THINK they need a marriage like an achievement - let them to have it. If christians THINK they need a marriage as a Church ritual - ignore them... WHY? Do you really have much more gays in US than christians? Or, in fact, rights of gays are much more preferrable, than others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they did, Americans wouldn't be allowed to eat pork as some religious folks find that offensive. They wouldn't be allowed to eat beef because some religious folks find that offensive. The list of rights we would lose would be endless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's to continue this logic. Christianity forbids to murder of people, woodoo and vakhabism - allow. Let's make murdering legal. Do you still have any questions to 9/11?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't even dispute the right of gays to invent own type of "marriage" and name it according in their traditions... But taking word "MARRIAGE" from christian tradition to pervert it publically - it's and act of aggression. Your example about pork is very good. While christians are "eating pork", gays are pulling out the piece of pork from their hands and publically using it as a toilet paper. But everyone, not only gays, must have a rights to eat own pork!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but Christians do not own the word, "marriage."
> 
> Marriage is a right and there is no compelling interest to deny gay people of that fundamental right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The most part of modern marriage tradition - rutial, official record about and so on - was developed inside a Christian tradition. The word "marriage" came to English language from Latin, approximately in XIII century, through Christian books. So, using word "marriage" for gay enterntainment - just a kind of theft...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is using the word 'marriage' for 'gay entertainment- except you.
> 
> Marriage existed before Christianity and has always existed outside of Christianity. Which is why Jews and Muslims and Hindu's and Buddhists, etc can marry.
> 
> The word "marriage' comes from Latin- 'maritare'-  and predates Christianity in Rome.
Click to expand...


Dear Syriusly the concept of prayer and mediation is also
universal to people of all faiths including agnostics and atheists whose
brains go into a similar mode as others during prayer/mediation etc.

But if we do not AGREE on terms of prayer,
we should not be making govt laws biased one way or another
where other people object because their ways are different due to 
faith or culture.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if they think that. Their beliefs do not get to infringe upon the rights of others.
> 
> As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If gays THINK they need a marriage like an achievement - let them to have it. If christians THINK they need a marriage as a Church ritual - ignore them... WHY? Do you really have much more gays in US than christians? Or, in fact, rights of gays are much more preferrable, than others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they did, Americans wouldn't be allowed to eat pork as some religious folks find that offensive. They wouldn't be allowed to eat beef because some religious folks find that offensive. The list of rights we would lose would be endless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's to continue this logic. Christianity forbids to murder of people, woodoo and vakhabism - allow. Let's make murdering legal. Do you still have any questions to 9/11?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't even dispute the right of gays to invent own type of "marriage" and name it according in their traditions... But taking word "MARRIAGE" from christian tradition to pervert it publically - it's and act of aggression. Your example about pork is very good. While christians are "eating pork", gays are pulling out the piece of pork from their hands and publically using it as a toilet paper. But everyone, not only gays, must have a rights to eat own pork!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but Christians do not own the word, "marriage."
> 
> Marriage is a right and there is no compelling interest to deny gay people of that fundamental right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The most part of modern marriage tradition - rutial, official record about and so on - was developed inside a Christian tradition. The word "marriage" came to English language from Latin, approximately in XIII century, through Christian books. So, using word "marriage" for gay enterntainment - just a kind of theft...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is using the word 'marriage' for 'gay entertainment- except you.
> 
> Marriage existed before Christianity and has always existed outside of Christianity. Which is why Jews and Muslims and Hindu's and Buddhists, etc can marry.
> 
> The word "marriage' comes from Latin- 'maritare'-  and predates Christianity in Rome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Syriusly the concept of prayer and mediation is also
> universal to people of all faiths including agnostics and atheists whose
> brains go into a similar mode as others during prayer/mediation etc.
> 
> But if we do not AGREE on terms of prayer,
> we should not be making govt laws biased one way or another
> where other people object because their ways are different due to
> faith or culture.
Click to expand...


Universal? Hardly

And none of that has anything to do with marriage.


----------



## Sneekin

Sbiker said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you've been told before, even though you can't understand it, same-sex marriage is not being imposed upon anyone who doesn't want it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered this before, several times.
> 
> I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"
> 
> If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
> then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."
> 
> Same principle. Faun
> 
> In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
> the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.
> 
> So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
> they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
> "if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."
> 
> Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
> And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
> Crosses
> Prayers
> God
> Jesus
> creation
> etc.
> from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
> and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
> and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.
> 
> Or that's discrimination by creed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed.   By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment.  I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs.  I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others.  Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh? Are gay folks not human? Do they not have the same rights as straight folks? And marriage is about many aspects, reproduction is but one. Not everyone who gets married has kids; yet they still have the right to get married. And many couples who do marry, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, raise families through adoption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage - is not a rights. It's obligations. Spouses form a new society cell - and society gives them upkeep to do it. I mean not only reproduction, but education too. I know, some families don't have children and don't want to educate anyone, but why we have to add in this system families, known good as not able to educate children?
> 
> You speaking about rights of gays - did you remembered about rights of children? Without imposed homosexualism and without domestic sexual abuse?
> 
> Otherwise, what is the reason of official marriage, if you want to have a sex? "Because God forbid it?" So, God forbid an homosexualism too...
Click to expand...

Wow - you have so little education, and have told no truths.  Nowhere in our marriage laws, nor in the US constitution, does it have ANYTHING to do with reproduction.   If that was the case, my father would have had to raise his children alone after his wife died, because my stepmother was unable to have children.  So your first point is a lie.  However, gay couples can, and do form new society cells.   My daughter's PTA had several SS parents with one to many children.   Education?   Both moral and literal (book learning). 

Who is imposing homosexuality or domestic sexual abuse on children?   Check your facts again.  97 percent of child abuse is committed by heterosexual parents or family members.

God?  Who's that?  He's also not referenced in our constitution, but your religion, which you once again try to impose is in the constitution - remember, the US Constitution cannot establish religious law.  What a fool you are. Educate yourself.


----------



## Sneekin

Sbiker said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed.   By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment.  I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs.  I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others.  Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sbiker, first of all, note that they are civil rights, constitutional rights.  Next, sbiker, note that marriage most certainly is not a form of social agreement to make new members of society.   My father and stepmother entered into marriage after the death of my mother.  My stepmother was told by her doctor she would die if she became pregnant. When I entered the working world, I encountered literally thousands of people not wishing to have children - ever.    Using your logic, the elderly, infirm, and those not wanting children should not be permitted to get married.  This includes the millions of men and women with fertility problems.  Gay people have, and do have children.  Especially those in their 40's, 50's and beyond, who under societal pressure, married and had children.  They also adopt, they are now using surrogates at a higher percentage that heterosexuals.
> 
> It's not a form of deception.  It's a fact of life.  You cannot deny my child the right to get married if she's infertile, or if her spouse is infertile, or if they decide not to have children.  You cannot deny her the right to get married if she is gay, either.  Better get your facts straight.   Marriage is not about making more children.  Marriage is a civil contract between two people (not two and some expected offspring) who meet the criteria for marriage (age, familial relationship, etc) within the confines of law.  The state laws in some states were overturned because they violated the 14th amendment.  Now move on, sbiker, and do some research.   Also read all the posts - this was brought up early on, more than likely in the first 5-10 pages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the main purpose of marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> Marriage is a right. People get married for all sorts of reasons. Whatever their reason is, is up to them, not you, not the state. The state can't prevent a couple who qualify for marriage from getting married because they can't, or won't, procreate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm... You're, offcourse, right, if we discussing marriage as a preferable rights for spouses.
> 
> But rights of one people ends where the rights of another people starts... What about children? What about rights or every children to grow in normal, traditional family? Children - are either not a property of adults, not a mature members of society, who could completely understand own rights and psychologically able to defend them!
Click to expand...

That's an offensive statement, seeing how over 90 percent of sexual abuse occurs in heterosexual "traditional" families..... not to mention, are you now saying adults are not responsible for their children and their actions?  Better check your law books, bubba.  That's another lie.  I've worked with and also known (friends and family in SS relationships) that have children, and in every case, have done better jobs than what you refer to as "normal, traditional families".  You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are now making up your own facts.  This is settled law, and there already have been court cases over gays raising children - and in every one of those cases, gays won.  I've been involved in court cases where grandparents have sued their ex son-in-law, who was a custodial parent, and involved in a SS relationship.   Every time the mother-in-law's attorney started to produce an  excuse, the father's attorney objected, producing state supreme court rulings in favor of the same sex parent, against the person suing.   The judge removed the Children and Family Service invesigator for bias, and the father's attorney produced evidence that the grandmother had paid various expenses for the investigator.  Sorry, but you just don't have your facts "straight".  Children have rights, to a point.  Not to mention, once they are 12-14 years old, they can pick the SS parent to live with anyway.  Try fact checking.


----------



## emilynghiem

Here Sneekin would it look like this chart.
If people can't agree on political beliefs
then instead of pushing them 
from people/state to federal levels
(from right to left side)
then I'm saying organize political beliefs
by groups through each state, then connect
these nationally to have the same collective
advantage as federal govt but without imposing on people
outside that free choice to affiliate, fund and participate
(from left to right, from people across states to national
or even global since it doesn't have to go through federal)


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker, first of all, note that they are civil rights, constitutional rights.  Next, sbiker, note that marriage most certainly is not a form of social agreement to make new members of society.   My father and stepmother entered into marriage after the death of my mother.  My stepmother was told by her doctor she would die if she became pregnant. When I entered the working world, I encountered literally thousands of people not wishing to have children - ever.    Using your logic, the elderly, infirm, and those not wanting children should not be permitted to get married.  This includes the millions of men and women with fertility problems.  Gay people have, and do have children.  Especially those in their 40's, 50's and beyond, who under societal pressure, married and had children.  They also adopt, they are now using surrogates at a higher percentage that heterosexuals.
> 
> It's not a form of deception.  It's a fact of life.  You cannot deny my child the right to get married if she's infertile, or if her spouse is infertile, or if they decide not to have children.  You cannot deny her the right to get married if she is gay, either.  Better get your facts straight.   Marriage is not about making more children.  Marriage is a civil contract between two people (not two and some expected offspring) who meet the criteria for marriage (age, familial relationship, etc) within the confines of law.  The state laws in some states were overturned because they violated the 14th amendment.  Now move on, sbiker, and do some research.   Also read all the posts - this was brought up early on, more than likely in the first 5-10 pages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the main purpose of marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> Marriage is a right. People get married for all sorts of reasons. Whatever their reason is, is up to them, not you, not the state. The state can't prevent a couple who qualify for marriage from getting married because they can't, or won't, procreate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm... You're, offcourse, right, if we discussing marriage as a preferable rights for spouses.
> 
> But rights of one people ends where the rights of another people starts... What about children? What about rights or every children to grow in normal, traditional family? Children - are either not a property of adults, not a mature members of society, who could completely understand own rights and psychologically able to defend them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's an offensive statement, seeing how over 90 percent of sexual abuse occurs in heterosexual "traditional" families..... not to mention, are you now saying adults are not responsible for their children and their actions?  Better check your law books, bubba.  That's another lie.  I've worked with and also known (friends and family in SS relationships) that have children, and in every case, have done better jobs than what you refer to as "normal, traditional families".  You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are now making up your own facts.  This is settled law, and there already have been court cases over gays raising children - and in every one of those cases, gays won.  I've been involved in court cases where grandparents have sued their ex son-in-law, who was a custodial parent, and involved in a SS relationship.   Every time the mother-in-law's attorney started to produce an  excuse, the father's attorney objected, producing state supreme court rulings in favor of the same sex parent, against the person suing.   The judge removed the Children and Family Service invesigator for bias, and the father's attorney produced evidence that the grandmother had paid various expenses for the investigator.  Sorry, but you just don't have your facts "straight".  Children have rights, to a point.  Not to mention, once they are 12-14 years old, they can pick the SS parent to live with anyway.  Try fact checking.
Click to expand...


OK Sneekin no harm intended
I'm okay using a different term besides traditional.

In all these cases, MEDIATION and consensus would protect the rights of the people affected.
it would PREVENT legal abuse of authority
in the cases as you describe where this gets
imbalanced and out of hand.

So that's another reason to require it in cases
where personal beliefs and relations are involved.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did forget one fact.  The FEDERAL GoVERNMENT rolls up each of the 50 states and they are honored between each of the states.   Civil Union is still illegal, you've been told at least 20 plus times.  You cannot rename it for a class of people.  You also can't manage social benefits by party, illegal as well. WHY can't you grasp that?
> 
> 
> 
> I am not saying only use it for a class of people. I am saying use NEUTRAL terms for EVERYONE.
> 
> In other words for each state
> * if states use the term marriage then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil marriage then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term domestic partnership then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil contracts then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil unions then EVERYONE can get that
> 
> Whatever term states use is for ALL people inclusively or else NOBODY gets that at all.
> 
> I think Faun understands I am saying don't use the term marriage for ANYBODY if it can't be used for EVERYONE.
> 
> If people can't agree to terms of marriage for everyone then the state can't make those laws and force them on anyone using those terms.
> 
> If states agree that EVERYONE gets civil marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever TERM that state agrees on, then that is neutral because everyone gets the same and nobody gets anything different from the state.
> 
> Sneekin if you are just caught up in what civil unions meant in the past I'm talking about the present and future not the past:  if people in a state do not believe in states endorsing gay or same sex "marriages" they can be offered the choice either make ALL marriages open to ALL couples or make ALL couples only get civil unions from the states or domestic partnerships or whatever people of that state agree to call the licensing.
> 
> That way EVERYONE is treated the same such as by only getting civil contracts through the state and getting marriages through whatever traditions they believe in addition to the neutral licensing through the state.
> 
> Sneekin that's fine if you want more, if you live in a state that agrees to recognize marriage for all people as endorsed and licensed through the state Great! I'm all for that if people of that state agree.
> 
> But if they don't agree on terms unless a different set up is used, as long as EVERYONE is subject to the same and NOBODY gets more or less through the state, then at least that is equal.
> 
> I'm sorry this isn't clear Sneekin
> I don't know why it is not possible for ALL couples to get civil unions if that state cannot agree on terms of marriage.
> 
> But if you have such conditions attached to the term civil union that it isn't a legal choice, that's how some people believe about marriage too !
> 
> So if you are saying no way can ALL people get civil unions but NO people should, then the same is true for marriage where either ALL people get to marry through the state or NO people should.
> 
> Just treat all people the SAME, either ALL or NONE, and that is fair to all people. Each state decides what terms it's citizens agree applies to ALL people with no exceptions and that's neutral law!
> 
> And yes, it's totally fine if all people in a state agree to majority rule passing marriage for all people!  But just like rules on references to religion, God. Cteation, prayer etc in schools it has to be by consent of the people where it is NOT the govt endorsing any beliefs the public doesn't agree the state should endorse. Keeping it neutral is one thing, but language endorsing one belief or another can still be struck down as biased.
> 
> Thanks and sorry if this wasn't clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's already a word for it...
> 
> *Marriage*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Faun that would be simple.
> And so would declaring the Democratic platform
> and beliefs about right to health care and right to marriage a
> POLITICAL RELIGION
> and be done with it.
> 
> We could AGREE to list out the political beliefs
> that each person or group holds sacred,
> agree to respect these as inviolate for those people
> and requiring consent of the governed and consensus
> on laws and reforms on any of these areas,
> and stop the fighting over forcing one g roup's
> beliefs over another's by domination or coecion.
> 
> I WISH it were that simple Faun I do!
> 
> But people like you see your stances as RIGHTS and not BELIEFS.
> and so do the right to life,
> and so do the right to choose
> and so do the right to guns advocates.
> 
> So it goes in circles, each combating the sacred
> cows that the other group draws a line in a sand for
> and refuses to let govt cross that line.
> 
> We all have our beliefs, and until we agree
> to treat them the same, we keep competing and
> repeating the same patterns over and over,
> taking turns trying to run over the other or
> run them out of govt. But that doesn't make
> that person's beliefs or rights 'go away" it just
> makes them come back and try to defend them
> again, back and forth.
> 
> Why don't we admit we have these sacred
> rights and beliefs, and agree not to disparage them???
> 
> Seems simple to me Faun but
> as you can see, it isn't easy to see when
> it's YOUR beliefs that you are defending as rights.
> When other people do that to you or me and take
> something that isn't our beliefs and shove it in our
> faces as law, then we can see that it should be a choice
> and not forced by law. But not when
> the shoe is on the other foot. Both sides are like that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is that simple. No one has to abandon marriage in America because some people oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage is here to stay and it now includes marriage between couples of the same sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Consensus on marriage might be reached if hypocrites like you admit you don't tolerate Christian practices in public as you are demanding people tolerate LGBT beliefs expressions and practices in public policy!
> 
> If you want equal rights and respect Faun that means to respect the same of others but you DONT. You insist that people's beliefs opposed to gay marriage, which cause them to reject "marriage" applied to gay couples, are due to some delusion or other deficiency. Thus Faun you are discriminating against the beliefs of others as inferior yet demanding equality for LGBT beliefs which is contradictory. You think you are not discriminating or excluding others but you keep putting them down as wrong instead of treating and respecting the beliefs as equal as I am trying to do.
> 
> And then you put me down also for trying to find ways to include all beliefs in a consensus on laws.
Click to expand...

Simply not true, Emily.  Nothing is shoved in your face.  Your religion is not forced to acknowledge SSM, nor are you.   Your religion isn't forced to like or approve of it, and neither or you.  You want to name it something different, which violates the constitution.  If you can't grasp this, call an attorney.  Faun isn't discriminating against anyone, he's STANDING UP FOR THE RIGHTS OF EVERYONE.  YOU are the one advocating discrimination.  He's never once said other valid beliefs are delusions or deficient - he was referring to both your comments, and the others who claim religion trumps the Constitution, and separate but equal. There is no such thing anymore as SSM and Straight marriage.  There is JUST MARRIAGE. Please, try and wrap your mind around it, Emily.


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> If gays THINK they need a marriage like an achievement - let them to have it. If christians THINK they need a marriage as a Church ritual - ignore them... WHY? Do you really have much more gays in US than christians? Or, in fact, rights of gays are much more preferrable, than others?
> 
> Let's to continue this logic. Christianity forbids to murder of people, woodoo and vakhabism - allow. Let's make murdering legal. Do you still have any questions to 9/11?
> 
> I don't even dispute the right of gays to invent own type of "marriage" and name it according in their traditions... But taking word "MARRIAGE" from christian tradition to pervert it publically - it's and act of aggression. Your example about pork is very good. While christians are "eating pork", gays are pulling out the piece of pork from their hands and publically using it as a toilet paper. But everyone, not only gays, must have a rights to eat own pork!
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but Christians do not own the word, "marriage."
> 
> Marriage is a right and there is no compelling interest to deny gay people of that fundamental right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The most part of modern marriage tradition - rutial, official record about and so on - was developed inside a Christian tradition. The word "marriage" came to English language from Latin, approximately in XIII century, through Christian books. So, using word "marriage" for gay enterntainment - just a kind of theft...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is using the word 'marriage' for 'gay entertainment- except you.
> 
> Marriage existed before Christianity and has always existed outside of Christianity. Which is why Jews and Muslims and Hindu's and Buddhists, etc can marry.
> 
> The word "marriage' comes from Latin- 'maritare'-  and predates Christianity in Rome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Syriusly the concept of prayer and mediation is also
> universal to people of all faiths including agnostics and atheists whose
> brains go into a similar mode as others during prayer/mediation etc.
> 
> But if we do not AGREE on terms of prayer,
> we should not be making govt laws biased one way or another
> where other people object because their ways are different due to
> faith or culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Universal? Hardly
> 
> And none of that has anything to do with marriage.
Click to expand...


Yes Syriusly studies on brains show
that there is universal function in prayer/meditation. we just don't agree on all the terms and means and expressions but the patterns in the brain occur in all people regardless of beliefs.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Nope Faun it's not "gays taking rights from others" but biases in laws that deprive citizens of equal freedom by discriminating by creed. Both sides complain if the other bias is imposed by law. Neither side wants a faith based bias creeping into laws.


waiting for the list of biases.  The federal courts have produced 1138 biases in effect until Obergefell, Loving and Windsor were passed.  You are quite simply, not telling the truth.  That is not discrimination by creed.  People of all creeds are able to get married.  SSM CANNOT BE IMPOSED ON YOUR RELIGION.  Use your eyes and brain, and read Obergefell - your insecurities are addressed.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker, first of all, note that they are civil rights, constitutional rights.  Next, sbiker, note that marriage most certainly is not a form of social agreement to make new members of society.   My father and stepmother entered into marriage after the death of my mother.  My stepmother was told by her doctor she would die if she became pregnant. When I entered the working world, I encountered literally thousands of people not wishing to have children - ever.    Using your logic, the elderly, infirm, and those not wanting children should not be permitted to get married.  This includes the millions of men and women with fertility problems.  Gay people have, and do have children.  Especially those in their 40's, 50's and beyond, who under societal pressure, married and had children.  They also adopt, they are now using surrogates at a higher percentage that heterosexuals.
> 
> It's not a form of deception.  It's a fact of life.  You cannot deny my child the right to get married if she's infertile, or if her spouse is infertile, or if they decide not to have children.  You cannot deny her the right to get married if she is gay, either.  Better get your facts straight.   Marriage is not about making more children.  Marriage is a civil contract between two people (not two and some expected offspring) who meet the criteria for marriage (age, familial relationship, etc) within the confines of law.  The state laws in some states were overturned because they violated the 14th amendment.  Now move on, sbiker, and do some research.   Also read all the posts - this was brought up early on, more than likely in the first 5-10 pages.
> 
> 
> 
> What is the main purpose of marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> Marriage is a right. People get married for all sorts of reasons. Whatever their reason is, is up to them, not you, not the state. The state can't prevent a couple who qualify for marriage from getting married because they can't, or won't, procreate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm... You're, offcourse, right, if we discussing marriage as a preferable rights for spouses.
> 
> But rights of one people ends where the rights of another people starts... What about children? What about rights or every children to grow in normal, traditional family? Children - are either not a property of adults, not a mature members of society, who could completely understand own rights and psychologically able to defend them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's an offensive statement, seeing how over 90 percent of sexual abuse occurs in heterosexual "traditional" families..... not to mention, are you now saying adults are not responsible for their children and their actions?  Better check your law books, bubba.  That's another lie.  I've worked with and also known (friends and family in SS relationships) that have children, and in every case, have done better jobs than what you refer to as "normal, traditional families".  You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are now making up your own facts.  This is settled law, and there already have been court cases over gays raising children - and in every one of those cases, gays won.  I've been involved in court cases where grandparents have sued their ex son-in-law, who was a custodial parent, and involved in a SS relationship.   Every time the mother-in-law's attorney started to produce an  excuse, the father's attorney objected, producing state supreme court rulings in favor of the same sex parent, against the person suing.   The judge removed the Children and Family Service invesigator for bias, and the father's attorney produced evidence that the grandmother had paid various expenses for the investigator.  Sorry, but you just don't have your facts "straight".  Children have rights, to a point.  Not to mention, once they are 12-14 years old, they can pick the SS parent to live with anyway.  Try fact checking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK Sneekin no harm intended
> I'm okay using a different term besides traditional.
> 
> In all these cases, MEDIATION and consensus would protect the rights of the people affected.
> it would PREVENT legal abuse of authority
> in the cases as you describe where this gets
> imbalanced and out of hand.
> 
> So that's another reason to require it in cases
> where personal beliefs and relations are involved.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact you are now trying to abuse our legal system and abuse the law.  Requiring what you claim compounds the abuse.  Your personal belief one way or another regarding SSM has no impact on race, color, creed, etc.  NONE WHATSOEVER, EMILY.   You claim we need to make exceptions for "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL", with caveats - "Democrats can't have guns" "gays can't use the word marriage"  "Abortions only for Democreats"  - can't you even grasp the fact that your words and proposals VIOLATE the very words of the 14th amendment????


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but Christians do not own the word, "marriage."
> 
> Marriage is a right and there is no compelling interest to deny gay people of that fundamental right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most part of modern marriage tradition - rutial, official record about and so on - was developed inside a Christian tradition. The word "marriage" came to English language from Latin, approximately in XIII century, through Christian books. So, using word "marriage" for gay enterntainment - just a kind of theft...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is using the word 'marriage' for 'gay entertainment- except you.
> 
> Marriage existed before Christianity and has always existed outside of Christianity. Which is why Jews and Muslims and Hindu's and Buddhists, etc can marry.
> 
> The word "marriage' comes from Latin- 'maritare'-  and predates Christianity in Rome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Syriusly the concept of prayer and mediation is also
> universal to people of all faiths including agnostics and atheists whose
> brains go into a similar mode as others during prayer/mediation etc.
> 
> But if we do not AGREE on terms of prayer,
> we should not be making govt laws biased one way or another
> where other people object because their ways are different due to
> faith or culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Universal? Hardly
> 
> And none of that has anything to do with marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Syriusly studies on brains show
> that there is universal function in prayer/meditation. we just don't agree on all the terms and means and expressions but the patterns in the brain occur in all people regardless of beliefs.
Click to expand...


We can't even agree on a universal definition of what prayer or meditation is.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?
> 
> That aside, you made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. That's complete nonsense and something no one is claiming.
> 
> Either quote the portion from the Obergefell decision which sites freedom of religion or admit you have no position to stand on...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.
> 
> Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.
> 
> The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.
> 
> Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
> takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
> ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.
> 
> People generally don't see all the layers.
> It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
> I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
> in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.
> 
> then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.
> 
> With each person their points may be different!
> 
> So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
> doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.
> 
> By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
> But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
> And the process has involved these other areas that affect
> how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.
> 
> Thanks for your patience.
> This is not as easy as it looks to you.
> 
> If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
> instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
> this is a very necessary part of the process,
> to understand the layers of human perception
> that are part of the puzzle.
> 
> When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
> that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily
> 
> What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason
> 
> Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
> 
> PRECISELY rightwinger!
> 
> 2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
> 
> So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
> 
> BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
> 
> A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other.  To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision.  So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your entire premise is flawed.  If your father doesn't like your husband, the Government most certainly DOES recognize the marriage.   No one cares what your father thinks - he's free to his opinion - but not free to violate the law.  What might help you grasp what everyone else here is talking about - read Loving V Virginia - here's a BRIEF summary:
> 
> In Loving v. Virginia, decided on June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down Virginia's law prohibiting interracial marriages as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Your opinions (I stress, you have OPINIONS only, not alterations needed to existing laws) are the same as tens of thousands of people in Virginia and throughout the south. Even though Loving was decided June 12, 1967, those same people still thought it was wrong, and didn't want to consider them married, nor allow them to get married if they could.  Guess what.....interracial marriage is alive and well, 49 1/2 years later.  Should we rename it to something other than marriage?  Why not?   The majority of Christians were against interracial marriage, and they would have liked it renamed.  Of course, almost 50 years later there remains only a hundred or less Christian sects that prohibit interracial marriage, and my kids and grand kids are always shocked and amazed how racist their ancestors (most of whom are still alive) could be.  My grandchildren are shocked that anyone would be against SSM.  They've gone to school with gay and trans kids literally all the way through,  K-12 - they are in their early and mid 20's.  We aren't talking arranged marriage, either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> We are essentially saying the same thing
> The govt recognizes the civil contracts and this is separate from any personal feelings or faith toward social relationships people aren't required by govt to recognize.
> 
> The part we're getting stuck on is how do states write and pass laws that distinguish the secular civil contracts that govt licenses vs the social and spiritual relations that remain private free choice.
> 
> You are saying my way of using secular civil terms for govt to use doesn't work.
> 
> I'm saying trying to attach and tie in the social relations to civil contracts is causing conflict so that should be removed.
> 
> If this can still be separated while using the term civil marriage, that's perfect.
> But from what I've seen it isn't working either.
> 
> I guess we all need "marriage counseling"  to get the terms on the same page  so we don't keep arguing over who said what, who meant what, and why did you say it that way if you really meant something else. Etc.
> 
> But I will tell you this and same with the ACA mandates that need to be optional, if these unconstitutional laws aren't either fixed or acknowledged as imposing faith based political beliefs,
> I will repeat my threat to go on hunger strike. Other people may find this tolerable to force laws one way, then challenge and fight after the fact, as part of the political process, but I find it can be smoother and more cost effective to resolve conflicts in advance before passing laws the First time!
> 
> Since I have no money to sue to publicize my petition that way, I have offered to either go on hunger strike to demand recognition for equal political beliefs and/or do an online fundraising campaign to bribe me not to go on strike but put the funds directly toward legal mediation to revise laws by consensus so the issues are resolved.
> 
> Either way the point is to publicize and teach the importance of recognizing that people's political beliefs are inalienable to them. And it wastes public resources to fight against each other when we could be investing that energy in agreed solutions if we set that as the standard to begin with.
> 
> Sneekin because vast resources were spent to push and pass DONT as well as to fight to strike it down, those resources could have been spent solving instead of creating more conflicts to solve. Just settling it does not refund taxpayers for the costs that distract from other reforms we could have pursued with that same time and energy. So that's what I want to argue for, how mediation would save time and trouble as well as build relationships instead of dividing them!
> 
> And if you think ACA is settled we must live in different relatives or on different planets. I'm from Texas where all this federal intrusion was taken as an invitation to secede to get away from what is still seen as overreaching of federal govt into states rights.
> 
> Maybe I'm top Texan for you but I still see this as unconstitutional and unethical. Yes I totally agree to challenge it and demand reimbursement to taxpayers of trillions spent on ACA payouts to insurance interests I believe Obama and Democrats who voted OWE and should raise or collect and pay back Themselves to set up single payer systems for their constituents they promised this to in fulfilling their advertised belief in health care as a right,  or those Democrats are guilty of fraud and misrepresentation !
> 
> I totally commit to petitioning or suing for reimbursement of taxpayers money that went into funding the political belief that health care is a right.
Click to expand...

I see your problem.  You have no clue as to what our rights are.   You claim you are against intrusion by the government - so - just because I murder someone, I don't want intrusion, so I get to go free.  I can't pass a drivers test - but those tests intrude, so I just will drive.  I need money, so I'll go to a bank and demand their money - I can't earn that much in an hour, so it's ok.  

Read the federal laws regarding Texas seceding - California just did - you, the Texans, and they, the Californians, would each need approval of 100 percent of registered voters, and all registered voters MUST VOTE.   And then, they will need approval of the 49 other states.  At that point,  You can secede - and never come back.  And never get another dollar in aid - which is something else you need to check - just how much federal aid y'all get in Texas.  Considering Health Care was a bill, and it passed the House, Senate (legislative branch), signed into law by the President (Executive branch), and went through the SCOTUS (judicial branch), how can you claim we as citizens are not entitled to it?  It was voted on by every state.  It passed by a majority.  Y'all agreed to it.   

Republican AND Democrats would be guilty of fraud and misrepresentation - although again, even though I know you can't do it, I challenge you to quote specific laws violated  in regards to fraud and misrepresentation.  Quote from the law itself.  Going to quote "You get to keep your doctor"?  Read the law - you get to keep your doctor IF your doctor meets the minimal requirements of the ACA. If your doctor didn't, you were going to an incompetent doctor.   Your rates went up?  Mine were cut in half.   More so, when you consider the majority of my copays went from 4-5 dollars down to a dollar.


----------



## Sneekin

Sbiker said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?
> 
> That aside, you made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. That's complete nonsense and something no one is claiming.
> 
> Either quote the portion from the Obergefell decision which sites freedom of religion or admit you have no position to stand on...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.
> 
> Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.
> 
> The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.
> 
> Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
> takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
> ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.
> 
> People generally don't see all the layers.
> It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
> I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
> in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.
> 
> then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.
> 
> With each person their points may be different!
> 
> So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
> doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.
> 
> By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
> But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
> And the process has involved these other areas that affect
> how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.
> 
> Thanks for your patience.
> This is not as easy as it looks to you.
> 
> If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
> instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
> this is a very necessary part of the process,
> to understand the layers of human perception
> that are part of the puzzle.
> 
> When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
> that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily
> 
> What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason
> 
> Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
> 
> PRECISELY rightwinger!
> 
> 2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
> 
> So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
> 
> BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
> 
> A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other.  To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision.  So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy._
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
> 
> It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
> In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
> If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
> Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Offcourse, democracy is a system for society, where everyone can defend own rights - for warriors of Sparta, for Cossacs Round, for Wild West. If you want to defend someone - change the rules, but don't call it as Democracy ))
Click to expand...

Ummm - you are embarrassing yourself again.  We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy.  Learn to read, fact check this if it helps.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> [
> In all these cases, MEDIATION and consensus would protect the rights of the people affected.
> .



There is a reason why courts are a recourse when mediation doesn't work- because mediation doesn't always work. 

The courts protect the rights of Americans from both legal abuse, and from civil abuse.

I refer once again to Loving v. Virginia- which you keep studiously ignoring.


----------



## Sneekin

Sbiker said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter if they think that. Their beliefs do not get to infringe upon the rights of others.
> 
> As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If gays THINK they need a marriage like an achievement - let them to have it. If christians THINK they need a marriage as a Church ritual - ignore them... WHY? Do you really have much more gays in US than christians? Or, in fact, rights of gays are much more preferrable, than others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they did, Americans wouldn't be allowed to eat pork as some religious folks find that offensive. They wouldn't be allowed to eat beef because some religious folks find that offensive. The list of rights we would lose would be endless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's to continue this logic. Christianity forbids to murder of people, woodoo and vakhabism - allow. Let's make murdering legal. Do you still have any questions to 9/11?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't even dispute the right of gays to invent own type of "marriage" and name it according in their traditions... But taking word "MARRIAGE" from christian tradition to pervert it publically - it's and act of aggression. Your example about pork is very good. While christians are "eating pork", gays are pulling out the piece of pork from their hands and publically using it as a toilet paper. But everyone, not only gays, must have a rights to eat own pork!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but Christians do not own the word, "marriage."
> 
> Marriage is a right and there is no compelling interest to deny gay people of that fundamental right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The most part of modern marriage tradition - rutial, official record about and so on - was developed inside a Christian tradition. The word "marriage" came to English language from Latin, approximately in XIII century, through Christian books. So, using word "marriage" for gay enterntainment - just a kind of theft...
Click to expand...

Wrong - the Latin word was in use LONG BEFORE the origination of Christianity - several millenia, I'm sure.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter if they think that. Their beliefs do not get to infringe upon the rights of others.
> 
> As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If gays THINK they need a marriage like an achievement - let them to have it. If christians THINK they need a marriage as a Church ritual - ignore them... WHY? Do you really have much more gays in US than christians? Or, in fact, rights of gays are much more preferrable, than others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they did, Americans wouldn't be allowed to eat pork as some religious folks find that offensive. They wouldn't be allowed to eat beef because some religious folks find that offensive. The list of rights we would lose would be endless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's to continue this logic. Christianity forbids to murder of people, woodoo and vakhabism - allow. Let's make murdering legal. Do you still have any questions to 9/11?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't even dispute the right of gays to invent own type of "marriage" and name it according in their traditions... But taking word "MARRIAGE" from christian tradition to pervert it publically - it's and act of aggression. Your example about pork is very good. While christians are "eating pork", gays are pulling out the piece of pork from their hands and publically using it as a toilet paper. But everyone, not only gays, must have a rights to eat own pork!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but Christians do not own the word, "marriage."
> 
> Marriage is a right and there is no compelling interest to deny gay people of that fundamental right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Faun but neither do you  "own the laws" that affect other people also!
> Public laws must reflect the PUBLIC consent especially where BELIEFS are involved
> or it's imposing a bias. If these are public laws, you and those who believe and think as you do are not the ONLY ones affected by these laws and who have a say in them. If you want total control, then write your own platforms and policies and you are free to live under those similar to private Catholic schools or programs that are prolife or proGod.
> 
> When dealing with state laws, these reflect consent of ALL people in that state.
> and federal laws with all people of all states across the nation under those laws.
> 
> You wouldn't want me imposing my wording using the word "God"
> just because I happen to interpret it universally to include atheists and nontheists.
> If Atheists and nontheists don't see a term as universal as I do,
> of course, it's natural to change and use different terms they can relate to in order to accommodate and include others!
> 
> Just because I was brought up by Buddhist parents who didn't object to YMCA being Christian
> and Girl Scouts praying to God, doesn't mean ALL people should be "tolerant" the same way.
> It's up to each person and I respect that.
> 
> Sorry that you don't see that this imposes any issue or bias you don't understand or think affects anyone.
> 
> (I will separately post a link to a thread and examples of related cases of conflicts with people
> whose beliefs do not allow them to serve gay couples as married.)
Click to expand...

Sorry Emily, back to civics class for you.   Not the definition of public law.  We aren't a democracy, it's not high vote wins, it's everyone's rights are the same. YMCA is an organizational name now, nothing more.   No religious tests to join or discount.  Girl Scouts in my area don't pray to God, either.  Per the area leaders.  You need to learn tolerance, you seem to be lacking.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Faun here are examples where people ARE losing liberties they had before
> because of public accommodations laws crossing into BELIEFS about LGBT and
> requiring people to respect them or else change their operations policies
> (posted on separate thread Should businesses be sued or church adoption programs shut down over gay beliefs?):
> 
> A. A lesbian couple wanting to have a wedding reception, Kate and Ming Linsley, sued the Wildflower Inn after being turned away. The lawsuit was settled in August after the inn agreed to pay $30,000 and stop hosting weddings and receptions.
> 
> By signing the settlement agreement, the inn owners agreed that any future “disparate treatment of same-sex couples” is illegal, including “discouragement of the couples from using the accommodations, facilities, advantages and privileges of any place of public accommodation.”
> 
> Washington has a law already on the books that guarantees “the right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement” regardless of sexual orientation.
> 
> ^ NOTE 1 Faun: the same way you are saying nobody is being forced to have a gay wedding,
> well nobody is FORCING that couple to use that facility when many other gay friendly services would love to have that business!
> 
> NOTE 2 please note my offer of how to solve these issues where the facility can still be used without imposing on staff who don't have to be present:
> *"BTW how I would solve the business lawsuit cases
> 1. for the wedding sites, allow this to be rented but require the couple to bring in their own hired staff and pay for insurance to cover any damages to the site if the management does not want to be present at a gay wedding
> 
> 2. have businesses and customers sign WAIVERS in advance protecting both from legal actions or costs
> should there be disputes or conflicts for ANY REASON: require instead either mediation by mediator chosen by the customer, or if that fails, arbitration by arbiter chosen by the business; or else agree to REFRAIN from doing business if the dispute cannot be resolved by consensus of both parties to avoid legal issues or expenses.
> 
> This would protect both sides, regardless of the reason, and regardless what their beliefs are that may conflict."*
> 
> B. RE Catholic adoption services:
> 
> "#1 - Catholic adoption agencies should not be "shut down" that don't accommodate gay couples. As private, privately funded, non-profit organizations they should be able to place children according to their religious doctrine. On the other hand if they are going to function under government contractors and function on the taxpayer's dime - then they need to comply with non-discrimination laws or not be eligible for the contract."
> 
> Unfortunately this policy HAS led to some adoption services shutting down that depended on govt support. so it has DEPRIVED people of ne eded services due to CLASHING beliefs that COULD have remained a private issue since BELIEFS are involved. [Govt COULD have adopted a NEUTRAL policy protecting ANY beliefs about LGBT orientation/identity from discrimination, instead of recognizing one position on this at the exception of the other, which I argue is biased.]
> 
> C. There are other cases of fines against bakers, photographers, and even florists
> for not wanting to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs.
> Some of these I agree with, some not.
> If someone just buys flowers or a cake that is one thing,
> but going TO a wedding off site to serve cakes or take photos is up to free choice.
> Another business or vendor/contract staff can be sent, and not force people who don't believe in attending or witnessing or participating in certain activities that are BEHAVIOR -- not internal identity of the customer in the store buying or ordering something.
> 
> In these cases I would make a distinction between:
> 1. providing the goods or services to any customer regardless of beliefs or creeds
> 2. WITHOUT having to attend, witness or participate in the actual gay wedding service
> which is BEHAVIOR and not the internalized identity/orientation that the customers have
> 
> I would also allow such services to be contracted out to staff who don't have those conflicts,
> such as sending a photographer out to an adult party who doesn't mind the BEHAVIOR or THEME of the party
> and not suing the people who don't agree to be there
> 
> In general I promote mediation and consensus as required to resolve conflicts over beliefs,
> if any two parties are going to conduct business together, in order to save legal and public resources related to court actions.


A.  You answered your own question.  If there is a law in place under public Accommodations that references sexual orientation, then the business MUST accommodate - period, end of discussion.  To do otherwise violates the law, and makes the business liable - they were fined, and had a choice - stop completely, or allow all.
B.  Catholic Adoption services - thank you, as this went all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court, and the Attorney General was willing to take it to Federal Court and SCOTUS.  The law clearly states that CAS, which receives federal funds, could not discriminate against gays.  They used a first amendment "excuse",  and were laughed out of court.   They were told if they wished to continue as an adoption service, they could, if they didn't receive any federal funds.   Since that was almost their entire funding stream, they refused.  Illinois terminated their existing contract as soon as alternative agencies were in place, and refused to enter into any new ones.
C. Bakers, Florists, Photographers, candlestick makers - all falls under public accommodation - all or none.  They use my roads, my police and fire, my insurance company, my gas and lights, etc etc.  They are not a private business/club.  If they were a private club, they could discriminate against whoever they want - and open themselves up to a whole new set of rules they have to operate under.

Hope this helps - thanks for referencing actual events going on in my home state, as I already know the outcomes!


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> *RE: What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> *
> BTW rightwinger it's not a matter of not marrying
> but endorsing it through the govt how we marry or don't marry
> 
> If marriage is kept private similar to communion, baptisms, prayer rituals,
> inductions into faith, then anyone can still practice anything.
> but just not try to incorporate or license it through govt unless we agree on
> NEUTRAL universal terms.
> 
> These don't have to be the same for all states.
> 
> Nevada legalizes and licenses prostitution, doesn't mean all states
> have to. Some can treat all domestic partnerships as civil unions,
> while other may well recognize them and call them marriages.
> 
> The point is either treat all people the same regardless of beliefs,
> or remove that wording or policy from govt and keep it private.
> 
> Catholic schools and programs run their own policies
> and have different terms of priesthood than other churches.
> So if you keep things private, you have full freedom.
> If you insist on injecting state into beliefs or beliefs into state together,
> then anything passed on a state level has to represent those people
> and not discriminate on the basis of creed. If people complain about
> bias in belief or creed, that is violating equal rights of people also.


Wrong again, Emily.  Marriage, unlike your religious rituals, MUST NOT BE KEPT PRIVATE.   If your husband (or wife) is seriously injured, and they need spousal permission, if it's private, then he dies, whether or not you wish him to die.  You will pay full tax on your inheritance, since it's "private".  It MUST be licensed through the government.  It does NOT have to be agreed on by you or anyone else.  LAWS are ALREADY IN PLACE.  For all of this.  Every time you and your Texas cronies try an end run around the constitution, it goes to court, and appealed until your law is overturned - done with abortion and marriage - quite frequently.  

Marriage (not civil unions, not domestic partnership) is recognized between states.  civil unions (not needed) and domestic partnerships (different rules per partnership) are NOT.  You are completely wrong when you claim domestic partnerships and civil unions can be treated differently - civil unions "mimic" marriage to an extent.  Domestic partnerships don't, and may only have a few contractual items that make it a partnership.  Domestic partnerships are contracts drawn by an attorney, varying between people, and not recognized by other states, and will never be entitled to all of the 1138 benefits in the IRS code - mainly because they aren't even requested in a DP.  Civil unions have different rules as well.  I'm trying to figure out why you think it's ok for gays to have a DP with 5 equal rights with straights, a civil union with several rights, but not equal rights of marriage.  Why do you insist on violating the US Constitution?   You claim you can use the 3 terms interchangeably, legally, you cannot.  CU's and Marriage require divorces.  DP's are simply terminated.  Your entire paragraph starting with Nevada is in error (excluding the one fact, that some counties allow prostitution).  Here is what is going on in NV:  

" Currently eight counties in Nevada have active brothels (these are all rural counties); as of June–July 2008 there were 28 legal brothels in Nevada. Prostitution outside the licensed brothels is illegal throughout Nevada."

Case in point, in only 8 counties out of 18 is it even legal.

Read this slowly, Emily, what we term as civil marriage DOES TREAT ALL PEOPLE THE SAME REGARDLESS OF BELIEFS.   Who you marry is controlled by YOU only.   Your church isn't told who they can or cannot marry, that is up to the PEOPLE.  

Catholic schools in many cases receive funding from the state, and still have to follow certain state or federal mandates.  For the child to graduate from a parochial school (don't know why you think you have to pick on just Catholics), they still need to pass state or federal standards (tests).  You claim there is full freedom.  There is not.  That Catholic school can teach 12 years of coloring and singing ONLY, with perhaps listening to hymns and bible verses.  That is up to the dioceses.  Keep it quiet, by all means.  That child will not pass tests, will not pass the ACT/SAT etc, and will not even be able to get into any public or private college.   So,  dear Emily, you most certainly don't have full freedom.  You are bound by the same confines.   We don't want this country to be a nation of uneducated idiots, so even "Catholic Schools" have criteria to follow. That is not inject STATE BELIEFS.  That is injecting the People's beliefs.  

What you claim to be state beliefs (they are not) do not discriminate based on creed.  I've asked you for examples at least 8 times now, and you NEVER give examples.

You can complain about bias in belief or creed all you want.  That does not mean any euql rights are being violated.  As someone who's worked in the field 30 plus years, I can assure you that you don't know what you are talking about.   Do you have a clue how many complaints in Texas alone are turned down for Equal Rights Violations that aren't?  Between 80 and 90 percent.   If you are 25 and I am 50, and we both apply for a job, and we have the same qualifications, only I can file based on age - you cannot.   You need to research before you talk.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy._
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
> 
> It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
> In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
> If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
> Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger
> And people have to AGREE what's right
> Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
> Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right
> 
> Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
> Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
> 
> What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *RE: What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> *
> BTW rightwinger it's not a matter of not marrying
> but endorsing it through the govt how we marry or don't marry
> 
> If marriage is kept private similar to communion, baptisms, prayer rituals,
> inductions into faith, then anyone can still practice anything.
> but just not try to incorporate or license it through govt unless we agree on
> NEUTRAL universal terms.
> 
> These don't have to be the same for all states.
> 
> Nevada legalizes and licenses prostitution, doesn't mean all states
> have to. Some can treat all domestic partnerships as civil unions,
> while other may well recognize them and call them marriages.
> 
> The point is either treat all people the same regardless of beliefs,
> or remove that wording or policy from govt and keep it private.
> 
> Catholic schools and programs run their own policies
> and have different terms of priesthood than other churches.
> So if you keep things private, you have full freedom.
> If you insist on injecting state into beliefs or beliefs into state together,
> then anything passed on a state level has to represent those people
> and not discriminate on the basis of creed. If people complain about
> bias in belief or creed, that is violating equal rights of people also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 200 words and you still don't answer a simple question
> 
> Emily....Do you speak like you write?
> 
> If someone says "Good morning Emily, how are you?"
> Do they get a five minute response on something totally unrelated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, people do complain about that.
> 
> Because I include viewpoints of others equally in public policy,
> then if you ask about abortion you can get about 5 different angles
> that I would say all need to be accommodated in abortion laws.
Click to expand...

Again, Emily, not true.  Don't try and practice law without a license, and don't be telling people that all need to be accommodated.  Even though abortion is off topic, I will tell you - the only view point is - abortion is legal, any woman can have one.  Here are the rules:

"The Supreme Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy."

This is the ONLY angle that must be accommodated - that the right to privacy (14th Amendment) covers the individual's right to have an abortion.   The state can regulate to an extent, ONLY under what has been outlined in the above paragraph.  Welcome to 1973, when the decision was made.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy._
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
> 
> It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
> In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
> If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
> Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger
> And people have to AGREE what's right
> Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
> Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right
> 
> Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
> Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
> 
> What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger with Faith-Based laws, yes, people would have to agree
> or else all it takes is one atheist or nonbeliever in that thing to protest that
> govt should not establish a faith based bias or belief,  and by principle that bias should be removed.
> 
> A good example of a faith based concept people happen to agree on:
> JUSTICE
> Even though this is completely faith-based and never proven or established as existing,
> people have faith in it and AGREE to use these terms in our laws
> and even inscribe them on public buildings.
> Nobody complains because we AGREE on this even though it is FAITH BASED.
> 
> But when it comes to retributive justice and restorative justice,
> no, people do not agree. thus we have fights going on over
> the death penalty and taxpayers funding life imprisonment instead of executions etc.
> I am asking to separate funding on that issue also!
> 
> Similar with abortion.
> We generally agree murder is unlawful and punishable as a crime.
> but some people believe abortion is murder, and others do not.
> Until we agree on how to write or separate laws,
> groups have be en fighting over this to defend their beliefs from each other's.
> 
> How cruel is this suffering and how long are we going to let it go on,
> knowing neither side agrees to biases in laws by the other?
> 
> That's why I argue to separate funding by party,
> set up separate representation and programs where people
> do not feel threatened by any other group dictating their beliefs.
> If political and/or religious beliefs prevent agreement on public laws,
> then set up separate means similar to private religious schools
> and treat partisan programs like private religious programs.
> So people can get the same tax breaks for investing in their
> own policies if the rest of the public doesn't agree to fund them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US does not have faith based laws nor should it
> 
> Why can't you answer the simple questions I asked?
> Why do I get a 300 word diatribe on something unrelated to what I posted?
> 
> Now.....
> Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
> Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
> 
> What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rightwinger they have to agree with each other
> where marriage or other beliefs get mixed in with public policy
> 
> I don't have a say in other state laws, but I can have equal
> voice in Texas law or Houston or Democratic Party if that's how we decide how to manage policies
> and benefits. I prefer by party, but others may want it through state.
Click to expand...

Even on this you are wrong.   The Democratic Party can outlaw gay marriage, Emily can outlaw gay marriage, Houston can outlaw gay marriage, and Texas can outlaw gay marriage.   Of course,  you don't have an equal voice, if you think that your voice means anything in this case.  It violates FEDERAL law.  I don't care how you manage policies.  If you are the lone voice in the wilderness, you "might" be heard (but not by the entire state, and probably not even by all of Houston), but it has ZERO effect on the outcome.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> .



Dear rightwinger with Faith-Based laws, yes, people would have to agree
or else all it takes is one atheist or nonbeliever in that thing to protest that
govt should not establish a faith based bias or belief,  and by principle that bias should be removed.

A good example of a faith based concept people happen to agree on:
JUSTICE
Even though this is completely faith-based and never proven or established as existing,
people have faith in it and AGREE to use these terms in our laws
and even inscribe them on public buildings.
Nobody complains because we AGREE on this even though it is FAITH BASED.

But when it comes to retributive justice and restorative justice,
no, people do not agree. thus we have fights going on over
the death penalty and taxpayers funding life imprisonment instead of executions etc.
I am asking to separate funding on that issue also!

Similar with abortion.
We generally agree murder is unlawful and punishable as a crime.
but some people believe abortion is murder, and others do not.
Until we agree on how to write or separate laws,
groups have be en fighting over this to defend their beliefs from each other's.

How cruel is this suffering and how long are we going to let it go on,
knowing neither side agrees to biases in laws by the other?

That's why I argue to separate funding by party,
set up separate representation and programs where people
do not feel threatened by any other group dictating their beliefs.
If political and/or religious beliefs prevent agreement on public laws,
then set up separate means similar to private religious schools
and treat partisan programs like private religious programs.
So people can get the same tax breaks for investing in their
own policies if the rest of the public doesn't agree to fund them.[/QUOTE]

The US does not have faith based laws nor should it

Why can't you answer the simple questions I asked?
Why do I get a 300 word diatribe on something unrelated to what I posted?

Now.....
Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?

What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?[/QUOTE]

rightwinger they have to agree with each other
where marriage or other beliefs get mixed in with public policy

I don't have a say in other state laws, but I can have equal
voice in Texas law or Houston or Democratic Party if that's how we decide how to manage policies
and benefits. I prefer by party, but others may want it through state.[/QUOTE]
There need not be agreement. Where do you get this nonsense from? Why are your rights dependent upon my approval?[/QUOTE]

If people don't agree on BELIEFS Faun
(and I'm including political beliefs about contested rights
where conflicts are due to BELIEFS EQUALLY Free from govt regulation
under Constitutional rights as well, I'm not nitpicking over
disagreements due to secular differences or personal preferences)
it's in these areas where I'm saying
1. people don't have to agree if we keep these PRIVATE out of govt
2. but if you force the issue like marriage to stay IN govt,
then people HAVE to agree where it involved BELIEFS,
because people's political beliefs are also inherent and can't be forced to change
by govt, not unless people CONSENT to by free will not by force of law.

Now where you and I are missing each other
1. I INCLUDE BOTH people like you who don't see any attachment to marriage but are treating it as civil only, not religious
AND people who automatically have beliefs involved that you don't
2. You are writing and interpreting and depending on laws
EXCLUDING these people you don't understand or agree with
because by YOUR system of thought it isn't affected or relevant
BUT TO THEM IT IS

I INCLUDE BOTH
YOU DO NOT

So that's why I'm arguing that we need laws to
include ALL people where these involve BELIEFS
IF they are going to be PUBLIC and represent ALL PEOPLE
not just people who think and see it as all secular as you do,
but also those who don't see or believe the same as you do.

If these are PUBLIC LAWS then all the public should have
equal say.

And YES, Faun the fact that you and others
don't even frame or see it the same way due to
differences in BELIEFS -- THAT'S THE ISSUE
I'M TRYING TO ADDRESS and include!!![/QUOTE]
Wrong Again, Emily.

1.  Laws aren't Public AND Private.  They apply to ALL persons equally.  
2.  You are the only person trying to state that marriage doesn't fit into public law, into government.  People already agreed, you refuse to even read current law. So drop it until you do.  People all agree - two people can get married.  Which is ALL that marriage law states.  Nothing more.  It used to state opposite sex only, but was determined to be in VIOLATION of the FOURTEEN AMENDMENT.  You claim people are FORCED to be married?  You need to put on your listening ears, Emily.

99.9999999 percent of all marriages performed in the US are CIVIL MARRIAGE.  The remainder are religious only.   And that would basically encompass just the gay people that got married by a pastor only, in states that prohibited SSM, and didn't have the civil portion where the license was signed.  If YOU are married, Emily, you are CIVILLY MARRIED.

No one, I repeat NO ONE is saying marriage is civil only. We are stating that under US Code, Marriage is a contract between TWO people meeting pre-defined guidelines.   Nowhere in that code is religion mentioned.   Try reading the 14th amendment, which overturned gay marriage in Texas.  It will open your eyes. No one (but possibly you) is trying to exclude people.  And you are doing a p_ss poor job of hiding your dislikes.

No one (but you) are writing, and interpreting and depending on laws excluding people that YOU don't understand.  The rest of us understands that current state code and national codes all people to get married, without your interference.

You do not include both, WE DO.  You don't want gay marriage,  the rest of us call it what it is, not gay marriage, not straight marriage, but MARRIAGE.  CIVIL MARRIAGE.  You and your church can hate gays, love gays, hate blacks, love blacks, we don't really care what you want.  We do know the law.  You still do not.

All people are included in the law - YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED YOU DO NOT WANT THE LAWS TO COVER ALL.  You want civil unions or DP's for gays.  Not going to happen, and I told you why at least 5-10 times.

ALL LAWS ARE PUBLIC!!!  ALL LAWS ARE SECULAR!!!!  According to the first amendment, Emily, THEY MUST BE!  Or did I fall asleep, and did the constitution and all it's amendments get overturned today?


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker, first of all, note that they are civil rights, constitutional rights.  Next, sbiker, note that marriage most certainly is not a form of social agreement to make new members of society.   My father and stepmother entered into marriage after the death of my mother.  My stepmother was told by her doctor she would die if she became pregnant. When I entered the working world, I encountered literally thousands of people not wishing to have children - ever.    Using your logic, the elderly, infirm, and those not wanting children should not be permitted to get married.  This includes the millions of men and women with fertility problems.  Gay people have, and do have children.  Especially those in their 40's, 50's and beyond, who under societal pressure, married and had children.  They also adopt, they are now using surrogates at a higher percentage that heterosexuals.
> 
> It's not a form of deception.  It's a fact of life.  You cannot deny my child the right to get married if she's infertile, or if her spouse is infertile, or if they decide not to have children.  You cannot deny her the right to get married if she is gay, either.  Better get your facts straight.   Marriage is not about making more children.  Marriage is a civil contract between two people (not two and some expected offspring) who meet the criteria for marriage (age, familial relationship, etc) within the confines of law.  The state laws in some states were overturned because they violated the 14th amendment.  Now move on, sbiker, and do some research.   Also read all the posts - this was brought up early on, more than likely in the first 5-10 pages.
> 
> 
> 
> What is the main purpose of marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> Marriage is a right. People get married for all sorts of reasons. Whatever their reason is, is up to them, not you, not the state. The state can't prevent a couple who qualify for marriage from getting married because they can't, or won't, procreate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm... You're, offcourse, right, if we discussing marriage as a preferable rights for spouses.
> 
> But rights of one people ends where the rights of another people starts... What about children? What about rights or every children to grow in normal, traditional family? Children - are either not a property of adults, not a mature members of society, who could completely understand own rights and psychologically able to defend them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's an offensive statement, seeing how over 90 percent of sexual abuse occurs in heterosexual "traditional" families..... not to mention, are you now saying adults are not responsible for their children and their actions?  Better check your law books, bubba.  That's another lie.  I've worked with and also known (friends and family in SS relationships) that have children, and in every case, have done better jobs than what you refer to as "normal, traditional families".  You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are now making up your own facts.  This is settled law, and there already have been court cases over gays raising children - and in every one of those cases, gays won.  I've been involved in court cases where grandparents have sued their ex son-in-law, who was a custodial parent, and involved in a SS relationship.   Every time the mother-in-law's attorney started to produce an  excuse, the father's attorney objected, producing state supreme court rulings in favor of the same sex parent, against the person suing.   The judge removed the Children and Family Service invesigator for bias, and the father's attorney produced evidence that the grandmother had paid various expenses for the investigator.  Sorry, but you just don't have your facts "straight".  Children have rights, to a point.  Not to mention, once they are 12-14 years old, they can pick the SS parent to live with anyway.  Try fact checking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK Sneekin no harm intended
> I'm okay using a different term besides traditional.
> 
> In all these cases, MEDIATION and consensus would protect the rights of the people affected.
> it would PREVENT legal abuse of authority
> in the cases as you describe where this gets
> imbalanced and out of hand.
> 
> So that's another reason to require it in cases
> where personal beliefs and relations are involved.
Click to expand...

Faun explained this to you at least twice.  I'm too sick and tired of repeating the same things over and over.  We don't need to mediate when YOU BREAK THE LAW.  We apply appropriate penalties to you.  Please tell me in the case I referenced where it was imbalanced and out of hand.   Actually, not imbalanced, nor out of hand.  Intelligent Judge, Intelligent Atty.  Legal abuse of authority?  In what way?


----------



## rightwinger

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> In all these cases, MEDIATION and consensus would protect the rights of the people affected.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a reason why courts are a recourse when mediation doesn't work- because mediation doesn't always work.
> 
> The courts protect the rights of Americans from both legal abuse, and from civil abuse.
> 
> I refer once again to Loving v. Virginia- which you keep studiously ignoring.
Click to expand...


How on earth do you "mediate" same sex marriage?

Who do you expect to mediate with......the bigots?


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Here Sneekin would it look like this chart.
> If people can't agree on political beliefs
> then instead of pushing them
> from people/state to federal levels
> (from right to left side)
> then I'm saying organize political beliefs
> by groups through each state, then connect
> these nationally to have the same collective
> advantage as federal govt but without imposing on people
> outside that free choice to affiliate, fund and participate
> (from left to right, from people across states to national
> or even global since it doesn't have to go through federal)
> 
> View attachment 100341


OMG - what you are calling for IS ILLEGAL. How old are you?  Do you realize that prior to the 70's, we had dixiecrats (democrats) that were more right wing conservative than republicans?   We had republicans that were to the left of democrats, because the makeup in a lot of places was white color V blue color (union).  Both had leftists and rightists. The parties didn't change overnight, they changed as persons left office in various states.  There are caps on donations to dems and republicans - aren't you aware of any of these things? if it's people across states to National (or even global), since it doesn't have to go through federal...hmmm - you do realize that national and federal are the same, and people don't vote on national, federal and global issues?  We have an electoral college.  It elects the POTUS/VPOTUS, not you.  Think before you talk, validate your statements, and then don't put them down here when you discover you are asking for illegal laws and actions.


----------



## emilynghiem

What mean by delusion n


Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not saying only use it for a class of people. I am saying use NEUTRAL terms for EVERYONE.
> 
> In other words for each state
> * if states use the term marriage then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil marriage then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term domestic partnership then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil contracts then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil unions then EVERYONE can get that
> 
> Whatever term states use is for ALL people inclusively or else NOBODY gets that at all.
> 
> I think Faun understands I am saying don't use the term marriage for ANYBODY if it can't be used for EVERYONE.
> 
> If people can't agree to terms of marriage for everyone then the state can't make those laws and force them on anyone using those terms.
> 
> If states agree that EVERYONE gets civil marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever TERM that state agrees on, then that is neutral because everyone gets the same and nobody gets anything different from the state.
> 
> Sneekin if you are just caught up in what civil unions meant in the past I'm talking about the present and future not the past:  if people in a state do not believe in states endorsing gay or same sex "marriages" they can be offered the choice either make ALL marriages open to ALL couples or make ALL couples only get civil unions from the states or domestic partnerships or whatever people of that state agree to call the licensing.
> 
> That way EVERYONE is treated the same such as by only getting civil contracts through the state and getting marriages through whatever traditions they believe in addition to the neutral licensing through the state.
> 
> Sneekin that's fine if you want more, if you live in a state that agrees to recognize marriage for all people as endorsed and licensed through the state Great! I'm all for that if people of that state agree.
> 
> But if they don't agree on terms unless a different set up is used, as long as EVERYONE is subject to the same and NOBODY gets more or less through the state, then at least that is equal.
> 
> I'm sorry this isn't clear Sneekin
> I don't know why it is not possible for ALL couples to get civil unions if that state cannot agree on terms of marriage.
> 
> But if you have such conditions attached to the term civil union that it isn't a legal choice, that's how some people believe about marriage too !
> 
> So if you are saying no way can ALL people get civil unions but NO people should, then the same is true for marriage where either ALL people get to marry through the state or NO people should.
> 
> Just treat all people the SAME, either ALL or NONE, and that is fair to all people. Each state decides what terms it's citizens agree applies to ALL people with no exceptions and that's neutral law!
> 
> And yes, it's totally fine if all people in a state agree to majority rule passing marriage for all people!  But just like rules on references to religion, God. Cteation, prayer etc in schools it has to be by consent of the people where it is NOT the govt endorsing any beliefs the public doesn't agree the state should endorse. Keeping it neutral is one thing, but language endorsing one belief or another can still be struck down as biased.
> 
> Thanks and sorry if this wasn't clear
> 
> 
> 
> There's already a word for it...
> 
> *Marriage*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Faun that would be simple.
> And so would declaring the Democratic platform
> and beliefs about right to health care and right to marriage a
> POLITICAL RELIGION
> and be done with it.
> 
> We could AGREE to list out the political beliefs
> that each person or group holds sacred,
> agree to respect these as inviolate for those people
> and requiring consent of the governed and consensus
> on laws and reforms on any of these areas,
> and stop the fighting over forcing one g roup's
> beliefs over another's by domination or coecion.
> 
> I WISH it were that simple Faun I do!
> 
> But people like you see your stances as RIGHTS and not BELIEFS.
> and so do the right to life,
> and so do the right to choose
> and so do the right to guns advocates.
> 
> So it goes in circles, each combating the sacred
> cows that the other group draws a line in a sand for
> and refuses to let govt cross that line.
> 
> We all have our beliefs, and until we agree
> to treat them the same, we keep competing and
> repeating the same patterns over and over,
> taking turns trying to run over the other or
> run them out of govt. But that doesn't make
> that person's beliefs or rights 'go away" it just
> makes them come back and try to defend them
> again, back and forth.
> 
> Why don't we admit we have these sacred
> rights and beliefs, and agree not to disparage them???
> 
> Seems simple to me Faun but
> as you can see, it isn't easy to see when
> it's YOUR beliefs that you are defending as rights.
> When other people do that to you or me and take
> something that isn't our beliefs and shove it in our
> faces as law, then we can see that it should be a choice
> and not forced by law. But not when
> the shoe is on the other foot. Both sides are like that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is that simple. No one has to abandon marriage in America because some people oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage is here to stay and it now includes marriage between couples of the same sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Consensus on marriage might be reached if hypocrites like you admit you don't tolerate Christian practices in public as you are demanding people tolerate LGBT beliefs expressions and practices in public policy!
> 
> If you want equal rights and respect Faun that means to respect the same of others but you DONT. You insist that people's beliefs opposed to gay marriage, which cause them to reject "marriage" applied to gay couples, are due to some delusion or other deficiency. Thus Faun you are discriminating against the beliefs of others as inferior yet demanding equality for LGBT beliefs which is contradictory. You think you are not discriminating or excluding others but you keep putting them down as wrong instead of treating and respecting the beliefs as equal as I am trying to do.
> 
> And then you put me down also for trying to find ways to include all beliefs in a consensus on laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've been over this already....
> 
> Crosses are not allowed on public property because doing so violates the First Amendment.
> 
> You failed to show how same-sex marriage violates the Constitution, remember? All you can show is that it upsets some people; but as has been explained to you repeatedly -- we don't have laws to reflect people's hurt feelings.
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You insist that people's beliefs opposed to gay marriage, which cause them to reject "marriage" applied to gay couples, are due to some delusion or other deficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're delirious. I never said anyone was delusional or deficient for opposing gay marriage.
Click to expand...


What I mean by delusional Faun is that you thought people who saw marriage in the civil context as something "other than secular civil marriage" was "hallucinating" or "delusional"

In other words you don't count their input or the impact on them as VALID.

That's how I read what you said.
That you didn't think the law or wording of it needed to change to accommodate people who don't see it as just "civil marriage"

Do you treat their objections equally to your objections if the laws exclude or offend or discriminate by your standards?

I apologize Faun if you are not dismissing or discounting objections as invalid.

That's what it sounded like is your whole point. You believe those laws are NOT imposing NOT affecting NOT harming or forming or discriminating in any way.

So any objections claiming those laws are biased or imposing or establishing some kind of belief -- you were saying these are hallucinations that you are not responsible for if people "don't get this is about civil marriage and not anything religious"

Isn't that close enough to what you meant?

You think people are imagining in their heads that these laws affect them that you see as only allowing others to get married and you see as NOT imposing or forcing beliefs to change.

When I try to explain that these laws are seen as imposing a faith based bias, you don't see how, so that is why you said that must be hallucinations in people's minds because you don't see how anything is being forced or imposed.


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> In all these cases, MEDIATION and consensus would protect the rights of the people affected.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a reason why courts are a recourse when mediation doesn't work- because mediation doesn't always work.
> 
> The courts protect the rights of Americans from both legal abuse, and from civil abuse.
> 
> I refer once again to Loving v. Virginia- which you keep studiously ignoring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How on earth do you "mediate" same sex marriage?
> 
> Who do you expect to mediate with......the bigots?
Click to expand...

Dear rightwinger
As Faun and I both agree the civil laws are intended to be about the civil contracts only, we would mediate between people and parties of the diverse viewpoints and make sure the language is neutral and acceptable to all. If people do not agree on social benefits through govt laws, we could even agree to separate those as choices for taxpayers to opt in or out of. Many people have beliefs about social benefits through state not federal, or through private means. 

So that's another option that people or parties could agree to manage separately rather than force or ban beliefs about what programs to fund. Since people of like beliefs tend to organize by party, I think that's a natural way we could separate social taxation and have equal representation without imposing on each other's beliefs or priorities .


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> In all these cases, MEDIATION and consensus would protect the rights of the people affected.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a reason why courts are a recourse when mediation doesn't work- because mediation doesn't always work.
> 
> The courts protect the rights of Americans from both legal abuse, and from civil abuse.
> 
> I refer once again to Loving v. Virginia- which you keep studiously ignoring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How on earth do you "mediate" same sex marriage?
> 
> Who do you expect to mediate with......the bigots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> As Faun and I both agree the civil laws are intended to be about the civil contracts only, we would mediate between people and parties of the diverse viewpoints and make sure the language is neutral and acceptable to all. If people do not agree on social benefits through govt laws, we could even agree to separate those as choices for taxpayers to opt in or out of. Many people have beliefs about social benefits through state not federal, or through private means.
> 
> So that's another option that people or parties could agree to manage separately rather than force or ban beliefs about what programs to fund. Since people of like beliefs tend to organize by party, I think that's a natural way we could separate social taxation and have equal representation without imposing on each other's beliefs or priorities .
Click to expand...


OK

On one side, you have a same sex marriage saying ......we love each other
On the other side, you have a bigot that says ...God hates fags

Mediate away Emily


----------



## emilynghiem

Sbiker said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? Are gay folks not human? Do they not have the same rights as straight folks? And marriage is about many aspects, reproduction is but one. Not everyone who gets married has kids; yet they still have the right to get married. And many couples who do marry, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, raise families through adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage - is not a rights. It's obligations. Spouses form a new society cell - and society gives them upkeep to do it. I mean not only reproduction, but education too. I know, some families don't have children and don't want to educate anyone, but why we have to add in this system families, known good as not able to educate children?
> 
> You speaking about rights of gays - did you remembered about rights of children? Without imposed homosexualism and without domestic sexual abuse?
> 
> Otherwise, what is the reason of official marriage, if you want to have a sex? "Because God forbid it?" So, God forbid an homosexualism too...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course marriage is a right. That's been reaffirmed no less than 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.
> 
> *Maynard v. Hill*, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
> 
> 
> *Meyer v. Nebraska*, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
> 
> 
> *Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson*, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
> 
> 
> *Griswold v. Connecticut*, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
> 
> 
> *Loving v. Virginia*, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
> 
> 
> *Boddie v. Connecticut*, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “Marriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
> 
> 
> *Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur*, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
> 
> 
> *Moore v. City of East Cleveland*, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
> 
> 
> *Carey v. Population Services International*, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
> 
> 
> *Zablocki v. Redhail*, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
> 
> 
> *Turner v. Safley*, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
> 
> 
> *Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey*, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
> 
> 
> *M.L.B. v. S.L.J.*, 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
> 
> 
> *Lawrence v. Texas*, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
> ... so marriage is most certainly a right -- and the courts (and many states) determined there are no compelling interests to deny folks equal protection under the law by restricting them access to the right to marry the person of their choice even if that other person happens to be of the same gender.
> 
> The bigger question is .... why on Earth would you seek to let the government take away rights from anybody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
> On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?
> 
> Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
Click to expand...

Dear Sbiker
1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt. 
3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.

So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage - is not a rights. It's obligations. Spouses form a new society cell - and society gives them upkeep to do it. I mean not only reproduction, but education too. I know, some families don't have children and don't want to educate anyone, but why we have to add in this system families, known good as not able to educate children?
> 
> You speaking about rights of gays - did you remembered about rights of children? Without imposed homosexualism and without domestic sexual abuse?
> 
> Otherwise, what is the reason of official marriage, if you want to have a sex? "Because God forbid it?" So, God forbid an homosexualism too...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course marriage is a right. That's been reaffirmed no less than 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.
> 
> *Maynard v. Hill*, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
> 
> 
> *Meyer v. Nebraska*, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
> 
> 
> *Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson*, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
> 
> 
> *Griswold v. Connecticut*, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
> 
> 
> *Loving v. Virginia*, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
> 
> 
> *Boddie v. Connecticut*, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “Marriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
> 
> 
> *Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur*, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
> 
> 
> *Moore v. City of East Cleveland*, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
> 
> 
> *Carey v. Population Services International*, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
> 
> 
> *Zablocki v. Redhail*, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
> 
> 
> *Turner v. Safley*, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
> 
> 
> *Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey*, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
> 
> 
> *M.L.B. v. S.L.J.*, 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
> 
> 
> *Lawrence v. Texas*, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
> ... so marriage is most certainly a right -- and the courts (and many states) determined there are no compelling interests to deny folks equal protection under the law by restricting them access to the right to marry the person of their choice even if that other person happens to be of the same gender.
> 
> The bigger question is .... why on Earth would you seek to let the government take away rights from anybody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
> On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?
> 
> Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sbiker
> 1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
> 2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
> 3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
> 4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
> 
> So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
> How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
Click to expand...

Easy

If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it

If you love someone of the same sex......marry them

What is not fair about that?


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here Sneekin would it look like this chart.
> If people can't agree on political beliefs
> then instead of pushing them
> from people/state to federal levels
> (from right to left side)
> then I'm saying organize political beliefs
> by groups through each state, then connect
> these nationally to have the same collective
> advantage as federal govt but without imposing on people
> outside that free choice to affiliate, fund and participate
> (from left to right, from people across states to national
> or even global since it doesn't have to go through federal)
> 
> View attachment 100341
> 
> 
> 
> OMG - what you are calling for IS ILLEGAL. How old are you?  Do you realize that prior to the 70's, we had dixiecrats (democrats) that were more right wing conservative than republicans?   We had republicans that were to the left of democrats, because the makeup in a lot of places was white color V blue color (union).  Both had leftists and rightists. The parties didn't change overnight, they changed as persons left office in various states.  There are caps on donations to dems and republicans - aren't you aware of any of these things? if it's people across states to National (or even global), since it doesn't have to go through federal...hmmm - you do realize that national and federal are the same, and people don't vote on national, federal and global issues?  We have an electoral college.  It elects the POTUS/VPOTUS, not you.  Think before you talk, validate your statements, and then don't put them down here when you discover you are asking for illegal laws and actions.
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin:

1. What I mean by national is NONPROFITS can have national organization from local to state to national and even international.
Social benefits programs can be organized that way if people prefer that to running it through federal govt
and having to answer to taxpayers who don't agree with their social priorities and beliefs or terms in funding health care or welfare.

There is nothing illegal about setting up charitable or business corporations to manage member benefits collectively.
That might be one alternative to separate people's beliefs by likeminded groups, so they can work things out amongst themselves more effectively.

Like one huge church splitting into two or more denominations because they don't agree on women priests or on gay marriages, for example. 

2. No, this isn't REQUIRING people to join a faith,
it's ALLOWING them the option of funding social programs through the affiliated network of their choice.
It doesn't have to be the actual political party itself, but using that system
to set up a network of likeminded contributors, and then those contributors
set up their own businesses or charities that manage the social programs.

The Clintons set up their own Clinton Foundation.
What if all the big Democrats and financiers organized a huge health care and
medical educational cooperative network?

Would that be "illegal" just because it connects people from local all the way up to national or international?
If it's completely voluntary to donate or invest in, isn't that within free enterprise to set up?

The licensing of corporations would still be done through States as normal.
But these could be national or global in scope, depending how they are set up.


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course marriage is a right. That's been reaffirmed no less than 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.
> 
> *Maynard v. Hill*, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
> 
> 
> *Meyer v. Nebraska*, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
> 
> 
> *Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson*, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
> 
> 
> *Griswold v. Connecticut*, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
> 
> 
> *Loving v. Virginia*, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
> 
> 
> *Boddie v. Connecticut*, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “Marriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
> 
> 
> *Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur*, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
> 
> 
> *Moore v. City of East Cleveland*, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
> 
> 
> *Carey v. Population Services International*, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
> 
> 
> *Zablocki v. Redhail*, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
> 
> 
> *Turner v. Safley*, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
> 
> 
> *Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey*, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
> 
> 
> *M.L.B. v. S.L.J.*, 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
> 
> 
> *Lawrence v. Texas*, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
> ... so marriage is most certainly a right -- and the courts (and many states) determined there are no compelling interests to deny folks equal protection under the law by restricting them access to the right to marry the person of their choice even if that other person happens to be of the same gender.
> 
> The bigger question is .... why on Earth would you seek to let the government take away rights from anybody?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
> On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?
> 
> Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sbiker
> 1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
> 2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
> 3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
> 4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
> 
> So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
> How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy
> 
> If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
> 
> If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
> 
> What is not fair about that?
Click to expand...


rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.

but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
to prevent conflicts with other people who have equal say in how
laws are written and implements if these are through govt that is public.

I posted other arguments for privatizing marriage and only
managing civil contracts through govt, so this is perfectly clear and separate:

Marriage as a FREEDOM under the Constitution: Can it be practiced equally without relying on govt?


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
> On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?
> 
> Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...
> 
> 
> 
> No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sbiker
> 1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
> 2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
> 3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
> 4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
> 
> So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
> How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy
> 
> If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
> 
> If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
> 
> What is not fair about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
> yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
> 
> but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
> that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
> to prevent conflicts with other people who have equal say in how
> laws are written and implements if these are through govt that is public.
> 
> I posted other arguments for privatizing marriage and only
> managing civil contracts through govt, so this is perfectly clear and separate:
> 
> Marriage as a FREEDOM under the Constitution: Can it be practiced equally without relying on govt?
Click to expand...

OK Emily

Take Government out of marriage...

Get married on a mountaintop by a hippie minister
Get rid of marriage tax breaks and joint filing
Go to a hospital and explain you want to make life or death decisions for you spouse
Have children and establish custodial rights
If you get divorced, go back to your hippie minister and have him decide distribution of property and childcare rights

Do that without government involvement


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
> On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?
> 
> Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...
> 
> 
> 
> No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sbiker
> 1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
> 2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
> 3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
> 4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
> 
> So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
> How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy
> 
> If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
> 
> If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
> 
> What is not fair about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
> yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
> 
> but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
> that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
> to prevent conflicts with other people who have equal say in how
> laws are written and implements if these are through govt that is public.
> 
> I posted other arguments for privatizing marriage and only
> managing civil contracts through govt, so this is perfectly clear and separate:
> 
> Marriage as a FREEDOM under the Constitution: Can it be practiced equally without relying on govt?
Click to expand...

You can't get rid of marriage, Emily -- it's a right.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not saying only use it for a class of people. I am saying use NEUTRAL terms for EVERYONE.
> 
> In other words for each state
> * if states use the term marriage then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil marriage then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term domestic partnership then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil contracts then EVERYONE can get that
> * if states use the term civil unions then EVERYONE can get that
> 
> Whatever term states use is for ALL people inclusively or else NOBODY gets that at all.
> 
> I think Faun understands I am saying don't use the term marriage for ANYBODY if it can't be used for EVERYONE.
> 
> If people can't agree to terms of marriage for everyone then the state can't make those laws and force them on anyone using those terms.
> 
> If states agree that EVERYONE gets civil marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever TERM that state agrees on, then that is neutral because everyone gets the same and nobody gets anything different from the state.
> 
> Sneekin if you are just caught up in what civil unions meant in the past I'm talking about the present and future not the past:  if people in a state do not believe in states endorsing gay or same sex "marriages" they can be offered the choice either make ALL marriages open to ALL couples or make ALL couples only get civil unions from the states or domestic partnerships or whatever people of that state agree to call the licensing.
> 
> That way EVERYONE is treated the same such as by only getting civil contracts through the state and getting marriages through whatever traditions they believe in addition to the neutral licensing through the state.
> 
> Sneekin that's fine if you want more, if you live in a state that agrees to recognize marriage for all people as endorsed and licensed through the state Great! I'm all for that if people of that state agree.
> 
> But if they don't agree on terms unless a different set up is used, as long as EVERYONE is subject to the same and NOBODY gets more or less through the state, then at least that is equal.
> 
> I'm sorry this isn't clear Sneekin
> I don't know why it is not possible for ALL couples to get civil unions if that state cannot agree on terms of marriage.
> 
> But if you have such conditions attached to the term civil union that it isn't a legal choice, that's how some people believe about marriage too !
> 
> So if you are saying no way can ALL people get civil unions but NO people should, then the same is true for marriage where either ALL people get to marry through the state or NO people should.
> 
> Just treat all people the SAME, either ALL or NONE, and that is fair to all people. Each state decides what terms it's citizens agree applies to ALL people with no exceptions and that's neutral law!
> 
> And yes, it's totally fine if all people in a state agree to majority rule passing marriage for all people!  But just like rules on references to religion, God. Cteation, prayer etc in schools it has to be by consent of the people where it is NOT the govt endorsing any beliefs the public doesn't agree the state should endorse. Keeping it neutral is one thing, but language endorsing one belief or another can still be struck down as biased.
> 
> Thanks and sorry if this wasn't clear
> 
> 
> 
> There's already a word for it...
> 
> *Marriage*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Faun that would be simple.
> And so would declaring the Democratic platform
> and beliefs about right to health care and right to marriage a
> POLITICAL RELIGION
> and be done with it.
> 
> We could AGREE to list out the political beliefs
> that each person or group holds sacred,
> agree to respect these as inviolate for those people
> and requiring consent of the governed and consensus
> on laws and reforms on any of these areas,
> and stop the fighting over forcing one g roup's
> beliefs over another's by domination or coecion.
> 
> I WISH it were that simple Faun I do!
> 
> But people like you see your stances as RIGHTS and not BELIEFS.
> and so do the right to life,
> and so do the right to choose
> and so do the right to guns advocates.
> 
> So it goes in circles, each combating the sacred
> cows that the other group draws a line in a sand for
> and refuses to let govt cross that line.
> 
> We all have our beliefs, and until we agree
> to treat them the same, we keep competing and
> repeating the same patterns over and over,
> taking turns trying to run over the other or
> run them out of govt. But that doesn't make
> that person's beliefs or rights 'go away" it just
> makes them come back and try to defend them
> again, back and forth.
> 
> Why don't we admit we have these sacred
> rights and beliefs, and agree not to disparage them???
> 
> Seems simple to me Faun but
> as you can see, it isn't easy to see when
> it's YOUR beliefs that you are defending as rights.
> When other people do that to you or me and take
> something that isn't our beliefs and shove it in our
> faces as law, then we can see that it should be a choice
> and not forced by law. But not when
> the shoe is on the other foot. Both sides are like that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is that simple. No one has to abandon marriage in America because some people oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage is here to stay and it now includes marriage between couples of the same sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Consensus on marriage might be reached if hypocrites like you admit you don't tolerate Christian practices in public as you are demanding people tolerate LGBT beliefs expressions and practices in public policy!
> 
> If you want equal rights and respect Faun that means to respect the same of others but you DONT. You insist that people's beliefs opposed to gay marriage, which cause them to reject "marriage" applied to gay couples, are due to some delusion or other deficiency. Thus Faun you are discriminating against the beliefs of others as inferior yet demanding equality for LGBT beliefs which is contradictory. You think you are not discriminating or excluding others but you keep putting them down as wrong instead of treating and respecting the beliefs as equal as I am trying to do.
> 
> And then you put me down also for trying to find ways to include all beliefs in a consensus on laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply not true, Emily.  Nothing is shoved in your face.  Your religion is not forced to acknowledge SSM, nor are you.   Your religion isn't forced to like or approve of it, and neither or you.  You want to name it something different, which violates the constitution.  If you can't grasp this, call an attorney.  Faun isn't discriminating against anyone, he's STANDING UP FOR THE RIGHTS OF EVERYONE.  YOU are the one advocating discrimination.  He's never once said other valid beliefs are delusions or deficient - he was referring to both your comments, and the others who claim religion trumps the Constitution, and separate but equal. There is no such thing anymore as SSM and Straight marriage.  There is JUST MARRIAGE. Please, try and wrap your mind around it, Emily.
Click to expand...


Dear @Sn e ekin and Faun
NO, that's NOT what I am saying.
And Faun is also saying that I am misconstruing and misstating also.
Sorry about this, and let's try again to get this straight

A. for Faun 
it's NOT that Faun is TRYING to exclude or discriminate against beliefs of those who don't believe in gay marriage.
But Faun does not get how these laws are doing any such thing!
So if there is no perceived imposition or "forcing" anyone, how can that be affecting those other beliefs?

I am saying it IS affecting them just by passing laws where govt is endorsing marriage,
and there are terms that people don't agree on.
It does not have to affect them directly, as in the actual marriage laws,
to affect them; just the fact that it is going through govt as a public institution
is enough.

So this is like saying how can legalizing abortion be affecting people who aren't involved in that choice?
this is for other people, not those who don't want abortion, who can still choose to abstain or prevent from getting involved in any such situation.

Well, as long as it is going through govt, and laws are public, 
then ALL people who have beliefs about this would rather laws be consistent with their values.
And anything inconsistent is seen as an imposition of bias, which is especially problematic with anything seen as faith based.

Now Faun also does not see anything "faith based" or 'religious" about civil marriage laws.

so Faun I understand you do NOT INTEND to discriminate or impose on anyone else
because you sincerely see no harm or imposition happening whatsoever!

that doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Sneekin pointed out that my using the term "traditional" loosely was offensive and biased
because it didn't count other things as equally "traditional' which is NOT what I meant.
But still, if that word means something different to someone else, of course, I would
have to change it and not expect them to change their thinking about it because that word "doesn't have to mean anything offensive"

B. for me,
Again I am NOT saying that the marriage beliefs are being forced onto people in that sense.

I am saying that if people do not believe or agree on terms of policies
that are being endorsed by govt, 
then it's THAT bias regardless of content that is causing a problem.

The fact that a law that doesn't represent all the people, but only those who see things a certain way,
and leaves out the people who believe differently,
is being PASSED and ENFORCED through govt without reworking it to INCLUDE the consent
of the overruled people, then this is causing the imposition.

Regardless of the content, if there are such differences in beliefs
that people cannot even SEE what imposition is occurring, while the others DO and are OBJECTING,
something is REALLY wrong with how that law is being written or applied.

There is something wrong with the process if people don't even get what
the other side sees right or wrong with it.

So it is inadverdently causing an imposition of bias.


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sbiker
> 1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
> 2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
> 3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
> 4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
> 
> So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
> How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy
> 
> If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
> 
> If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
> 
> What is not fair about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
> yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
> 
> but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
> that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
> to prevent conflicts with other people who have equal say in how
> laws are written and implements if these are through govt that is public.
> 
> I posted other arguments for privatizing marriage and only
> managing civil contracts through govt, so this is perfectly clear and separate:
> 
> Marriage as a FREEDOM under the Constitution: Can it be practiced equally without relying on govt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK Emily
> 
> Take Government out of marriage...
> 
> Get married on a mountaintop by a hippie minister
> Get rid of marriage tax breaks and joint filing
> Go to a hospital and explain you want to make life or death decisions for you spouse
> Have children and establish custodial rights
> If you get divorced, go back to your hippie minister and have him decide distribution of property and childcare rights
> 
> Do that without government involvement
Click to expand...


Yes rightwinger 
and do NOT insist on hiring and renting services from vendors
who don't believe in gay or interracial or interfaith marriages,
so you don't have to sue them for discrimination!


----------



## hazlnut

IndependantAce said:


> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.




You're not a supreme court justice.

Thus irrelevant.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> In all these cases, MEDIATION and consensus would protect the rights of the people affected.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a reason why courts are a recourse when mediation doesn't work- because mediation doesn't always work.
> 
> The courts protect the rights of Americans from both legal abuse, and from civil abuse.
> 
> I refer once again to Loving v. Virginia- which you keep studiously ignoring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How on earth do you "mediate" same sex marriage?
> 
> Who do you expect to mediate with......the bigots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> As Faun and I both agree the civil laws are intended to be about the civil contracts only, we would mediate between people and parties of the diverse viewpoints and make sure the language is neutral and acceptable to all. If people do not agree on social benefits through govt laws, we could even agree to separate those as choices for taxpayers to opt in or out of. Many people have beliefs about social benefits through state not federal, or through private means.
> 
> So that's another option that people or parties could agree to manage separately rather than force or ban beliefs about what programs to fund. Since people of like beliefs tend to organize by party, I think that's a natural way we could separate social taxation and have equal representation without imposing on each other's beliefs or priorities .
Click to expand...

Emily, you most certainly would not mediate my marriage or any other viewpoint.   if it's not a civil law, then you have your opinion, I have mine, if they are the same, great, if not, great.  You still don't grasp the concept that we don't mediate non issues.  You also don't mediate social benefits through government laws, as that already is defined, and NON-NEGOTIABLE.  You cannot opt in or opt out of things that are law.  I'm starting to feel pity for you, as you aren't firmly grounded in reality, I believe.  There is no such thing as social taxation as you outlined above.   You can have sin taxes (ie, more tax on soda than prescriptions), but that's really about it.  It's also ILLEGAL (you've now been told by myself and others at least 10 times, Emily, so give it up) to tax by political affiliation. I truly pity your misunderstanding of this issue.  It's sad.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage - is not a rights. It's obligations. Spouses form a new society cell - and society gives them upkeep to do it. I mean not only reproduction, but education too. I know, some families don't have children and don't want to educate anyone, but why we have to add in this system families, known good as not able to educate children?
> 
> You speaking about rights of gays - did you remembered about rights of children? Without imposed homosexualism and without domestic sexual abuse?
> 
> Otherwise, what is the reason of official marriage, if you want to have a sex? "Because God forbid it?" So, God forbid an homosexualism too...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course marriage is a right. That's been reaffirmed no less than 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.
> 
> *Maynard v. Hill*, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
> 
> 
> *Meyer v. Nebraska*, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
> 
> 
> *Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson*, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
> 
> 
> *Griswold v. Connecticut*, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
> 
> 
> *Loving v. Virginia*, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
> 
> 
> *Boddie v. Connecticut*, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “Marriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
> 
> 
> *Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur*, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
> 
> 
> *Moore v. City of East Cleveland*, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
> 
> 
> *Carey v. Population Services International*, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
> 
> 
> *Zablocki v. Redhail*, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
> 
> 
> *Turner v. Safley*, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
> 
> 
> *Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey*, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
> 
> 
> *M.L.B. v. S.L.J.*, 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
> 
> 
> *Lawrence v. Texas*, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
> ... so marriage is most certainly a right -- and the courts (and many states) determined there are no compelling interests to deny folks equal protection under the law by restricting them access to the right to marry the person of their choice even if that other person happens to be of the same gender.
> 
> The bigger question is .... why on Earth would you seek to let the government take away rights from anybody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
> On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?
> 
> Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sbiker
> 1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
> 2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
> 3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
> 4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
> 
> So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
> How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
Click to expand...

1.  It may be unacceptable - but it's not against the law.  If you are referring to CIVIL MARRIAGE, it's not blasphemous, offensive, or totally unacceptable - it's only their OPINION. Get over it.  It's Law, and the law is PUBLIC.  It is, and will be practiced by all.   Deal with it. Get it through your head, as well.
2.  It's law.   It's approved by government.   It's not forced on Christianity. BTW, my Christian Church marries all couples.  Period.  Recognized in all 50 states.  Not blasphemous (can't be), not offensive etc tec.
3.  It's law.
4.  It's law
To sum it up, the answer to 1-4, all four times, is IT'S THE LAW OF THE LAND. Deal with it.  There are no private laws.  You and the fundamentalist talibani christians are NOT forced to accept it.  Not forced to believe it ok.   But they will use the same marriage license in that church as my church, synagogue, mosque, or Temple.  Comprende?  The 14th Amendment is in full force and effect.  Marriage between two men, two women, or one man and a woman, using a state issued marriage license, signed by a representative of the state that is empowered to sign (Judge, JP, Priest, Rabbi, Imam, Monk, etc).  Your church must use it, so must mine (provided we are in the same state), and the same applies for all that are married by a JP/Judge.  Understand now?  No such thing as private laws. Stop lying to Sbiker.  You are NOT being truthful, you are making false claims, many of which violate US law. You are once again talking about things you know nothing about, and pretend to be advocating for issues that 1) don't exist; 2) are illegal, and/or 3) exist only in your mind.   You will never pass laws (you can't, illegal)  privatizing marriage (laws are PUBLIC), or use different terms (violates the 14th amendment).  Just STOP!


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sbiker
> 1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
> 2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
> 3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
> 4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
> 
> So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
> How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy
> 
> If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
> 
> If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
> 
> What is not fair about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
> yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
> 
> but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
> that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
> to prevent conflicts with other people who have equal say in how
> laws are written and implements if these are through govt that is public.
> 
> I posted other arguments for privatizing marriage and only
> managing civil contracts through govt, so this is perfectly clear and separate:
> 
> Marriage as a FREEDOM under the Constitution: Can it be practiced equally without relying on govt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK Emily
> 
> Take Government out of marriage...
> 
> Get married on a mountaintop by a hippie minister
> Get rid of marriage tax breaks and joint filing
> Go to a hospital and explain you want to make life or death decisions for you spouse
> Have children and establish custodial rights
> If you get divorced, go back to your hippie minister and have him decide distribution of property and childcare rights
> 
> Do that without government involvement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes rightwinger
> and do NOT insist on hiring and renting services from vendors
> who don't believe in gay or interracial or interfaith marriages,
> so you don't have to sue them for discrimination!
Click to expand...

Another example of you promoting people break the law.   If there are laws on the books that clearly state no discrimination based on sexual preference, then a business owner MUST obey.  

I feel like I'm talking now to a 5 year old - here's another example.  We were dirt poor when we got married. We lived in the country, had to get picked up to go grocery shopping, school, church, etc. When we got married,  there was ONE person that made wedding cakes in the area - we are talking a drive of at least 50 plus miles to get a cake elsewhere.   We scraped together what we could, she made a beautiful cake at much less than the going price in the cities 50 miles away.  The photographer road to the church with our ride.  We rented the parish hall.  Our friends catered the event.  You do realize, don't you, that our friends could have backed out with no legal recourse, just lost friendship.  The church could have refused to allow the parish center used for the reception (we had a second one at our apartment, where alcohol was served). The photographer and cake baker couldn't.  PERIOD.  It would have been against the law!  I can have WHOEVER I WANT to cater/bake/take photos/provide a venue, and you, nor anyone else, can tell them that it's ok to break the law.   I got what I paid for - and couldn't go elsewhere - so wrap your mind around the real world facts that actually happen. 

Deep breath, Emily, now think.  You just said 
"I posted other arguments for privatizing marriage and only managing civil contracts through govt, so this is perfectly clear and separate:"

Marriage is a civil contract, and must be registered with the state to be valid.  As you've been told probably 20 times, you can have your own church matrimony (correct religious term, actually, according to the bible I use) that's not valid in any state, unless your pastors signs the CIVIL DOCUMENT (MARRIAGE LICENSE).  That's what makes your marriage legal.  No one cares about your faux issues.  There is NO intrusion - everyone who gets married fills out the state application.  The person performing the ceremony signs it.  They aren't advocating gay marriage, straight marriage, or anything else, just MARRIAGE.   You keep babbling about privatizing, but that is patently illegal, and would not be recognized by either the state nor federal government.  If you are willing to give up 1138 benefits, by all means, divorce your husband civilly, and have another marriage ceremony where your pastor doesn't sign a marriage license.  It will be nice and private for you (and I'm happy that you're happy).  And remember come April 15th - you must file single (one, for at least the next year, can file head of household if you have children).  The "ex-spouse" (but yet religious spouse) will more than likely be mandated to pay child support.  You'll no longer have access to the other's social security, retirement, be allowed to make medical decisions for each other, etc.  if that's what you want, that's what you'll get when you "privatize" your marriage.  Civil Marriage is by law PUBLIC and PUBLIC RECORD.  Did I make this clear enough for you? THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS AS privatizing laws so that they only apply to groups.   It flies in the face of sanity, to start with.  Makes them unenforceable.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here Sneekin would it look like this chart.
> If people can't agree on political beliefs
> then instead of pushing them
> from people/state to federal levels
> (from right to left side)
> then I'm saying organize political beliefs
> by groups through each state, then connect
> these nationally to have the same collective
> advantage as federal govt but without imposing on people
> outside that free choice to affiliate, fund and participate
> (from left to right, from people across states to national
> or even global since it doesn't have to go through federal)
> 
> View attachment 100341
> 
> 
> 
> OMG - what you are calling for IS ILLEGAL. How old are you?  Do you realize that prior to the 70's, we had dixiecrats (democrats) that were more right wing conservative than republicans?   We had republicans that were to the left of democrats, because the makeup in a lot of places was white color V blue color (union).  Both had leftists and rightists. The parties didn't change overnight, they changed as persons left office in various states.  There are caps on donations to dems and republicans - aren't you aware of any of these things? if it's people across states to National (or even global), since it doesn't have to go through federal...hmmm - you do realize that national and federal are the same, and people don't vote on national, federal and global issues?  We have an electoral college.  It elects the POTUS/VPOTUS, not you.  Think before you talk, validate your statements, and then don't put them down here when you discover you are asking for illegal laws and actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin:
> 
> 1. What I mean by national is NONPROFITS can have national organization from local to state to national and even international.
> Social benefits programs can be organized that way if people prefer that to running it through federal govt
> and having to answer to taxpayers who don't agree with their social priorities and beliefs or terms in funding health care or welfare.
> 
> There is nothing illegal about setting up charitable or business corporations to manage member benefits collectively.
> That might be one alternative to separate people's beliefs by likeminded groups, so they can work things out amongst themselves more effectively.
> 
> Like one huge church splitting into two or more denominations because they don't agree on women priests or on gay marriages, for example.
> 
> 2. No, this isn't REQUIRING people to join a faith,
> it's ALLOWING them the option of funding social programs through the affiliated network of their choice.
> It doesn't have to be the actual political party itself, but using that system
> to set up a network of likeminded contributors, and then those contributors
> set up their own businesses or charities that manage the social programs.
> 
> The Clintons set up their own Clinton Foundation.
> What if all the big Democrats and financiers organized a huge health care and
> medical educational cooperative network?
> 
> Would that be "illegal" just because it connects people from local all the way up to national or international?
> If it's completely voluntary to donate or invest in, isn't that within free enterprise to set up?
> 
> The licensing of corporations would still be done through States as normal.
> But these could be national or global in scope, depending how they are set up.
Click to expand...

Emily:

1. This has been tried and has failed numerous times. So....the government came on board, gave us welfare, SNAP, Section 8, etc.  You can't be dependent on non-profits and churches to foot the bill - your simply shifting tax burdens around.   Saying that you are foolish is an understatement.

Actually, you may want to give me some examples of 501c4's that take my money, combine it with other people's money, and then disburse moneys to me based on a 3rd party whim.   Nope- give me some examples where this has worked.  Make sure you read the tax laws governing 501c4's - there are a ton of rules, and some of what you suggest violates the law.
2. See 1 above.

3. Set up a clinton foundation type of arrangement for medical expenses for say democrats only.  First of all, how would one prove what party they belong to?  What would prevent me from saying I'm democrat and voting republican?   What would prevent me from just saying I'm democrat when I'm not, or better yet, here's what happened at my former job.   3000 people joined a brand new HMO/CO-OP type of program.   Over a thousand went to that insurance because they had medical conditions requiring surgery - expensive surgery.  These people switched - the nationwide HMO went belly up after 2 years of existence.   Too many out of pocket expenses as a startup.  

If you don’t have a sizable membership base, it is difficult to negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals that are as favorable as those that bigger insurers can get. If you have to pay providers more than your competitors, you will have to charge your customers higher premiums. It is almost impossible to grow your membership if you have to price your premiums higher than your competitors.

I wish you well on your efforts. Just be forwarned - most businesses go belly up within 18 months.  Insurance, even a non-profit 501c4  is even more likely to fail, based on the paragraph above.  Establishing health care is on page 33 of the IRS document, giving you some of what you need to do to form a health care organization.  You can't offer insurance, you must establish HMO. It also can't be an IPA.


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sbiker
> 1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
> 2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
> 3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
> 4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
> 
> So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
> How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy
> 
> If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
> 
> If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
> 
> What is not fair about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
> yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
> 
> but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
> that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
> to prevent conflicts with other people who have equal say in how
> laws are written and implements if these are through govt that is public.
> 
> I posted other arguments for privatizing marriage and only
> managing civil contracts through govt, so this is perfectly clear and separate:
> 
> Marriage as a FREEDOM under the Constitution: Can it be practiced equally without relying on govt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK Emily
> 
> Take Government out of marriage...
> 
> Get married on a mountaintop by a hippie minister
> Get rid of marriage tax breaks and joint filing
> Go to a hospital and explain you want to make life or death decisions for you spouse
> Have children and establish custodial rights
> If you get divorced, go back to your hippie minister and have him decide distribution of property and childcare rights
> 
> Do that without government involvement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes rightwinger
> and do NOT insist on hiring and renting services from vendors
> who don't believe in gay or interracial or interfaith marriages,
> so you don't have to sue them for discrimination!
Click to expand...


Individuals are free to hate anyone they want...even you
Businesses are not treated the same

Our nation moved past "We don't serve negroes here" a long time ago


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sbiker
> 1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
> 2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
> 3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
> 4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
> 
> So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
> How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy
> 
> If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
> 
> If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
> 
> What is not fair about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
> yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
> 
> but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
> that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
> to prevent conflicts with other people who have equal say in how
> laws are written and implements if these are through govt that is public.
> 
> I posted other arguments for privatizing marriage and only
> managing civil contracts through govt, so this is perfectly clear and separate:
> 
> Marriage as a FREEDOM under the Constitution: Can it be practiced equally without relying on govt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't get rid of marriage, Emily -- it's a right.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that.
I'm saying to separate these political beliefs and each system can have its own way of writing the same laws since they don't agree how to do it.

Alaska laws on murder are written differently than Texas laws, yet we agree murder is unlawful.

So why not separate how people or parties manage their own marriages or benefits. GALVESTON has its own social security for its citizens. Mormons have a two year temp system similar to Social Security.

why force everyone to agree to one system when they can't help their beliefs that are different.  Some ppl put church authority and God first then govt follows and must be consistent not in conflict. Others put secular govt first as the default them view beliefs and religions as secondary and cannot be in conflictt.

I am saying both standards need to be met in order not to violate either one!
Like how laws on murder are agreed upon, regardless what order we put church or state authority where the two agree anyway. We need agreement on that level or else separate these legally


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here Sneekin would it look like this chart.
> If people can't agree on political beliefs
> then instead of pushing them
> from people/state to federal levels
> (from right to left side)
> then I'm saying organize political beliefs
> by groups through each state, then connect
> these nationally to have the same collective
> advantage as federal govt but without imposing on people
> outside that free choice to affiliate, fund and participate
> (from left to right, from people across states to national
> or even global since it doesn't have to go through federal)
> 
> View attachment 100341
> 
> 
> 
> OMG - what you are calling for IS ILLEGAL. How old are you?  Do you realize that prior to the 70's, we had dixiecrats (democrats) that were more right wing conservative than republicans?   We had republicans that were to the left of democrats, because the makeup in a lot of places was white color V blue color (union).  Both had leftists and rightists. The parties didn't change overnight, they changed as persons left office in various states.  There are caps on donations to dems and republicans - aren't you aware of any of these things? if it's people across states to National (or even global), since it doesn't have to go through federal...hmmm - you do realize that national and federal are the same, and people don't vote on national, federal and global issues?  We have an electoral college.  It elects the POTUS/VPOTUS, not you.  Think before you talk, validate your statements, and then don't put them down here when you discover you are asking for illegal laws and actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin:
> 
> 1. What I mean by national is NONPROFITS can have national organization from local to state to national and even international.
> Social benefits programs can be organized that way if people prefer that to running it through federal govt
> and having to answer to taxpayers who don't agree with their social priorities and beliefs or terms in funding health care or welfare.
> 
> There is nothing illegal about setting up charitable or business corporations to manage member benefits collectively.
> That might be one alternative to separate people's beliefs by likeminded groups, so they can work things out amongst themselves more effectively.
> 
> Like one huge church splitting into two or more denominations because they don't agree on women priests or on gay marriages, for example.
> 
> 2. No, this isn't REQUIRING people to join a faith,
> it's ALLOWING them the option of funding social programs through the affiliated network of their choice.
> It doesn't have to be the actual political party itself, but using that system
> to set up a network of likeminded contributors, and then those contributors
> set up their own businesses or charities that manage the social programs.
> 
> The Clintons set up their own Clinton Foundation.
> What if all the big Democrats and financiers organized a huge health care and
> medical educational cooperative network?
> 
> Would that be "illegal" just because it connects people from local all the way up to national or international?
> If it's completely voluntary to donate or invest in, isn't that within free enterprise to set up?
> 
> The licensing of corporations would still be done through States as normal.
> But these could be national or global in scope, depending how they are set up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily:
> 
> 1. This has been tried and has failed numerous times. So....the government came on board, gave us welfare, SNAP, Section 8, etc.  You can't be dependent on non-profits and churches to foot the bill - your simply shifting tax burdens around.   Saying that you are foolish is an understatement.
> 
> Actually, you may want to give me some examples of 501c4's that take my money, combine it with other people's money, and then disburse moneys to me based on a 3rd party whim.   Nope- give me some examples where this has worked.  Make sure you read the tax laws governing 501c4's - there are a ton of rules, and some of what you suggest violates the law.
> 2. See 1 above.
> 
> 3. Set up a clinton foundation type of arrangement for medical expenses for say democrats only.  First of all, how would one prove what party they belong to?  What would prevent me from saying I'm democrat and voting republican?   What would prevent me from just saying I'm democrat when I'm not, or better yet, here's what happened at my former job.   3000 people joined a brand new HMO/CO-OP type of program.   Over a thousand went to that insurance because they had medical conditions requiring surgery - expensive surgery.  These people switched - the nationwide HMO went belly up after 2 years of existence.   Too many out of pocket expenses as a startup.
> 
> If you don’t have a sizable membership base, it is difficult to negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals that are as favorable as those that bigger insurers can get. If you have to pay providers more than your competitors, you will have to charge your customers higher premiums. It is almost impossible to grow your membership if you have to price your premiums higher than your competitors.
> 
> I wish you well on your efforts. Just be forwarned - most businesses go belly up within 18 months.  Insurance, even a non-profit 501c4  is even more likely to fail, based on the paragraph above.  Establishing health care is on page 33 of the IRS document, giving you some of what you need to do to form a health care organization.  You can't offer insurance, you must establish HMO. It also can't be an IPA.
Click to expand...

Dear Sneekin
Have you looked at our prison system and VA. have you seen the millions in tax dollars wasted by public school boards and public housing for mismanagement even 12 million in one case in Houston that shut a district down. Taxpayers were never reimbursed by the wrongdoers.

So this isn't accountable.

If we did manage those resources effectively this CAN run as nonprofits that have to be held to account.

The key is answering to the people.

It can be a nonprofit business or LLC or whatever people choose locally as long as it represents the people paying in and participating to make sure it sustains and grows.

I would go with adding the Code of Ethics for govt service to Constitutional standards for these entities to follow.

Sneekin it can still be done through govt if people agree.

But as you pointed out, people do not agree on govt authority because we don't even view it the same way. You dont agree on mixing in beliefs with govt and neither do others agree on putting secular govt before their beliefs about social institutions and programs this can't be forced on them contrary to beliefs in free-market and charities that have freedom to counsel people spiritually as part of their services to reduce costs and make sure people aren't stuck in poverty or addiction.

We can microlending instead of welfare and forced taxation without representation. I don't believe in rewarding criminal behavior for running up costs while punishing law abiding citizrns for making more money where they are derived of liberty and income because other people committed crimes and cost taxpayer resources.

So I believe in funding and rewarding programs that work by giving the tax breaks or the credit for loans to people who chose to invest in more cost effective programs that break the cycle of crime and poverty.

A lot of these programs that work are faith based even if they are secular and can't be regulated or forced on people but work by free will. So it would be discriminating against people's beliefs and freedom to force them to pay for systems that punish law abiding independent efforts while rewarding dependence on govt that enables corruption and waste to go unchecked.

You can keep funding your own system of choice, but it's unfair to impose that on others. Just like the marriage laws, if you are going to allow gay marriage to be endorsed by states even if people don't agree, then why not open the door for others to follow their faith even if you don't agree.

Just let people invest freely and deduct from taxes.

BTW it's already legal for people to set up their own LLC, churches and schools as either business or nonprofit or both. So it's not a matter of laws since this is already a choice by law. It's a matter of will and consent if people agree to organize and do it that way.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> In all these cases, MEDIATION and consensus would protect the rights of the people affected.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a reason why courts are a recourse when mediation doesn't work- because mediation doesn't always work.
> 
> The courts protect the rights of Americans from both legal abuse, and from civil abuse.
> 
> I refer once again to Loving v. Virginia- which you keep studiously ignoring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How on earth do you "mediate" same sex marriage?
> 
> Who do you expect to mediate with......the bigots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> As Faun and I both agree the civil laws are intended to be about the civil contracts only, we would mediate between people and parties of the diverse viewpoints and make sure the language is neutral and acceptable to all. .
Click to expand...


Why would anyone not party to a contract be involved with the mediation of a contract?

If I contract to have a building contractor build my house- who would be involved in mediation besides myself and my building contractor?


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
> On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?
> 
> Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...
> 
> 
> 
> No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sbiker
> 1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
> 2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
> 3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
> 4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
> 
> So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
> How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy
> 
> If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
> 
> If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
> 
> What is not fair about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
> yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
> 
> but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
> that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
Click to expand...


Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.

Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government. 

We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong. 

Let me put it another way.

I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire  civil institution that I want-  because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> [
> why force everyone to agree to one system when they can't help their beliefs that are different.



Everyone doesn't have to agree with one system. No one is forcing anyone to get civilly married to anyone other than to who they agree to marry.  

The Lovings wanted to get married- so they went and got married- even though some people believed it was against their religious beliefs for a mixed race couple to get married. The Supreme Court said that was unconstitutional- and the Supreme Court is right.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's already a word for it...
> 
> *Marriage*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Faun that would be simple.
> And so would declaring the Democratic platform
> and beliefs about right to health care and right to marriage a
> POLITICAL RELIGION
> and be done with it.
> 
> We could AGREE to list out the political beliefs
> that each person or group holds sacred,
> agree to respect these as inviolate for those people
> and requiring consent of the governed and consensus
> on laws and reforms on any of these areas,
> and stop the fighting over forcing one g roup's
> beliefs over another's by domination or coecion.
> 
> I WISH it were that simple Faun I do!
> 
> But people like you see your stances as RIGHTS and not BELIEFS.
> and so do the right to life,
> and so do the right to choose
> and so do the right to guns advocates.
> 
> So it goes in circles, each combating the sacred
> cows that the other group draws a line in a sand for
> and refuses to let govt cross that line.
> 
> We all have our beliefs, and until we agree
> to treat them the same, we keep competing and
> repeating the same patterns over and over,
> taking turns trying to run over the other or
> run them out of govt. But that doesn't make
> that person's beliefs or rights 'go away" it just
> makes them come back and try to defend them
> again, back and forth.
> 
> Why don't we admit we have these sacred
> rights and beliefs, and agree not to disparage them???
> 
> Seems simple to me Faun but
> as you can see, it isn't easy to see when
> it's YOUR beliefs that you are defending as rights.
> When other people do that to you or me and take
> something that isn't our beliefs and shove it in our
> faces as law, then we can see that it should be a choice
> and not forced by law. But not when
> the shoe is on the other foot. Both sides are like that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is that simple. No one has to abandon marriage in America because some people oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage is here to stay and it now includes marriage between couples of the same sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Consensus on marriage might be reached if hypocrites like you admit you don't tolerate Christian practices in public as you are demanding people tolerate LGBT beliefs expressions and practices in public policy!
> 
> If you want equal rights and respect Faun that means to respect the same of others but you DONT. You insist that people's beliefs opposed to gay marriage, which cause them to reject "marriage" applied to gay couples, are due to some delusion or other deficiency. Thus Faun you are discriminating against the beliefs of others as inferior yet demanding equality for LGBT beliefs which is contradictory. You think you are not discriminating or excluding others but you keep putting them down as wrong instead of treating and respecting the beliefs as equal as I am trying to do.
> 
> And then you put me down also for trying to find ways to include all beliefs in a consensus on laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply not true, Emily.  Nothing is shoved in your face.  Your religion is not forced to acknowledge SSM, nor are you.   Your religion isn't forced to like or approve of it, and neither or you.  You want to name it something different, which violates the constitution.  If you can't grasp this, call an attorney.  Faun isn't discriminating against anyone, he's STANDING UP FOR THE RIGHTS OF EVERYONE.  YOU are the one advocating discrimination.  He's never once said other valid beliefs are delusions or deficient - he was referring to both your comments, and the others who claim religion trumps the Constitution, and separate but equal. There is no such thing anymore as SSM and Straight marriage.  There is JUST MARRIAGE. Please, try and wrap your mind around it, Emily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear @Sn e ekin and Faun
> NO, that's NOT what I am saying.
> And Faun is also saying that I am misconstruing and misstating also.
> Sorry about this, and let's try again to get this straight
> 
> A. for Faun
> it's NOT that Faun is TRYING to exclude or discriminate against beliefs of those who don't believe in gay marriage.
> But Faun does not get how these laws are doing any such thing!
> So if there is no perceived imposition or "forcing" anyone, how can that be affecting those other beliefs?
> 
> I am saying it IS affecting them just by passing laws where govt is endorsing marriage,
> and there are terms that people don't agree on.
> It does not have to affect them directly, as in the actual marriage laws,
> to affect them; just the fact that it is going through govt as a public institution
> is enough.
> 
> So this is like saying how can legalizing abortion be affecting people who aren't involved in that choice?
> this is for other people, not those who don't want abortion, who can still choose to abstain or prevent from getting involved in any such situation.
> 
> Well, as long as it is going through govt, and laws are public,
> then ALL people who have beliefs about this would rather laws be consistent with their values.
> And anything inconsistent is seen as an imposition of bias, which is especially problematic with anything seen as faith based.
> 
> Now Faun also does not see anything "faith based" or 'religious" about civil marriage laws.
> 
> so Faun I understand you do NOT INTEND to discriminate or impose on anyone else
> because you sincerely see no harm or imposition happening whatsoever!
> 
> that doesn't mean it isn't happening.
> Sneekin pointed out that my using the term "traditional" loosely was offensive and biased
> because it didn't count other things as equally "traditional' which is NOT what I meant.
> But still, if that word means something different to someone else, of course, I would
> have to change it and not expect them to change their thinking about it because that word "doesn't have to mean anything offensive"
> 
> B. for me,
> Again I am NOT saying that the marriage beliefs are being forced onto people in that sense.
> 
> I am saying that if people do not believe or agree on terms of policies
> that are being endorsed by govt,
> then it's THAT bias regardless of content that is causing a problem.
> 
> The fact that a law that doesn't represent all the people, but only those who see things a certain way,
> and leaves out the people who believe differently,
> is being PASSED and ENFORCED through govt without reworking it to INCLUDE the consent
> of the overruled people, then this is causing the imposition.
> 
> Regardless of the content, if there are such differences in beliefs
> that people cannot even SEE what imposition is occurring, while the others DO and are OBJECTING,
> something is REALLY wrong with how that law is being written or applied.
> 
> There is something wrong with the process if people don't even get what
> the other side sees right or wrong with it.
> 
> So it is inadverdently causing an imposition of bias.
Click to expand...

Do you also support churches doing away with marriages?


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sbiker
> 1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
> 2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
> 3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
> 4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
> 
> So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
> How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy
> 
> If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
> 
> If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
> 
> What is not fair about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
> yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
> 
> but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
> that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.
> 
> Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.
> 
> We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.
> 
> Let me put it another way.
> 
> I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire  civil institution that I want-  because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?
Click to expand...

Dear Syriusly it's not doing away with it. It's giving people the *choice* of either opening up the sake process for all people, or of changing it to just civil unions for all people and stick to just the secular contracts and remove the social attachments. People can CHOOSE to have marriage in addition, but there is no reason for govt to require a particular kind of social relationship in order to get a license and benefits for a civil partnership that is secular only.

At least give people that choice of how much to put into govt laws and language and how much to leave private. Either all people of a state agree, or they privatize the parts they don't agree to open up to all peopleas the policy thats going to be public.

Syriusly Sneekin Faun
Since it seems clear you don't agree with removing the social benefits but want to keep those managed by govt, what do you think of the idea of doing the same with spiritual healing prayer. And allowing tolerance and inclusion of that expression and practice, including rresearch and development so this can be offered to more of the public as a free choice. Spiritual healing works naturally in conjunction with science and medicine and doesn't work by coercion or force. So there is no imposition involved.

If LGBT beliefs expression practice and creed are going to be endorsed and written into govt laws, why not allow spiritual healing prayer as an equal alternative for people to choose.

I think that approach could also resolve this issue. Allowing equal beliefs may stop a lot of the pressure to resist and object other views, so instead of excluding one while pushing the other in a combative deadlock between beliefs that won't change, why not open the door to equal inclusion and let all people practice their beliefs just as freely without prejudice and assumption that they will try to impose? Why not have the agreement that NOBODY impose their beliefs and NOBODY sue to remove one belief or another from public schools or textbooks. Just vote and decide democratically as before without the stigma or rejection of faith based beliefs, if LGBT beliefs are going to be protected, then treat ALL people of ALL beliefs with tolerance and just ask nicely instead of suing if a conflict arises. So the demonization stops, and the bullying and discrimination against people for having different beliefs.


----------



## Sbiker

So many letters!  Now I see, I'm discussing with lawyers 



> That's an offensive statement, seeing how over 90 percent of sexual abuse occurs in heterosexual "traditional" families.....



So what? (c) Metallica. Children really have a lot of problems in traditional families - so, let's add them another problem from homosexual? And 90% - it's because a part of this families so large, but probability of sexual abuse in homosexual families much higher...



> Wrong - the Latin word was in use LONG BEFORE the origination of Christianity - several millenia, I'm sure.



Latin word was "Mas". "Marriage" formed in English, inherited from Latin 



> Wow - you have so little education, and have told no truths.



I could to predict much of your responces, but trying to solve problem not from lawyer sight of view, but breaking stereotypes. There are a lot of problems in both situation - to allow heterosexual of marriage or to forbid. And some of thes problems we really don't able to comprehend, because it concerns a large society phenomenons. What if our salvation will lead to demographic catastrophe in 2nd or in 3rd generation? It could be good for us, but what do you say about our grandchildren? 

Maybe, it's just because US didn't have an enormous demographic losses from external aggression during all XX century, like we are...


----------



## Sbiker

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sbiker
> 1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
> 2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
> 3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
> 4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
> 
> So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
> How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy
> 
> If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
> 
> If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
> 
> What is not fair about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
> yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
> 
> but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
> that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.
> 
> Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.
> 
> We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.
> 
> Let me put it another way.
> 
> I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire  civil institution that I want-  because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?
Click to expand...


I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable... 

Yes, some people don't eat pork - but they are people too! What is the reason to force them to eat pork only because someone, eating pork, want "to play in muslim too"?

There's no problem for gays to have any sexual relations they want. There's no any problems for them (especially, because they're "artistic" and "creative") to develop own, gay rituals for marriage and so on (I doubt, married gays really to plan live married all remained life - as tradition of marriage generally need ). Instead of it - they performing lawyer aggression against tradition forms of marriage. They no need to have own - they only want to destroy something, they don't have. That'a a main problem, as I see...

I am an atheist too (some church people hate me "for my cynicism"), but religion - is a phenomenon, we have to keep and learn, before saying "it's not a true, it's just a legend and obscurantism"... And close to it, we have to change tradition carefully because of mass psychology problems danger. How many drugs current people eating to correct problems of life? Does it correct price for our progress, or it's too much?


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sbiker
> 1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
> 2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
> 3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
> 4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
> 
> So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
> How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy
> 
> If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
> 
> If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
> 
> What is not fair about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
> yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
> 
> but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
> that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.
> 
> Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.
> 
> We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.
> 
> Let me put it another way.
> 
> I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire  civil institution that I want-  because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?
Click to expand...


Hi Syriusly
for the analogy about pork and Muslims,
it's more like this:

1. Let's take something like the Jewish traditions of Kosher foods being embedded in business
and public policies.  And some have argued this is violating separation of church and state,
but there are some practices in place, and people have accepted and tolerated them.

2. Now let's say a MUSLIM group says we want the same recognition as the JEWISH who
have their practices recognized in public policy.

So the court says sure, if Jewish laws are practiced so should Muslim laws be practiced.

And there are objections:
A. one group that favors Judeo-Christian beliefs but not Muslim rejects the new reforms.
B. one group says BOTH sets of rules should have be en removed from policy and kept private choice
if businesses want to follow them or not. but none should be forced or ENDORSED BY GOVT to begin with.
C. Muslims are yelling but if Jewish traditions get to be practiced, that's discrimination
if you don't let ours be practiced, too.

So again, the two choices are to remove all of them,
keep all of them as equal choices, or agree how to write laws
where both could be practiced by free choice without govt ENDORSING any one set of beliefs.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the main purpose of marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> Marriage is a right. People get married for all sorts of reasons. Whatever their reason is, is up to them, not you, not the state. The state can't prevent a couple who qualify for marriage from getting married because they can't, or won't, procreate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm... You're, offcourse, right, if we discussing marriage as a preferable rights for spouses.
> 
> But rights of one people ends where the rights of another people starts... What about children? What about rights or every children to grow in normal, traditional family? Children - are either not a property of adults, not a mature members of society, who could completely understand own rights and psychologically able to defend them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's an offensive statement, seeing how over 90 percent of sexual abuse occurs in heterosexual "traditional" families..... not to mention, are you now saying adults are not responsible for their children and their actions?  Better check your law books, bubba.  That's another lie.  I've worked with and also known (friends and family in SS relationships) that have children, and in every case, have done better jobs than what you refer to as "normal, traditional families".  You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are now making up your own facts.  This is settled law, and there already have been court cases over gays raising children - and in every one of those cases, gays won.  I've been involved in court cases where grandparents have sued their ex son-in-law, who was a custodial parent, and involved in a SS relationship.   Every time the mother-in-law's attorney started to produce an  excuse, the father's attorney objected, producing state supreme court rulings in favor of the same sex parent, against the person suing.   The judge removed the Children and Family Service invesigator for bias, and the father's attorney produced evidence that the grandmother had paid various expenses for the investigator.  Sorry, but you just don't have your facts "straight".  Children have rights, to a point.  Not to mention, once they are 12-14 years old, they can pick the SS parent to live with anyway.  Try fact checking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK Sneekin no harm intended
> I'm okay using a different term besides traditional.
> 
> In all these cases, MEDIATION and consensus would protect the rights of the people affected.
> it would PREVENT legal abuse of authority
> in the cases as you describe where this gets
> imbalanced and out of hand.
> 
> So that's another reason to require it in cases
> where personal beliefs and relations are involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except for the fact you are now trying to abuse our legal system and abuse the law.  Requiring what you claim compounds the abuse.  Your personal belief one way or another regarding SSM has no impact on race, color, creed, etc.  NONE WHATSOEVER, EMILY.   You claim we need to make exceptions for "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL", with caveats - "Democrats can't have guns" "gays can't use the word marriage"  "Abortions only for Democreats"  - can't you even grasp the fact that your words and proposals VIOLATE the very words of the 14th amendment????
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin 
No, saying gays can't use the word marriage is like saying Christians can't use the word God or Jesus.

It's in the context of public laws.
When you make public laws, the whole public gets equal say in them because everyone is affected.

So if you don't want to include other people's beliefs, then don't push yours into public laws.
And you don't have to answer to other people equally affected by the laws.

And they also have to include you also!
Both have to agree if these are public laws.
They are social contracts between people.

I made the analogy to marriage -- that partners have to agree to terms of marriage.
You don't write contracts by having one group write up the terms and force it onto others 
who are required to be under it since it's a public law.

That's what Obama and Congress did wrong with ACA, created a business contract
with corporate insurance interests and "signed taxpayers up for it" to be responsible for terms
we didn't ALL agree to pay under!

If you are going to change the terms of a contract,
last I checked, all the parties to the contract have to agree to the changes in terms.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Dear Faun I don't know if you are living in a box or you just don't care or acknowledge the beliefs of others.
> Am I really the only person you know making these arguments:
> 1. about states rights
> 2. about civil unions instead of marriage through govt
> 3. about right to marriage being a political belief that not all people agree to apply to gay couples?
> 
> REALLY?
> 
> Maybe it's because I'm in Texas.
> And in Houston.
> 
> I have TONS of prolife Christian friends who do NOT believe abortion is a choice
> and do NOT believe in the govt endorsing gay marriage as natural.
> 
> I have stated these over and over.
> 
> If you are just citing the court case in Obergefell,
> well I know more people who contest that just like you would contest a court ruling endorsing slavery as legal property laws.
> 
> Sorry, but it's leaving out the consent and beliefs of other people in making that ruling.
> (the most I can interpret it to include the gist of it,
> is by religious freedom of course people have equal
> rights to marriage, and that's why it's not govt jurisidiction to decide)
> 
> You don't count the beliefs of these other people.
> It's not your fault, I think you truly do not see any violation occurring
> so you think it must be delusional.
> 
> It's the principle, that govt should not impose ANY beliefs about marriage
> that should remain the right of the people to CHOOSE.
> 
> The dissenters do NOT believe Govt has the authority to declare marriage
> rights beliefs or practices one way or another.
> 
> That's the issue.
> 
> I think it's so fundamental that you are missing it.
> You keep wanting to argue specific points,
> when it's the whole thing that is objected to.
> 
> Sorry if I cannot explain what each and every person is arguing
> who objects to this.
> 
> If you need to hear all the reasons and arguments (as each person
> says it differently) give me time and I will collect and list these for you.
> 
> In general they don't believe and don't consent.
> So I'm trying to find where they would agree.
> 
> Here is one way people are arguing Obergefell is unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary:
> Reclaiming the Rule of Law after Obergefell
> 
> And with the 4-5 decision, similar to the 4-5 ruling to approve ACA mandates
> also contested as unconstitutional,
> this seems to me to represent two sides of political beliefs,
> that are split fairly evenly, and just the majority BELIEF
> is being endorsed and enforced by govt. when both sides
> represent EQUAL BELIEFS, thus I would argue why not
> allow both choices, separate tracks and let people of
> BOTH beliefs each have their separate way to treat them equally.
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?
> 
> That aside, you made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. That's complete nonsense and something no one is claiming.
> 
> Either quote the portion from the Obergefell decision which sites freedom of religion or admit you have no position to stand on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.
> 
> Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.
> 
> The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.
> 
> Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
> takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
> ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.
> 
> People generally don't see all the layers.
> It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
> I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
> in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.
> 
> then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.
> 
> With each person their points may be different!
> 
> So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
> doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.
> 
> By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
> But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
> And the process has involved these other areas that affect
> how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.
> 
> Thanks for your patience.
> This is not as easy as it looks to you.
> 
> If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
> instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
> this is a very necessary part of the process,
> to understand the layers of human perception
> that are part of the puzzle.
> 
> When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
> that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care what the reasons of objection are -- you said same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion.
> 
> You can't back that nonsense up and it's the foundation of your argument.
> 
> You're done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???
> 
> Faun
> It backs itself up!
> Once you apply religious freedom to your INALIENABLE belief in your right to marry whoever you want,
> Then you DON'T NEED to "justify" your beliefs because your free exercise of those beliefs is INALIENABLE.
> 
> Do you understand INALIENABLE Faun
> 
> If your rights and beliefs depend on courts or govt before you can have them, then they aren't INALIENABLE
> 
> Im saying you don't need to and never had to justify your beliefs in right to marry.
> 
> So if you are the one disparaging your own rights, and insisting they depend on govt, or insisting your beliefs depend on "justifying" them, why are you blaming me for that? I said a Muslim does NOT need to justify beliefs about pork, nor an atheist need to justify beliefs about God or crosses or lack of belief, and people who do or do not believe in gay marriage don't have to justify that either because both are entitled to their BELIEFS and these are inalienable.
> 
> Sorry you believe you have to depend on govt for your rights. I think they are natural and free exercise of religion, beliefs, will and choice covers your right to marry already. Nobody can stop anyone from setting up a ceremony and getting married unless you do it in such a way that imposes or forces other people to be responsible who aren't required to believe endorse or participate in your ceremony if they don't want to.
> Just like any other cultural or religious tradition, these remain voluntary choice and can't be forced on people by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Things do not back themselves up because you say they do. You have to prove your claims and you can't. You made the fallacious claim that same-sex marriage is practiced under the freedom to exercise religion.
> 
> Prove it by quoting the relevant text from the Obergefell decision saying anything about same-sex marriage is a right falling under the freedom to exercise religion...
> 
> As far as your nonsense that I depend on the government for my rights ... It's not that I depend on them for my rights -- I, along with everyone else, depends on ths government to secure my rights. That's a major role of our government. That's why gays can now marry the person of their choice just as straight folks can.
Click to expand...


Dear Faun
It's up to people to defend our own rights and freedoms by enforcing laws.
People in govt and people outside of govt are equally responsible.

If we violate rights of others, that's when we invite the same to be done to us.

But when we RESPECT rights of others, they naturally respond by respecting ours.

It is one thing to use the democratic process to defend against discrimination,
such as arguing against DOMA as being unconstitutional.

Had people listened to PEOPLE DIRECTLY challenging this law TO BEGIN WITH
as UNCONSTITUTIONAL then it wouldn't get passed and then have to get struck down after the fact.

So that's what I'm saying again here.

If we already know there are objections, if we resolve those up front,
then the people "can petition each other directly" and settle most of those issues ourselves.

We can then write our own laws based on that agreement, and not create
more battles to fight by NOT listening in the first place.

So I think I'm a step ahead of this whole process
and working towards people acting as govt more directly.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.
> 
> Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.
> 
> The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.
> 
> Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
> takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
> ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.
> 
> People generally don't see all the layers.
> It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
> I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
> in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.
> 
> then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.
> 
> With each person their points may be different!
> 
> So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
> doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.
> 
> By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
> But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
> And the process has involved these other areas that affect
> how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.
> 
> Thanks for your patience.
> This is not as easy as it looks to you.
> 
> If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
> instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
> this is a very necessary part of the process,
> to understand the layers of human perception
> that are part of the puzzle.
> 
> When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
> that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Emily
> 
> What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason
> 
> Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
> 
> PRECISELY rightwinger!
> 
> 2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
> 
> So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
> 
> BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
> 
> A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other.  To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision.  So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy._
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
> 
> It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
> In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
> If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
> Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rightwinger
> And people have to AGREE what's right
> Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
> Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. Rights are not determined by peoples' approval and consent. Your rights are not determined by my beliefs. A Christian's rights are not determined by Muslims' beliefs... black peoples' rights are not determined by white peoples' beliefs...
> 
> As you pointed out, rights are inalienable. The role of our government is to secure those rights -- just as they have done for gays regarding their right to marry the person of their choice.
Click to expand...


Dear Syriusly

When you go through GOVT because that is public and mandatory for everyone,
you are in a sense seeking approval of the public who is supposed to be represented.

*YES the AUTHORITY of LAW is DERIVED from CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.

This is a Natural Law cited and expressed in many forms ranging from
* "no taxation without representation"
* "the just powers of government being derived from consent of the governed"
(Jefferson, Declaration of Independence: Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.)
* "All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit."
(Texas Constitution, Bill of Rights)
*
What makes the difference between civil law and order in democratic self-government
is people CONSENTING so that the laws REPRESENT their interests.

If you only have an oligarchy imposing rules for everyone else, without their consent,
then you end up with the tyranny that past generations rejected and decided to set
up a system of democratically managing a republic, including a system of reforming
itself, so that people remained free to check their own govt. 

Contracts don't work if the people bound by them don't agree to the terms.
When contracts are written up, people go through them and make sure
their expectations, terms and agreements are clearly expressed and mutually
agreed upon BEFORE signing them.

Our laws are like that, but collectively between people and govt.
They are contracts but on a larger public scale, so it's even MORE
important to make sure everyone is on the same page so we enforce the same standards and terms.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here Sneekin would it look like this chart.
> If people can't agree on political beliefs
> then instead of pushing them
> from people/state to federal levels
> (from right to left side)
> then I'm saying organize political beliefs
> by groups through each state, then connect
> these nationally to have the same collective
> advantage as federal govt but without imposing on people
> outside that free choice to affiliate, fund and participate
> (from left to right, from people across states to national
> or even global since it doesn't have to go through federal)
> 
> View attachment 100341
> 
> 
> 
> OMG - what you are calling for IS ILLEGAL. How old are you?  Do you realize that prior to the 70's, we had dixiecrats (democrats) that were more right wing conservative than republicans?   We had republicans that were to the left of democrats, because the makeup in a lot of places was white color V blue color (union).  Both had leftists and rightists. The parties didn't change overnight, they changed as persons left office in various states.  There are caps on donations to dems and republicans - aren't you aware of any of these things? if it's people across states to National (or even global), since it doesn't have to go through federal...hmmm - you do realize that national and federal are the same, and people don't vote on national, federal and global issues?  We have an electoral college.  It elects the POTUS/VPOTUS, not you.  Think before you talk, validate your statements, and then don't put them down here when you discover you are asking for illegal laws and actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin:
> 
> 1. What I mean by national is NONPROFITS can have national organization from local to state to national and even international.
> Social benefits programs can be organized that way if people prefer that to running it through federal govt
> and having to answer to taxpayers who don't agree with their social priorities and beliefs or terms in funding health care or welfare.
> 
> There is nothing illegal about setting up charitable or business corporations to manage member benefits collectively.
> That might be one alternative to separate people's beliefs by likeminded groups, so they can work things out amongst themselves more effectively.
> 
> Like one huge church splitting into two or more denominations because they don't agree on women priests or on gay marriages, for example.
> 
> 2. No, this isn't REQUIRING people to join a faith,
> it's ALLOWING them the option of funding social programs through the affiliated network of their choice.
> It doesn't have to be the actual political party itself, but using that system
> to set up a network of likeminded contributors, and then those contributors
> set up their own businesses or charities that manage the social programs.
> 
> The Clintons set up their own Clinton Foundation.
> What if all the big Democrats and financiers organized a huge health care and
> medical educational cooperative network?
> 
> Would that be "illegal" just because it connects people from local all the way up to national or international?
> If it's completely voluntary to donate or invest in, isn't that within free enterprise to set up?
> 
> The licensing of corporations would still be done through States as normal.
> But these could be national or global in scope, depending how they are set up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily:
> 
> 1. This has been tried and has failed numerous times. So....the government came on board, gave us welfare, SNAP, Section 8, etc.  You can't be dependent on non-profits and churches to foot the bill - your simply shifting tax burdens around.   Saying that you are foolish is an understatement.
> 
> Actually, you may want to give me some examples of 501c4's that take my money, combine it with other people's money, and then disburse moneys to me based on a 3rd party whim.   Nope- give me some examples where this has worked.  Make sure you read the tax laws governing 501c4's - there are a ton of rules, and some of what you suggest violates the law.
> 2. See 1 above.
> 
> 3. Set up a clinton foundation type of arrangement for medical expenses for say democrats only.  First of all, how would one prove what party they belong to?  What would prevent me from saying I'm democrat and voting republican?   What would prevent me from just saying I'm democrat when I'm not, or better yet, here's what happened at my former job.   3000 people joined a brand new HMO/CO-OP type of program.   Over a thousand went to that insurance because they had medical conditions requiring surgery - expensive surgery.  These people switched - the nationwide HMO went belly up after 2 years of existence.   Too many out of pocket expenses as a startup.
> 
> If you don’t have a sizable membership base, it is difficult to negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals that are as favorable as those that bigger insurers can get. If you have to pay providers more than your competitors, you will have to charge your customers higher premiums. It is almost impossible to grow your membership if you have to price your premiums higher than your competitors.
> 
> I wish you well on your efforts. Just be forwarned - most businesses go belly up within 18 months.  Insurance, even a non-profit 501c4  is even more likely to fail, based on the paragraph above.  Establishing health care is on page 33 of the IRS document, giving you some of what you need to do to form a health care organization.  You can't offer insurance, you must establish HMO. It also can't be an IPA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> Have you looked at our prison system and VA. have you seen the millions in tax dollars wasted by public school boards and public housing for mismanagement even 12 million in one case in Houston that shut a district down. Taxpayers were never reimbursed by the wrongdoers.
> 
> So this isn't accountable.
> 
> If we did manage those resources effectively this CAN run as nonprofits that have to be held to account.
> 
> The key is answering to the people.
> 
> It can be a nonprofit business or LLC or whatever people choose locally as long as it represents the people paying in and participating to make sure it sustains and grows.
> 
> I would go with adding the Code of Ethics for govt service to Constitutional standards for these entities to follow.
> 
> Sneekin it can still be done through govt if people agree.
> 
> But as you pointed out, people do not agree on govt authority because we don't even view it the same way. You dont agree on mixing in beliefs with govt and neither do others agree on putting secular govt before their beliefs about social institutions and programs this can't be forced on them contrary to beliefs in free-market and charities that have freedom to counsel people spiritually as part of their services to reduce costs and make sure people aren't stuck in poverty or addiction.
> 
> We can microlending instead of welfare and forced taxation without representation. I don't believe in rewarding criminal behavior for running up costs while punishing law abiding citizrns for making more money where they are derived of liberty and income because other people committed crimes and cost taxpayer resources.
> 
> So I believe in funding and rewarding programs that work by giving the tax breaks or the credit for loans to people who chose to invest in more cost effective programs that break the cycle of crime and poverty.
> 
> A lot of these programs that work are faith based even if they are secular and can't be regulated or forced on people but work by free will. So it would be discriminating against people's beliefs and freedom to force them to pay for systems that punish law abiding independent efforts while rewarding dependence on govt that enables corruption and waste to go unchecked.
> 
> You can keep funding your own system of choice, but it's unfair to impose that on others. Just like the marriage laws, if you are going to allow gay marriage to be endorsed by states even if people don't agree, then why not open the door for others to follow their faith even if you don't agree.
> 
> Just let people invest freely and deduct from taxes.
> 
> BTW it's already legal for people to set up their own LLC, churches and schools as either business or nonprofit or both. So it's not a matter of laws since this is already a choice by law. It's a matter of will and consent if people agree to organize and do it that way.
Click to expand...

Emily - I see once again you failed to answer a single question put to you.......

Have I looked at the waste?  yes, seen millions spent because of hatemongers and religious nut jobs.   Or people having to sue to prevent people like yourself from introducing a state/federal religion.  

I don't have to fund my own school, as my kids went to PUBLIC school. It's your right to fund your children to go to whatever PRIVATE school, provided they can pass basic reading, writing, and math tests (among others). .

I didn't say that BS about mixing in beliefs and people not agreeing on government authority, that was a poster named EMILY, who doesn't listen to folk.  

We can't do microlending, tried and  failed.  We have taxation, but it's WITH REPRESENTATION.  No matter how much you fantasize that you have no representation, you are just deluding yourself.  You elect officials to represent yourself in city, county, state and federal government, and they pass or not pass taxes.  

Microlending - what happens if someone fails to get a job and pay it back?  If it was for health care, do we leave them dying in the streets?  You apparently do.  If they are homeless, do they freeze to death?  Your wishes, not mine.  Do we let the little children and infants and school age children starve, along with their parents, if they can't pay back loans?  That's what you advocate.

Welfare no longer is welfare.  In 96 Clinton signed into law welfare reform - a cap of 5 years - period.  GW Bush (Texan) failed to enforce it.  Obama caught hell for enforcing it, but he did.  If you are able to work (no disabilities, no infants), you work.  That entitled my grandson, who was temporarily stranded out of state and homeless, to get his 36 dollars a month for three months........Not sure how to get this through your thick skull, but His paycheck paid for the bus rides (you pay for multiple transfers, so up to 10 dollars a day, plus bathroom supplies, and replacing things stolen from him in the shelter. 

To create jobs, you have to have money.  Those businesses with all the money, refuse to invest.  Trickle down economics is what it's called - if failed under Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2.  But here comes emily, waiving the flag with her "new" concept.

New term - faith based secular programs.  Crack that dictionary, dear - secular = not pertaining to or connected with religion.  Faith based = affiliated with, supported by, or based on a
religion or religious group.

Try and grasp this, dear, you are making up terms to make yourself seem intelligent and correct, yet you should know you are lying at this point.

Don't know how jobs are in your area, but we have 1000 people standing around for up to 100 day labor jobs in the spring, summer and fall. 

Share with us, oh uneducated one, how we pay people to be dependent on government.  I'd love to see your happy rear survive on 36 dollars a month for food, 100 dollars (or 200) for rent, utilities, clothing, etc.  Are you sooooo uneducated as to think people WANT THIS?   If so, at this point you need to get out in the real world.  Or lets say you are married, and your husband becomes disabled.  And say you have 2 kids.  I really hope you can live on 120 in food stamps, and 700-800 for utilities, shelter, transportation, co-pays (like birth control), clothing, etc.  You live in a fantasy level with your proposals.  It's not like this hasn't happened.  Apparently you aren't aware that in big cities, like NY, where the coroner has to go out daily in the winter (and multiple times weekly during the other seasons) to scrape up the bodies of dead people.  Fool that oyu are, you can't comprehend that in quite a few states, you can't get food stamps, SSI or welfare unless you have a PERMANENT address.  Homeless shelters are not normally considered a permanent address. You have all of these unfulfillable plans, first proposed by Reagan, Bush 1 & 2, and now, Paul Ryan. One has to hope that you now do't have a pre-existing condition.  With Ryan's plan, which even Trump thought was extreme, will reduce Medicare to vouchers, and Medicaid to a small percentage of current funding streams, in a Block Grant, which means the monies don't even have to go to medical treatment of the poor. 

I don't fund my system of choice.  There are systems in place that I paid into my entire work career.  Why, at retirement, should I have to switch to a voucher program that won't pay my medical bills to the extent the Medicare program I paid into  was supposed to do.  And I'm too young to qualify for Medicare for 5 more years.

You are crazy - medicare and social security is unfair?  Amazing, as they passed with public approval.  Welfare passed.  SNAP passed.  Section 8 passed (with months and months of being on waitlists).   learn to tell the truth. 

People work by free will.  They don't get to pick their wages, contrary to your rants and babblings.  People these days take a job, work, and continue to look for better jobs.  I know people that have worked fast food for 30 years  - it's all they could get.   Not everyone has an IQ of 160, not everyone can afford college, not everyone presents as well as you do.  You are fantasizing.  Until we get the country under control, going in the same general direction, without you, telling lies and trying to make illegal changes, we aren't going to improve.  Trickle down still doesn't work.  Never did, but now it's worse.

Seriously Emily, WRITE THIS DOWN.  No one BUT YOU is saying people can't follow their faith when it comes to marriage.   First amendment right of any religious institution (we call them church, temple, mosque, etc).  Those Imams, Rabbis, Priests, Monks, etc follow their faith.

States that don't have laws that say discrimination based on sexual preference are free to refuse any gay people.  No photography, no cakes, no hall rentals, etc. 

If you could read laws, and had a minimal grasp on how they are applied, you would realize that if state (or local/county/city) law states sexual preference is protected, then they cannot refuse gays the right to photography, cakes, hall rentals, etc.  Equal access for all groups.

You've proposed repeated times to allow people to opt out because of their religion.  What you refuse to accept, is that it violates the law.  It also opens the door to refuse blacks, asians, hispanics, disabled, elderly, heterosexuals, etc and freely get away with it.  It wouldn't apply just to those groups.  You, Ms white Emily, could come to my store with your black husband, and I would be able to tell you you have to leave him out in the car, we don't allow his kind in.   Or we could make your kids enter through the back door.   Or we could tell your grandmother to get out, we don't like the way she looks, she moves to slow, etc. 

BTW, Emily, you are clueless to LLC's.  I gave you specifics on what's allowed and what's not, and much of what you've proposed is ILLEGAL. Yes, dear,  Schools (public) are NOT and CANNOT be LLC.   They are an entity of the state, foolish one.  You're also mixing 501c3 and 501c4.....not everyone can set both of these up, that IS WRITTEN IN LAW.   You cannot make your insurance company a 501c4 no matter how much you claim.  Educate yourself - and read what people write - I gave you specifics on many of the situations that are disallowed, that you still claim are allowed.

It's not just a matter of will and consent and people organizing and doing things in a certain way.  c3's have rules.  c4's have rules.   You can't just create an LLC without knowing what you can and cannot do. How foolish.

In regards to you freely investing in schools and deducting from taxes, I raise the BS flag.  You people complain about schools, and then want to take more money from then.   Charter schools should have all funding pulled, and put them back in private school status.  You keep trying to blur the lines. We need clear delineation. 

You are free to invest whatever you want.   But you're still going to pay taxes like the rest of us.  Otherwise, the country falls apart.  We need a budget - you need one, I need one, and the country, responsible for the millions of people that reside here.   You are taxed, you are represented.  End of discussion.

I related my issues with the VA.  It should be combined with Medicare, and be a single payer health insurance.  I should be able to see my own doctors.  I should be able to not be ripped off for medical supplies, and prescriptions.   You obviously know nothing about the VA system.  I deal with them several times a month.

So - go figure - Texas had a school that ripped off to the tune of 12 million (really a drop in the bucket) - fire the administrators.  Cut their salaries in half.  Raise the pay of the teachers.  And keep the damn parents out of most of the decisions.  Texas has repeatedly proven they lack intelligence when it comes to educating students.  Teach abstinence only, and complain when the teen birth rate goes up.   Teach creationism only, and complain when test scores drop.   

Fortunately, your incompetence in Texas isn't yet indicative of the entire country.  My cousin started a private school because there wasn't adequate funding for kids with learning disabilities.  She was named woman of the year in her state several times for all of her efforts.  She also paid her taxes, with a portion going to local public schools. She testified in front of congress, because there should have been no need for her school.

My daughter taught school, and now substitute teaches.  My daughter ended up buying supplies for children because parents felt it wasnt their responsibility. Or were too poor.  She spent up to half her salary at the start of the school year.  She worked from 7:30 in the morning to 4:30 at night, went home, graded paper, and spent until 9 or 10 answering questions from students when they needed help.  That's the majority of teachers.  You give an example of Texas, where they have incompetents at every level in the public sector, and they are elected by the incompetents of Texas.  Gohmert and former Government Perry come to mind, along with Senator Cruz. Extremists, and one's a whiny psycho who's probably mentally ill in real life.


----------



## Sneekin

Sbiker said:


> So many letters!  Now I see, I'm discussing with lawyers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an offensive statement, seeing how over 90 percent of sexual abuse occurs in heterosexual "traditional" families.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what? (c) Metallica. Children really have a lot of problems in traditional families - so, let's add them another problem from homosexual? And 90% - it's because a part of this families so large, but probability of sexual abuse in homosexual families much higher...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong - the Latin word was in use LONG BEFORE the origination of Christianity - several millenia, I'm sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Latin word was "Mas". "Marriage" formed in English, inherited from Latin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow - you have so little education, and have told no truths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could to predict much of your responces, but trying to solve problem not from lawyer sight of view, but breaking stereotypes. There are a lot of problems in both situation - to allow heterosexual of marriage or to forbid. And some of thes problems we really don't able to comprehend, because it concerns a large society phenomenons. What if our salvation will lead to demographic catastrophe in 2nd or in 3rd generation? It could be good for us, but what do you say about our grandchildren?
> 
> Maybe, it's just because US didn't have an enormous demographic losses from external aggression during all XX century, like we are...
Click to expand...

Really? What would those SSM problems be?  Certainly not the same as the 90 percent of children being abused.   Here's a thought - instead of making up your facts, back them up with actual facts.  

Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.   
You and Emily are looking for the word MATRIMONY - a religious ceremony joining two people together.  So have at it.   Don't get married, just as for matrimony, give up all of your tax benefits, decision making, protections for spouse and children, inheritance, survivorship, etc.  I really don't care.   But Marriage is a SECULAR term here.   Your church co-opted it, but we are talking CIVIL MARRIAGE.  CIVIL MARRIAGE is between two people.  PERIOD.  Man/Man, Woman/Woman, or Man/Woman.  Grasp that yet?

I am breaking your stereotypes. I'm almost 60.  I've got friends that were raised by their mom and "Aunt".   They were lesbians.  The kids (gen 1) are 60ish, no problems.  Well established, good incomes, etc.  Their children - 40ish - same, no different problems.  Their children (some 20ish) - no problems, out of college, working, good incomes.  The few of them with children have not claimed any problems with their lesbian mom/grandmom/great grandmom etc.  It's been checked.  This has gone on for years.  Get a Clue.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?
> 
> That aside, you made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. That's complete nonsense and something no one is claiming.
> 
> Either quote the portion from the Obergefell decision which sites freedom of religion or admit you have no position to stand on...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.
> 
> Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.
> 
> The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.
> 
> Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
> takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
> ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.
> 
> People generally don't see all the layers.
> It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
> I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
> in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.
> 
> then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.
> 
> With each person their points may be different!
> 
> So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
> doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.
> 
> By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
> But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
> And the process has involved these other areas that affect
> how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.
> 
> Thanks for your patience.
> This is not as easy as it looks to you.
> 
> If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
> instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
> this is a very necessary part of the process,
> to understand the layers of human perception
> that are part of the puzzle.
> 
> When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
> that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care what the reasons of objection are -- you said same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion.
> 
> You can't back that nonsense up and it's the foundation of your argument.
> 
> You're done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???
> 
> Faun
> It backs itself up!
> Once you apply religious freedom to your INALIENABLE belief in your right to marry whoever you want,
> Then you DON'T NEED to "justify" your beliefs because your free exercise of those beliefs is INALIENABLE.
> 
> Do you understand INALIENABLE Faun
> 
> If your rights and beliefs depend on courts or govt before you can have them, then they aren't INALIENABLE
> 
> Im saying you don't need to and never had to justify your beliefs in right to marry.
> 
> So if you are the one disparaging your own rights, and insisting they depend on govt, or insisting your beliefs depend on "justifying" them, why are you blaming me for that? I said a Muslim does NOT need to justify beliefs about pork, nor an atheist need to justify beliefs about God or crosses or lack of belief, and people who do or do not believe in gay marriage don't have to justify that either because both are entitled to their BELIEFS and these are inalienable.
> 
> Sorry you believe you have to depend on govt for your rights. I think they are natural and free exercise of religion, beliefs, will and choice covers your right to marry already. Nobody can stop anyone from setting up a ceremony and getting married unless you do it in such a way that imposes or forces other people to be responsible who aren't required to believe endorse or participate in your ceremony if they don't want to.
> Just like any other cultural or religious tradition, these remain voluntary choice and can't be forced on people by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Things do not back themselves up because you say they do. You have to prove your claims and you can't. You made the fallacious claim that same-sex marriage is practiced under the freedom to exercise religion.
> 
> Prove it by quoting the relevant text from the Obergefell decision saying anything about same-sex marriage is a right falling under the freedom to exercise religion...
> 
> As far as your nonsense that I depend on the government for my rights ... It's not that I depend on them for my rights -- I, along with everyone else, depends on ths government to secure my rights. That's a major role of our government. That's why gays can now marry the person of their choice just as straight folks can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> It's up to people to defend our own rights and freedoms by enforcing laws.
> People in govt and people outside of govt are equally responsible.
> 
> If we violate rights of others, that's when we invite the same to be done to us.
> 
> But when we RESPECT rights of others, they naturally respond by respecting ours.
> 
> It is one thing to use the democratic process to defend against discrimination,
> such as arguing against DOMA as being unconstitutional.
> 
> Had people listened to PEOPLE DIRECTLY challenging this law TO BEGIN WITH
> as UNCONSTITUTIONAL then it wouldn't get passed and then have to get struck down after the fact.
> 
> So that's what I'm saying again here.
> 
> If we already know there are objections, if we resolve those up front,
> then the people "can petition each other directly" and settle most of those issues ourselves.
> 
> We can then write our own laws based on that agreement, and not create
> more battles to fight by NOT listening in the first place.
> 
> So I think I'm a step ahead of this whole process
> and working towards people acting as govt more directly.
Click to expand...

Emily, only Section 3 of DOMA was struck down in 2013 under Windsor (male/female).


Sbiker said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sbiker
> 1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
> 2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
> 3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
> 4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
> 
> So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
> How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy
> 
> If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
> 
> If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
> 
> What is not fair about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
> yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
> 
> but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
> that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.
> 
> Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.
> 
> We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.
> 
> Let me put it another way.
> 
> I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire  civil institution that I want-  because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable...
> 
> Yes, some people don't eat pork - but they are people too! What is the reason to force them to eat pork only because someone, eating pork, want "to play in muslim too"?
> 
> There's no problem for gays to have any sexual relations they want. There's no any problems for them (especially, because they're "artistic" and "creative") to develop own, gay rituals for marriage and so on (I doubt, married gays really to plan live married all remained life - as tradition of marriage generally need ). Instead of it - they performing lawyer aggression against tradition forms of marriage. They no need to have own - they only want to destroy something, they don't have. That'a a main problem, as I see...
> 
> I am an atheist too (some church people hate me "for my cynicism"), but religion - is a phenomenon, we have to keep and learn, before saying "it's not a true, it's just a legend and obscurantism"... And close to it, we have to change tradition carefully because of mass psychology problems danger. How many drugs current people eating to correct problems of life? Does it correct price for our progress, or it's too much?
Click to expand...

Wow - not true about the pork Jews dont eat pork  because it has a split hoof, but does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You shall neither eat of their flesh nor touch their carcass.  Straight from their scripture.

Not all gays are artistic and creative - I know plenty of blue color gay grunts that can't draw a straight line, or coordinate a pair of socks.  There is no gay marriage, and no straight marriage.  That was struck down in 2013 and 2015.  All that remains is MARRIAGE.  So sayeth the Supreme Court.  

Can you tell me what gays want to destroy in Marriage?  They get married at city hall, just like straights.  They get married only in churches that allow gay marriage, just like straight people can only get married in churches that recognize straight marriage.   Wrong again, sbiker.  

Traditional marriage, prior to christianity is just what it is now - a contract between two people.  Try and grasp how tradition changes.  We don't decide how it changes - we don't vote on tradition.  Christmas is December 25.  I can't change tradition (vote on it, etc) and make it April.  

Finally, Being gay or straight isn't a mental illness nor a psychological problem, no matter how often you ramble on and babble about it.  Not in the DSM, and no competent Psychologist/Psychiatrist will say it is.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sbiker
> 1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
> 2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
> 3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
> 4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
> 
> So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
> How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy
> 
> If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
> 
> If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
> 
> What is not fair about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
> yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
> 
> but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
> that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.
> 
> Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.
> 
> We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.
> 
> Let me put it another way.
> 
> I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire  civil institution that I want-  because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Syriusly
> for the analogy about pork and Muslims,
> it's more like this:
> 
> 1. Let's take something like the Jewish traditions of Kosher foods being embedded in business
> and public policies.  And some have argued this is violating separation of church and state,
> but there are some practices in place, and people have accepted and tolerated them.
> 
> 2. Now let's say a MUSLIM group says we want the same recognition as the JEWISH who
> have their practices recognized in public policy.
> 
> So the court says sure, if Jewish laws are practiced so should Muslim laws be practiced.
> 
> And there are objections:
> A. one group that favors Judeo-Christian beliefs but not Muslim rejects the new reforms.
> B. one group says BOTH sets of rules should have be en removed from policy and kept private choice
> if businesses want to follow them or not. but none should be forced or ENDORSED BY GOVT to begin with.
> C. Muslims are yelling but if Jewish traditions get to be practiced, that's discrimination
> if you don't let ours be practiced, too.
> 
> So again, the two choices are to remove all of them,
> keep all of them as equal choices, or agree how to write laws
> where both could be practiced by free choice without govt ENDORSING any one set of beliefs.
Click to expand...

How it's been handled in the past (yes, these things have come up before) - Christmas is a good example - it's a secular holiday as well as a religious holiday - the ONLY reason it's a federal holiday.  If there was a shellfish ban (originally Jewish, for example), and entrenched for the last 250 years,  it would probably stay as is.  But apparently you don't know any Muslims - they wouldn't push this onto everyone else (nor would Jews) in fact.  In many cities, Jews and Muslims have banded together to defend each other's Mosques and Synagogues from Christian persecution.    Your list isn't valid.  They simply wouldn't do it.  However, if you are talking about something as silly as say a hot dog, most people are proud to offer Kosher already.  If you would have read up on Halal versus Kosher, observed the differences, and checked the rules, you would have seen it's not that big of a deal.   Quite a bit of similarities in dietary restrictions (Halal being slightly more lenient).  Kosher has a more strict religious aspect (yet minimal) than halal. 

Other than food, they have the same rights as every american - and the food is religiously imposed.

In other words, Muslims and Jews would not let it progress to your options 2 and 3.  Try and get out more, and meet jews and muslims.   I'm friends with the most left wing Rabbi (or person) I've ever met.   Burned his draft card, marched, you name it.   Best friends with the local Imam.   Best friends with most christians, except those that hate Muslims and Jews).  He does pity them and tolerate them, however.  You're grasping at straws, and failing miserably.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sbiker
> 1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
> 2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
> 3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
> 4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
> 
> So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
> How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy
> 
> If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
> 
> If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
> 
> What is not fair about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
> yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
> 
> but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
> that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.
> 
> Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.
> 
> We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.
> 
> Let me put it another way.
> 
> I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire  civil institution that I want-  because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Syriusly it's not doing away with it. It's giving people the *choice* of either opening up the sake process for all people, or of changing it to just civil unions for all people and stick to just the secular contracts and remove the social attachments. People can CHOOSE to have marriage in addition, but there is no reason for govt to require a particular kind of social relationship in order to get a license and benefits for a civil partnership that is secular only.
> 
> At least give people that choice of how much to put into govt laws and language and how much to leave private. Either all people of a state agree, or they privatize the parts they don't agree to open up to all peopleas the policy thats going to be public..
Click to expand...


Emily- nothing prevents a state from ending all civil marriage. States are not required to have legal marriage- only that if they do have legal marriage they must provide it equally to all.

If you want your state to end legal marriage and replace it with civil unions then of course you are free to pursue that. 

I just want to point out that the vast majority of married people want to be legally married- not to be 'civilly united"- what you propose would not bring about consensus- but again someone imposing their decision on others- for example my legal marriage would end- and either be- or not be- replaced by something else i do not want.

I am quite happy with the state of marriage as it is with regards to access to marriage. Now if we can just get everyone- straight and gay- to treat marriage with more respect- as a life long commitment- rather than serial monogamy- that would be worthwhile.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sbiker
> 1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
> 2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
> 3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
> 4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
> 
> So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
> How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy
> 
> If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
> 
> If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
> 
> What is not fair about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
> yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
> 
> but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
> that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.
> 
> Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.
> 
> We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.
> 
> Let me put it another way.
> 
> I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire  civil institution that I want-  because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Syriusly it's not doing away with it. It's giving people the *choice* of either opening up the sake process for all people, or of changing it to just civil unions for all people and stick to just the secular contracts and remove the social attachments. People can CHOOSE to have marriage in addition, but there is no reason for govt to require a particular kind of social relationship in order to get a license and benefits for a civil partnership that is secular only.
> 
> At least give people that choice of how much to put into govt laws and language and how much to leave private. Either all people of a state agree, or they privatize the parts they don't agree to open up to all peopleas the policy thats going to be public.
> 
> Syriusly Sneekin Faun
> Since it seems clear you don't agree with removing the social benefits but want to keep those managed by govt, what do you think of the idea of doing the same with spiritual healing prayer. And allowing tolerance and inclusion of that expression and practice, including rresearch and development so this can be offered to more of the public as a free choice. Spiritual healing works naturally in conjunction with science and medicine and doesn't work by coercion or force. So there is no imposition involved..
Click to expand...


I have no idea what you are talking about. 

And that has nothing to do with marriage. You keep bouncing all over the place.


----------



## Syriusly

Sbiker said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sbiker
> 1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
> 2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
> 3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
> 4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
> 
> So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
> How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy
> 
> If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
> 
> If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
> 
> What is not fair about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
> yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
> 
> but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
> that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.
> 
> Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.
> 
> We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.
> 
> Let me put it another way.
> 
> I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire  civil institution that I want-  because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable...
> 
> Yes, some people don't eat pork - but they are people too! What is the reason to force them to eat pork only because someone, eating pork, want "to play in muslim too"?
Click to expand...


Is any of that supposed to make any sense or supposed to have anything to do with my post?

No one is forcing anyone to eat pork. 

Nor is anyone forcing others not to eat pork just because millions of Americans think it is wrong to eat pork.


----------



## Syriusly

Sbiker said:


> [Q
> There's no problem for gays to have any sexual relations they want. There's no any problems for them (especially, because they're "artistic" and "creative") to develop own, gay rituals for marriage and so on (I doubt, married gays really to plan live married all remained life - as tradition of marriage generally need ). Instead of it - they performing lawyer aggression against tradition forms of marriage. They no need to have own - they only want to destroy something, they don't have. That'a a main problem, as I see...=



How are gays 'destroying' anything by spending years trying to partcipate in marriage?

My marriage was not destroyed because Emily and Trisha can now legally marry- was yours?


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sbiker
> 1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
> 2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
> 3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
> 4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
> 
> So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
> How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy
> 
> If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
> 
> If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
> 
> What is not fair about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
> yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
> 
> but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
> that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.
> 
> Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.
> 
> We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.
> 
> Let me put it another way.
> 
> I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire  civil institution that I want-  because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Syriusly
> for the analogy about pork and Muslims,
> it's more like this:.
Click to expand...


And you just ignored what I said. 

As I am now going to ignore what you said. 

We do not end government licensing just because a religious group doesn't believe in what the license is for.


We do not stop driver's licenses just because the Amish think driving a car is wrong
We do not stop licensing a pig slaughterhouse just because Jews and Muslims think eating pig is wrong.
We do not close all slaughterhouses just because Hindu's think killing animals is wrong.
We do not stop licensing bars because Southern Baptists and Mormons think drinking alcohol is wrong.
See the pattern here?


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily
> 
> What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason
> 
> Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!
> 
> PRECISELY rightwinger!
> 
> 2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.
> 
> So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.
> 
> BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.
> 
> A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other.  To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision.  So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy._
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
> 
> It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
> In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
> If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
> Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rightwinger
> And people have to AGREE what's right
> Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
> Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. Rights are not determined by peoples' approval and consent. Your rights are not determined by my beliefs. A Christian's rights are not determined by Muslims' beliefs... black peoples' rights are not determined by white peoples' beliefs...
> 
> As you pointed out, rights are inalienable. The role of our government is to secure those rights -- just as they have done for gays regarding their right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Syriusly
> 
> When you go through GOVT because that is public and mandatory for everyone,
> you are in a sense seeking approval of the public who is supposed to be represented.
> 
> 
> Contracts don't work if the people bound by them don't agree to the terms.
> 
> 
> Our laws are like that, but collectively between people and govt.
> They are contracts but on a larger public scale, so it's even MORE
> important to make sure everyone is on the same page so we enforce the same standards and terms.
Click to expand...


And again- I refer to Loving v. Virginia. 

The foremost law of the United States is the United States Constitution.

No matter whether 'the public' wants to ban gun ownership, or ban synogogues, or ban mixed race marriages- the Constitution does not allow that- because we the citizens of the United States agree that the U.S. Constitution is the premier law of the United States.

Now regarding contracts- a marriage contract is between two people- and they do agree to the terms. 

Just because someone else doesn't like that contract between the two people doesn't mean that they get to prevent it.


----------



## Sneekin

*Emily said:*
No, saying gays can't use the word marriage is like saying Christians can't use the word God or Jesus.

It's in the context of public laws.
When you make public laws, the whole public gets equal say in them because everyone is affected.

So if you don't want to include other people's beliefs, then don't push yours into public laws.
And you don't have to answer to other people equally affected by the laws.

And they also have to include you also!
Both have to agree if these are public laws.
They are social contracts between people.

I made the analogy to marriage -- that partners have to agree to terms of marriage.
You don't write contracts by having one group write up the terms and force it onto others
who are required to be under it since it's a public law.

That's what Obama and Congress did wrong with ACA, created a business contract
with corporate insurance interests and "signed taxpayers up for it" to be responsible for terms
we didn't ALL agree to pay under!

If you are going to change the terms of a contract,
last I checked, all the parties to the contract have to agree to the changes in terms.[/QUOTE]


*Sneekin, for the 10th or 20th time, said to Emily:*
Emily, you seriously have to stop putting words in my mouth.  

YOU are the one that does not wish to include other's beliefs.

I've told you almost 20 times now:

CIVIL MARRIAGE:  A contractual union between two people (unrelated, meeting all state and federal requirement).

You want to call it different names for gays, straights, etc, and have it voted on. WRONG.  This is current law.  PERIOD. 

The public did get equal say.  They elected representatives who voted on it, and they voted on judges.   So you did vote. SCOTUS decided that states like Texas, who claimed it was illegal, was violating the US Constitution.  Their DOMA was struck down.  I really don't care if you wanted it or not, you still had a vote. 

Everyone is affected?  If I marry a man, how are YOU affected?  If I marry a woman, how are YOU affected?  I realize we are up to almost 10 times you were asked, but you've never said how YOU were affected.

The entire public doesn't get equal say.  We are a republic, we elected representatives, and THEY vote.    They appoint the judges, who rule on law.  Not YOU. And as everyone knows, we don't vote issues that violate constitutional law - which is what YOU REPEATEDLY STATED YOU WANT TO DO.

Emily, ALL LAWS are PUBLIC.   You can't have a 1.0 blood alcohol and me have the same, and only one gets charged with being drunk.  The law is PUBLIC it applies to ALL.   You don't have to agree, I don't have  to agree, it's settled case law by representatives that you, or your parents or other ancestors already voted on.

You are the only person demanding terms be written up that differ between gays and straights and anything else.   There are already 1138 regs/laws in place governing marriage, and that excludes the actual issues of licensing, familial relationships, etc.  1338 tax and other legal issues.   Parties don't have to agree to terms of marriage.   If you are speaking of issues like monogamy, one would think that would be settled long before a marriage would have occurred, but based on the fact that close to 1/2 the marriages end in divorce, it seems like the terms of marriage aren't agreed upon.

Another lie about Obama.   Obama proposed a form of the ACA.  The CONGRESS, who YOU ELECTED, tweaked/changed it to meet the needs of their constituents.  They didn't sign me up for it, I already had insurance, Emily.   In fact, out of the 322 Million people, only 47 million or less fell into the category of not having insurance, and only 20 million signed up for it. 

Again, you most certainly did agree to it - Ted Cruz, Louis Gohmert, etc are STILL in office, you sure didn't vote them out of office......

You fail to grasp the legal and constitutional republic concept, and laws and government in general.  

The ACA is a US healthcare reform law that expands and improves access to care and curbs spending through regulations and taxes.

Contrary to what you think, YOU personally don't get to vote on national laws. 

Since it's a law (versus a contract), each person does not have to agree to any changes.

If you buy a vehicle (Cadillac), and gas is 1.00 a gallon, it doesn't mean that the price can't go up.  When was the last time you negotiated price at the station?  I remember price wars in the 60's where it was 25 cents a gallon - you know, I've gone to the clerk at the station earlier today, told them that, and they said so what - prices have gone up.  Sounds like you have problem with free enterprise and trickle down economics - which you were pushing for in your last rant.

Learn about laws and personal contracts.  Here's the definition of a contract - your claim the ACA is a contract is disproven......

A contract generally requires an offer, acceptance, consideration, and a mutual intent to be bound.

The ACA was viewed as both a mandate and a tax during the times it was argued (successfully) in front of the SCOTUS.  It doesn't meet the definition above, which is the same definition I learned in the 70's in school, and college,  and in the 80's to present in continuing education.  Another EPIC FAIL.


----------



## Sbiker

Sneekin said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many letters!  Now I see, I'm discussing with lawyers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an offensive statement, seeing how over 90 percent of sexual abuse occurs in heterosexual "traditional" families.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what? (c) Metallica. Children really have a lot of problems in traditional families - so, let's add them another problem from homosexual? And 90% - it's because a part of this families so large, but probability of sexual abuse in homosexual families much higher...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong - the Latin word was in use LONG BEFORE the origination of Christianity - several millenia, I'm sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Latin word was "Mas". "Marriage" formed in English, inherited from Latin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow - you have so little education, and have told no truths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could to predict much of your responces, but trying to solve problem not from lawyer sight of view, but breaking stereotypes. There are a lot of problems in both situation - to allow heterosexual of marriage or to forbid. And some of thes problems we really don't able to comprehend, because it concerns a large society phenomenons. What if our salvation will lead to demographic catastrophe in 2nd or in 3rd generation? It could be good for us, but what do you say about our grandchildren?
> 
> Maybe, it's just because US didn't have an enormous demographic losses from external aggression during all XX century, like we are...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? What would those SSM problems be?  Certainly not the same as the 90 percent of children being abused.   Here's a thought - instead of making up your facts, back them up with actual facts.
> 
> Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.
> You and Emily are looking for the word MATRIMONY - a religious ceremony joining two people together.  So have at it.   Don't get married, just as for matrimony, give up all of your tax benefits, decision making, protections for spouse and children, inheritance, survivorship, etc.  I really don't care.   But Marriage is a SECULAR term here.   Your church co-opted it, but we are talking CIVIL MARRIAGE.  CIVIL MARRIAGE is between two people.  PERIOD.  Man/Man, Woman/Woman, or Man/Woman.  Grasp that yet?
> 
> I am breaking your stereotypes. I'm almost 60.  I've got friends that were raised by their mom and "Aunt".   They were lesbians.  The kids (gen 1) are 60ish, no problems.  Well established, good incomes, etc.  Their children - 40ish - same, no different problems.  Their children (some 20ish) - no problems, out of college, working, good incomes.  The few of them with children have not claimed any problems with their lesbian mom/grandmom/great grandmom etc.  It's been checked.  This has gone on for years.  Get a Clue.
Click to expand...


You asked


> Really? What would those SSM problems be?



and answered



> Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.



And if you say, there were a lot of societies, allowing gay marriage - it will be true. So - which of this societies are living NOW? If you don't believe in religion and want scientific approach...  I would believe, SSM is progressive, useful and right - show me not a loser's example of it!


----------



## Syriusly

Sbiker said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many letters!  Now I see, I'm discussing with lawyers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an offensive statement, seeing how over 90 percent of sexual abuse occurs in heterosexual "traditional" families.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what? (c) Metallica. Children really have a lot of problems in traditional families - so, let's add them another problem from homosexual? And 90% - it's because a part of this families so large, but probability of sexual abuse in homosexual families much higher...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong - the Latin word was in use LONG BEFORE the origination of Christianity - several millenia, I'm sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Latin word was "Mas". "Marriage" formed in English, inherited from Latin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow - you have so little education, and have told no truths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could to predict much of your responces, but trying to solve problem not from lawyer sight of view, but breaking stereotypes. There are a lot of problems in both situation - to allow heterosexual of marriage or to forbid. And some of thes problems we really don't able to comprehend, because it concerns a large society phenomenons. What if our salvation will lead to demographic catastrophe in 2nd or in 3rd generation? It could be good for us, but what do you say about our grandchildren?
> 
> Maybe, it's just because US didn't have an enormous demographic losses from external aggression during all XX century, like we are...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? What would those SSM problems be?  Certainly not the same as the 90 percent of children being abused.   Here's a thought - instead of making up your facts, back them up with actual facts.
> 
> Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.
> You and Emily are looking for the word MATRIMONY - a religious ceremony joining two people together.  So have at it.   Don't get married, just as for matrimony, give up all of your tax benefits, decision making, protections for spouse and children, inheritance, survivorship, etc.  I really don't care.   But Marriage is a SECULAR term here.   Your church co-opted it, but we are talking CIVIL MARRIAGE.  CIVIL MARRIAGE is between two people.  PERIOD.  Man/Man, Woman/Woman, or Man/Woman.  Grasp that yet?
> 
> I am breaking your stereotypes. I'm almost 60.  I've got friends that were raised by their mom and "Aunt".   They were lesbians.  The kids (gen 1) are 60ish, no problems.  Well established, good incomes, etc.  Their children - 40ish - same, no different problems.  Their children (some 20ish) - no problems, out of college, working, good incomes.  The few of them with children have not claimed any problems with their lesbian mom/grandmom/great grandmom etc.  It's been checked.  This has gone on for years.  Get a Clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked
> 
> 
> 
> Really? What would those SSM problems be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and answered
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if you say, there were a lot of societies, allowing gay marriage - it will be true. So - which of this societies are living NOW? If you don't believe in religion and want scientific approach...  I would believe, SSM is progressive, useful and right - show me not a loser's example of it!
Click to expand...


There are lots of societies allowing same sex marriage now. 

Most of the western world as a matter of fact. 

But hey- you are in luck- the Islamic world does not allow same sex marriage- but do allow polygamy(which is as ancient as marriage is).


----------



## Sbiker

Syriusly said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> There's no problem for gays to have any sexual relations they want. There's no any problems for them (especially, because they're "artistic" and "creative") to develop own, gay rituals for marriage and so on (I doubt, married gays really to plan live married all remained life - as tradition of marriage generally need ). Instead of it - they performing lawyer aggression against tradition forms of marriage. They no need to have own - they only want to destroy something, they don't have. That'a a main problem, as I see...=
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are gays 'destroying' anything by spending years trying to partcipate in marriage?
> 
> My marriage was not destroyed because Emily and Trisha can now legally marry- was yours?
Click to expand...


Idyllic picture...  Let's continue to paint it.

Today Emily and Trisha perform legal marriage - well, let them to live happy.

Tomorrow they want children. Any parentless children - ok, it's good, let them to have.

Day after - they don't want children with unknown genetics. They want one of YOUR children. Why not - it's just another step to keep their rights.

Day after - they have a lobby to adopt law for obligatory homosexual practice. You dont' want it? "How do you know, you don't want, it's just a stereotype... Prove, you don't have stereotypes, make a homo-sex regularily"! Offcorse, it's for chilldren too...

And while you would dispute this "problems", struggling for your rights and so on - your country got a lot of islamists migrants, which don't follow this laws "because they don't know about them".

Unbelieveable? Just look at Europe with a little more attention


----------



## Sbiker

Syriusly said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many letters!  Now I see, I'm discussing with lawyers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an offensive statement, seeing how over 90 percent of sexual abuse occurs in heterosexual "traditional" families.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what? (c) Metallica. Children really have a lot of problems in traditional families - so, let's add them another problem from homosexual? And 90% - it's because a part of this families so large, but probability of sexual abuse in homosexual families much higher...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong - the Latin word was in use LONG BEFORE the origination of Christianity - several millenia, I'm sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Latin word was "Mas". "Marriage" formed in English, inherited from Latin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow - you have so little education, and have told no truths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could to predict much of your responces, but trying to solve problem not from lawyer sight of view, but breaking stereotypes. There are a lot of problems in both situation - to allow heterosexual of marriage or to forbid. And some of thes problems we really don't able to comprehend, because it concerns a large society phenomenons. What if our salvation will lead to demographic catastrophe in 2nd or in 3rd generation? It could be good for us, but what do you say about our grandchildren?
> 
> Maybe, it's just because US didn't have an enormous demographic losses from external aggression during all XX century, like we are...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? What would those SSM problems be?  Certainly not the same as the 90 percent of children being abused.   Here's a thought - instead of making up your facts, back them up with actual facts.
> 
> Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.
> You and Emily are looking for the word MATRIMONY - a religious ceremony joining two people together.  So have at it.   Don't get married, just as for matrimony, give up all of your tax benefits, decision making, protections for spouse and children, inheritance, survivorship, etc.  I really don't care.   But Marriage is a SECULAR term here.   Your church co-opted it, but we are talking CIVIL MARRIAGE.  CIVIL MARRIAGE is between two people.  PERIOD.  Man/Man, Woman/Woman, or Man/Woman.  Grasp that yet?
> 
> I am breaking your stereotypes. I'm almost 60.  I've got friends that were raised by their mom and "Aunt".   They were lesbians.  The kids (gen 1) are 60ish, no problems.  Well established, good incomes, etc.  Their children - 40ish - same, no different problems.  Their children (some 20ish) - no problems, out of college, working, good incomes.  The few of them with children have not claimed any problems with their lesbian mom/grandmom/great grandmom etc.  It's been checked.  This has gone on for years.  Get a Clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked
> 
> 
> 
> Really? What would those SSM problems be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and answered
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if you say, there were a lot of societies, allowing gay marriage - it will be true. So - which of this societies are living NOW? If you don't believe in religion and want scientific approach...  I would believe, SSM is progressive, useful and right - show me not a loser's example of it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are lots of societies allowing same sex marriage now.
> 
> Most of the western world as a matter of fact.
> 
> But hey- you are in luck- the Islamic world does not allow same sex marriage- but do allow polygamy(which is as ancient as marriage is).
Click to expand...


First gay marriage was in Neitherlands, in 2001. Tell me about "no problems" from this marriages fifty years after


----------



## Syriusly

Sbiker said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> There's no problem for gays to have any sexual relations they want. There's no any problems for them (especially, because they're "artistic" and "creative") to develop own, gay rituals for marriage and so on (I doubt, married gays really to plan live married all remained life - as tradition of marriage generally need ). Instead of it - they performing lawyer aggression against tradition forms of marriage. They no need to have own - they only want to destroy something, they don't have. That'a a main problem, as I see...=
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are gays 'destroying' anything by spending years trying to partcipate in marriage?
> 
> My marriage was not destroyed because Emily and Trisha can now legally marry- was yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idyllic picture...  Let's continue to paint it.
> 
> Today Emily and Trisha perform legal marriage - well, let them to live happy.
> 
> Tomorrow they want children. Any parentless children - ok, it's good, let them to have.
> 
> Day after - they don't want children with unknown genetics. They want one of YOUR children. Why not - it's just another step to keep their rights.
> 
> Day after - they have a lobby to adopt law for obligatory homosexual practice. You dont' want it? "How do you know, you don't want, it's just a stereotype... Prove, you don't have stereotypes, make a homo-sex regularily"! Offcorse, it's for chilldren too...
Click to expand...


Today Jim and Sally are legally married.
Tomorrow they want children- but Jim is infertile so they use a sperm donor- ok, it's good, let them.
Day after- they don't want children with unknown genetics- Jim and Sally want one of your children. Why not- is just another step to keep their rights.
Day after- they have a lobby to adopt a law prohibiting homosexual practice- oh wait- Jim and Sally did that years ago, until the courts overturned Jim and Sally telling Americans what kind of sex we are allowed to have.

Moral: Allowing Jim and Sally to marry will mean they are coming to take your children away.


----------



## Syriusly

Sbiker said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many letters!  Now I see, I'm discussing with lawyers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an offensive statement, seeing how over 90 percent of sexual abuse occurs in heterosexual "traditional" families.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what? (c) Metallica. Children really have a lot of problems in traditional families - so, let's add them another problem from homosexual? And 90% - it's because a part of this families so large, but probability of sexual abuse in homosexual families much higher...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong - the Latin word was in use LONG BEFORE the origination of Christianity - several millenia, I'm sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Latin word was "Mas". "Marriage" formed in English, inherited from Latin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow - you have so little education, and have told no truths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could to predict much of your responces, but trying to solve problem not from lawyer sight of view, but breaking stereotypes. There are a lot of problems in both situation - to allow heterosexual of marriage or to forbid. And some of thes problems we really don't able to comprehend, because it concerns a large society phenomenons. What if our salvation will lead to demographic catastrophe in 2nd or in 3rd generation? It could be good for us, but what do you say about our grandchildren?
> 
> Maybe, it's just because US didn't have an enormous demographic losses from external aggression during all XX century, like we are...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? What would those SSM problems be?  Certainly not the same as the 90 percent of children being abused.   Here's a thought - instead of making up your facts, back them up with actual facts.
> 
> Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.
> You and Emily are looking for the word MATRIMONY - a religious ceremony joining two people together.  So have at it.   Don't get married, just as for matrimony, give up all of your tax benefits, decision making, protections for spouse and children, inheritance, survivorship, etc.  I really don't care.   But Marriage is a SECULAR term here.   Your church co-opted it, but we are talking CIVIL MARRIAGE.  CIVIL MARRIAGE is between two people.  PERIOD.  Man/Man, Woman/Woman, or Man/Woman.  Grasp that yet?
> 
> I am breaking your stereotypes. I'm almost 60.  I've got friends that were raised by their mom and "Aunt".   They were lesbians.  The kids (gen 1) are 60ish, no problems.  Well established, good incomes, etc.  Their children - 40ish - same, no different problems.  Their children (some 20ish) - no problems, out of college, working, good incomes.  The few of them with children have not claimed any problems with their lesbian mom/grandmom/great grandmom etc.  It's been checked.  This has gone on for years.  Get a Clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked
> 
> 
> 
> Really? What would those SSM problems be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and answered
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if you say, there were a lot of societies, allowing gay marriage - it will be true. So - which of this societies are living NOW? If you don't believe in religion and want scientific approach...  I would believe, SSM is progressive, useful and right - show me not a loser's example of it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are lots of societies allowing same sex marriage now.
> 
> Most of the western world as a matter of fact.
> 
> But hey- you are in luck- the Islamic world does not allow same sex marriage- but do allow polygamy(which is as ancient as marriage is).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in Neitherlands, in 2001. Tell me about "no problems" from this marriages fifty years after
Click to expand...


First gay marriage was in the Netherlands in 2001. First gay marriage in the United States was in 2004.
Tell me what problems has this caused in the last 11-15 years. 

But don't worry- if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.


----------



## Faun

Sbiker said:


> I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable...


This is one of the dumbest things I ever read here. Sorry, it just is.

_<smh>_


----------



## Sneekin

Sbiker said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many letters!  Now I see, I'm discussing with lawyers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an offensive statement, seeing how over 90 percent of sexual abuse occurs in heterosexual "traditional" families.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what? (c) Metallica. Children really have a lot of problems in traditional families - so, let's add them another problem from homosexual? And 90% - it's because a part of this families so large, but probability of sexual abuse in homosexual families much higher...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong - the Latin word was in use LONG BEFORE the origination of Christianity - several millenia, I'm sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Latin word was "Mas". "Marriage" formed in English, inherited from Latin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow - you have so little education, and have told no truths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could to predict much of your responces, but trying to solve problem not from lawyer sight of view, but breaking stereotypes. There are a lot of problems in both situation - to allow heterosexual of marriage or to forbid. And some of thes problems we really don't able to comprehend, because it concerns a large society phenomenons. What if our salvation will lead to demographic catastrophe in 2nd or in 3rd generation? It could be good for us, but what do you say about our grandchildren?
> 
> Maybe, it's just because US didn't have an enormous demographic losses from external aggression during all XX century, like we are...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? What would those SSM problems be?  Certainly not the same as the 90 percent of children being abused.   Here's a thought - instead of making up your facts, back them up with actual facts.
> 
> Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.
> You and Emily are looking for the word MATRIMONY - a religious ceremony joining two people together.  So have at it.   Don't get married, just as for matrimony, give up all of your tax benefits, decision making, protections for spouse and children, inheritance, survivorship, etc.  I really don't care.   But Marriage is a SECULAR term here.   Your church co-opted it, but we are talking CIVIL MARRIAGE.  CIVIL MARRIAGE is between two people.  PERIOD.  Man/Man, Woman/Woman, or Man/Woman.  Grasp that yet?
> 
> I am breaking your stereotypes. I'm almost 60.  I've got friends that were raised by their mom and "Aunt".   They were lesbians.  The kids (gen 1) are 60ish, no problems.  Well established, good incomes, etc.  Their children - 40ish - same, no different problems.  Their children (some 20ish) - no problems, out of college, working, good incomes.  The few of them with children have not claimed any problems with their lesbian mom/grandmom/great grandmom etc.  It's been checked.  This has gone on for years.  Get a Clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked
> 
> 
> 
> Really? What would those SSM problems be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and answered
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if you say, there were a lot of societies, allowing gay marriage - it will be true. So - which of this societies are living NOW? If you don't believe in religion and want scientific approach...  I would believe, SSM is progressive, useful and right - show me not a loser's example of it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are lots of societies allowing same sex marriage now.
> 
> Most of the western world as a matter of fact.
> 
> But hey- you are in luck- the Islamic world does not allow same sex marriage- but do allow polygamy(which is as ancient as marriage is).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in Neitherlands, in 2001. Tell me about "no problems" from this marriages fifty years after
Click to expand...

Not even close.   _Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus_; c. 203 – March 11, 222), was Roman emperor from 218 to 222. Child emperor Elagabalus referred to his chariot driver, a blond slave from Caria named Hierocles, as his husband. He also married an athlete named Zoticus in a lavish public ceremony in Rome amidst the rejoicings of the citizens.  You'll note he referred to his driver as his HUSBAND, which requires marriage.  Latin was the language of the Romans......ergo,  marriage in this case refers to male on male.  This time frame is prior to the Islamic world (400 years later).  This in and of itself throws out your argument regarding religion, as well as thousands of years before that, during the time of the pharaohs, there were both same sex and opposite sex weddings.

You ramble on about 2001 - you do realize same sex couples lived together and raised children - I'm aware of several back when I was a child of the 60's..... 

Here's a thought, stick with one topic.   You can't whine about gays corrupting children when they are raising them, and not acknowledge that there were gay relationships before 2001.....talk about disingenuous....


----------



## Sneekin

Faun said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable...
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the dumbest things I ever read here. Sorry, it just is.
> 
> _<smh>_
Click to expand...

Not to mention, completely untrue.  Sbiker, perhaps you could tell us what Rabbi told you that story?  Did he also sell you a bridge to Brooklyn, as well?


----------



## Sneekin

Syriusly said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many letters!  Now I see, I'm discussing with lawyers
> 
> So what? (c) Metallica. Children really have a lot of problems in traditional families - so, let's add them another problem from homosexual? And 90% - it's because a part of this families so large, but probability of sexual abuse in homosexual families much higher...
> 
> Latin word was "Mas". "Marriage" formed in English, inherited from Latin
> 
> I could to predict much of your responces, but trying to solve problem not from lawyer sight of view, but breaking stereotypes. There are a lot of problems in both situation - to allow heterosexual of marriage or to forbid. And some of thes problems we really don't able to comprehend, because it concerns a large society phenomenons. What if our salvation will lead to demographic catastrophe in 2nd or in 3rd generation? It could be good for us, but what do you say about our grandchildren?
> 
> Maybe, it's just because US didn't have an enormous demographic losses from external aggression during all XX century, like we are...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? What would those SSM problems be?  Certainly not the same as the 90 percent of children being abused.   Here's a thought - instead of making up your facts, back them up with actual facts.
> 
> Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.
> You and Emily are looking for the word MATRIMONY - a religious ceremony joining two people together.  So have at it.   Don't get married, just as for matrimony, give up all of your tax benefits, decision making, protections for spouse and children, inheritance, survivorship, etc.  I really don't care.   But Marriage is a SECULAR term here.   Your church co-opted it, but we are talking CIVIL MARRIAGE.  CIVIL MARRIAGE is between two people.  PERIOD.  Man/Man, Woman/Woman, or Man/Woman.  Grasp that yet?
> 
> I am breaking your stereotypes. I'm almost 60.  I've got friends that were raised by their mom and "Aunt".   They were lesbians.  The kids (gen 1) are 60ish, no problems.  Well established, good incomes, etc.  Their children - 40ish - same, no different problems.  Their children (some 20ish) - no problems, out of college, working, good incomes.  The few of them with children have not claimed any problems with their lesbian mom/grandmom/great grandmom etc.  It's been checked.  This has gone on for years.  Get a Clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked
> 
> 
> 
> Really? What would those SSM problems be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and answered
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if you say, there were a lot of societies, allowing gay marriage - it will be true. So - which of this societies are living NOW? If you don't believe in religion and want scientific approach...  I would believe, SSM is progressive, useful and right - show me not a loser's example of it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are lots of societies allowing same sex marriage now.
> 
> Most of the western world as a matter of fact.
> 
> But hey- you are in luck- the Islamic world does not allow same sex marriage- but do allow polygamy(which is as ancient as marriage is).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in Neitherlands, in 2001. Tell me about "no problems" from this marriages fifty years after
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in the Netherlands in 2001. First gay marriage in the United States was in 2004.
> Tell me what problems has this caused in the last 11-15 years.
> 
> But don't worry- if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.
Click to expand...

Syriusly, that's not even true any more.  There are lots of gay Muslims, including Gay Imams - right here in the US of A - and gay Muslims get married either civilly or by an Imam. 

Back story: Imam Daayiee Abdullah is the first America’s openly gay Muslim, and he performs same-sex marriages for gay Muslims. (published 2013)

  I think you'll make his head explode though.


----------



## Syriusly

Sneekin said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? What would those SSM problems be?  Certainly not the same as the 90 percent of children being abused.   Here's a thought - instead of making up your facts, back them up with actual facts.
> 
> Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.
> You and Emily are looking for the word MATRIMONY - a religious ceremony joining two people together.  So have at it.   Don't get married, just as for matrimony, give up all of your tax benefits, decision making, protections for spouse and children, inheritance, survivorship, etc.  I really don't care.   But Marriage is a SECULAR term here.   Your church co-opted it, but we are talking CIVIL MARRIAGE.  CIVIL MARRIAGE is between two people.  PERIOD.  Man/Man, Woman/Woman, or Man/Woman.  Grasp that yet?
> 
> I am breaking your stereotypes. I'm almost 60.  I've got friends that were raised by their mom and "Aunt".   They were lesbians.  The kids (gen 1) are 60ish, no problems.  Well established, good incomes, etc.  Their children - 40ish - same, no different problems.  Their children (some 20ish) - no problems, out of college, working, good incomes.  The few of them with children have not claimed any problems with their lesbian mom/grandmom/great grandmom etc.  It's been checked.  This has gone on for years.  Get a Clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked
> 
> 
> 
> Really? What would those SSM problems be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and answered
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if you say, there were a lot of societies, allowing gay marriage - it will be true. So - which of this societies are living NOW? If you don't believe in religion and want scientific approach...  I would believe, SSM is progressive, useful and right - show me not a loser's example of it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are lots of societies allowing same sex marriage now.
> 
> Most of the western world as a matter of fact.
> 
> But hey- you are in luck- the Islamic world does not allow same sex marriage- but do allow polygamy(which is as ancient as marriage is).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in Neitherlands, in 2001. Tell me about "no problems" from this marriages fifty years after
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in the Netherlands in 2001. First gay marriage in the United States was in 2004.
> Tell me what problems has this caused in the last 11-15 years.
> 
> But don't worry- if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Syriusly, that's not even true any more.  There are lots of gay Muslims, including Gay Imams - right here in the US of A - and gay Muslims get married either civilly or by an Imam.
> 
> Back story: Imam Daayiee Abdullah is the first America’s openly gay Muslim, and he performs same-sex marriages for gay Muslims. (published 2013)
> 
> I think you'll make his head explode though.
Click to expand...


I was referring to the Muslim countries of the world. I am not aware of a single country where Islam is the official religion that allows 'gay marriage'. 

Muslims, straight or gay, can marry who they choose in the United States.


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sbiker
> 1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
> 2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
> 3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
> 4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
> 
> So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
> How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
> 
> 
> 
> Easy
> 
> If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
> 
> If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
> 
> What is not fair about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
> yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
> 
> but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
> that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.
> 
> Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.
> 
> We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.
> 
> Let me put it another way.
> 
> I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire  civil institution that I want-  because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Syriusly
> for the analogy about pork and Muslims,
> it's more like this:.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you just ignored what I said.
> 
> As I am now going to ignore what you said.
> 
> We do not end government licensing just because a religious group doesn't believe in what the license is for.
> 
> 
> We do not stop driver's licenses just because the Amish think driving a car is wrong
> We do not stop licensing a pig slaughterhouse just because Jews and Muslims think eating pig is wrong.
> We do not close all slaughterhouses just because Hindu's think killing animals is wrong.
> We do not stop licensing bars because Southern Baptists and Mormons think drinking alcohol is wrong.
> See the pattern here?
Click to expand...


Right, we aren't "stopping" the licensing Syriusly but
refining it to be just about the CIVIL contracts, as Faun pointed out is the intent.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy
> 
> If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
> 
> If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
> 
> What is not fair about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
> yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
> 
> but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
> that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.
> 
> Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.
> 
> We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.
> 
> Let me put it another way.
> 
> I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire  civil institution that I want-  because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Syriusly
> for the analogy about pork and Muslims,
> it's more like this:.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you just ignored what I said.
> 
> As I am now going to ignore what you said.
> 
> We do not end government licensing just because a religious group doesn't believe in what the license is for.
> 
> 
> We do not stop driver's licenses just because the Amish think driving a car is wrong
> We do not stop licensing a pig slaughterhouse just because Jews and Muslims think eating pig is wrong.
> We do not close all slaughterhouses just because Hindu's think killing animals is wrong.
> We do not stop licensing bars because Southern Baptists and Mormons think drinking alcohol is wrong.
> See the pattern here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, we aren't "stopping" the licensing Syriusly but
> refining it to be just about the CIVIL contracts, as Faun pointed out is the intent.
Click to expand...

Emily, that's all marriage has been about - it's ALWAYS BEEN a civil contract.  Why can't you just admit that?   The fact that you or anyone else, of any religion wish to add an entire other ceremony on top of the CIVIL MARRIAGE is of no impact to ANYONE ELSE.  It's JUST ABOUT THE CONTRACT.   Feel free to read Texas law, if you think it's anything else.


----------



## Sneekin

Syriusly said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked
> and answered
> 
> And if you say, there were a lot of societies, allowing gay marriage - it will be true. So - which of this societies are living NOW? If you don't believe in religion and want scientific approach...  I would believe, SSM is progressive, useful and right - show me not a loser's example of it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are lots of societies allowing same sex marriage now.
> 
> Most of the western world as a matter of fact.
> 
> But hey- you are in luck- the Islamic world does not allow same sex marriage- but do allow polygamy(which is as ancient as marriage is).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in Neitherlands, in 2001. Tell me about "no problems" from this marriages fifty years after
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in the Netherlands in 2001. First gay marriage in the United States was in 2004.
> Tell me what problems has this caused in the last 11-15 years.
> 
> But don't worry- if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Syriusly, that's not even true any more.  There are lots of gay Muslims, including Gay Imams - right here in the US of A - and gay Muslims get married either civilly or by an Imam.
> 
> Back story: Imam Daayiee Abdullah is the first America’s openly gay Muslim, and he performs same-sex marriages for gay Muslims. (published 2013)
> 
> I think you'll make his head explode though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to the Muslim countries of the world. I am not aware of a single country where Islam is the official religion that allows 'gay marriage'.
> 
> Muslims, straight or gay, can marry who they choose in the United States.
Click to expand...

Muslims can marry whoever they want in many other countries, however.  What you are saying is the same as saying Catholics can only marry opposite sex Catholics in the Country of Vatican City.   Any country that allows SSM allows the marriage between LGBT Muslims.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has already ruled that as unconstitutional. Equal protection of our laws
> 
> How do you resolve married gay people moving between the states?
> They are married or they are not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
> if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
> If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state.
> 
> Some states don't require car insurance, if the driver has "ability to pay" and can prove it.
> So in that state, the same driver with the same car is under different rules.
> 
> States like Nevada have legalized prostitution, that only applies in that state.
> 
> For national policies on health care and other social benefits,
> I recommend to my fellow progressive Democrats and Greens
> to organize by party. So people can have collective representation
> and management of resources to fund policies that correspond
> and represent beliefs in marriage, health care, prison alternatives,
> educational priorities, etc.
> 
> if not everyone agrees on social policies through federal govt.
> AND by the Platform of the Veterans Party of America
> "ALL social legislation is Unconstitutional"
> then why not manage it by party and have taxpayers
> pay directly into the programs of choice?
> 
> I know tons of progressives who believe in paying
> for education and health care instead of funding
> war and the death penalty.
> 
> Why not give taxpayers that choice?
> 
> If it's organized by party then the responsibility
> for all the terms and agreements is delegated
> to one national group to represent its members,
> similar to states being responsible for representing its citizens.
> 
> Just proportionally delegate federal budgets to allot
> money to states, and states divide it by party by
> proportion of taxpayers and taxmoney coming in.
> so if GOP do not want to pay to federal govt
> except for military, they don't get federal funds for health care
> except for VA/vets if that's all they approve.
> If Dems want singlepayer health care and no death penalty,
> then that's where their tax money goes or doesn't go.
> 
> So each pays for their share and their members
> work out their terms and conditions, from prolife
> to gay marriage, whatever they believe or don't believe in.
> 
> If states can agree, then it's done by state.
> 
> This is if the population of states CAN'T agree,
> why not create two separate tracks and let
> taxpayers choose just like we do when we
> donate to parties or vote for platforms and reps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question
> 
> With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you  handle gay couples traveling between states?
> 
> Try to answer in less than 50 words
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered that already rightwinger
> each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
> civil marriage, civil unions.
> 
> And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
> If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.
> 
> What part of my answer did you not get
> and I will explain it again.
> 
> I answered two different ways
> 1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
> 2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
> that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
> it can be national without going through state or federal govt
> 
> There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
> nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't get it
> 
> First off...allowing same sex marriage by party or religious affiliation means gays can change religion or party in order to get married
> 
> You avoid the key issue. What happens when a married, same sex couple either travels or moves to a state where it is not recognized?
> 
> If a partner becomes seriously ill, does the spouse lose all marital rights?
> What happens to the children of a same sex marriage when they move to a state that bans it?
> If you move to a state that bans it....are you effectively divorced or just a non-person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, please address rightwinger - these sum up what we all have been saying in under 100 words.
Click to expand...


Dear rightwinger and Sneekin
What happens if a contractor who follows the rules in Houston or Texas
moves to another state? Well, the other states may have different rules or regulations
on building codes and licensing master electricians or contractors to work on jobs.

The process is generally the same, but some of the terms and conditions may be different.
The main goals of SAFETY will be the same across the states, but not all terms and conditions
may be exactly alike unless all people across the nation AGREE to those.  

When people switch schools, the credits at one school may be different than the one
they are transferring from. But the MAIN standards agreed upon for accreditation will be met.
It doesn't have to be perfectly the same for every school in ALL aspects,
just the main policies that matter.

That's why if all states stick to a common policy, such as secular civil unions as the neutral standard,
that part would be uniform across states and possibly the nation.
But the more you attach personal conditions and social relations into the equation,
that's going to make it harder if not impossible to come to an agreement.

What you are asking about "recognizing all marriages as the same" is
like asking what happens if a Christian who is baptized with sprinkling
is not recognized by another denomination that believes in full immersion?
Well that part is private.

Our national constitutional laws use GENERAL language like free exercise of 
religion or no discrimination on the basis of CREED, but do NOT micromanage the details.

So if we keep the private practices that are relative out of the equation,
the default policy left is just the civil contracts and unions that deal with
legal and financial roles and terms in contracts, not anything to do with interpersonal relations
that are private and remain the free choice of individuals.

Sneekin I saw very frustrated sounding messages from you regarding
the term marriage. Sorry but if not all people agree to use that for civil marriage,
that's not my fault.  That's how some people think.

So if you are going to ask people to be sensitive about using terms like
creation instead of universe, because creation insinuates a creator while universe does not,
that's just how some people prefer to use more neutral terms
and not terms that are associated with things you don't mean.

People's perceptions ARE TIED TO LANGUAGE.

You objected to the term "traditional" which I did not mean any offense by,
but it implied some negative things to you. That's not what I meant at ALL,
but as long as that word invokes different MEANINGS on your side of the fence,
then using that word is NOT effective and is NOT communicating the same thing to you that I mean.

So if I am going to communicate and reach an agreement with you,
yes,the words we use matter. They have to mean the same things on both
sides or people end up talking past each other.

It's almost like two different dialects or languages
when people don't mean the same things by the same words.

I notice this with religion and politics, that the issues of words
conveying different meanings causes a lot of offense when people don't realize it.

Sorry this is so frustrating to you, but believe me 
the frustration is mutual.  Most of my other friends who are conservatives
have plumb given up on liberals, cannot understand or communicate,
and have even decided liberalism must be a "mental disorder" 
because they just can't make sense of the mentality.

So it's at least mutual.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
> yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
> 
> but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
> that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.
> 
> Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.
> 
> We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.
> 
> Let me put it another way.
> 
> I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire  civil institution that I want-  because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Syriusly
> for the analogy about pork and Muslims,
> it's more like this:.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you just ignored what I said.
> 
> As I am now going to ignore what you said.
> 
> We do not end government licensing just because a religious group doesn't believe in what the license is for.
> 
> 
> We do not stop driver's licenses just because the Amish think driving a car is wrong
> We do not stop licensing a pig slaughterhouse just because Jews and Muslims think eating pig is wrong.
> We do not close all slaughterhouses just because Hindu's think killing animals is wrong.
> We do not stop licensing bars because Southern Baptists and Mormons think drinking alcohol is wrong.
> See the pattern here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, we aren't "stopping" the licensing Syriusly but
> refining it to be just about the CIVIL contracts, as Faun pointed out is the intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, that's all marriage has been about - it's ALWAYS BEEN a civil contract.  Why can't you just admit that?   The fact that you or anyone else, of any religion wish to add an entire other ceremony on top of the CIVIL MARRIAGE is of no impact to ANYONE ELSE.  It's JUST ABOUT THE CONTRACT.   Feel free to read Texas law, if you think it's anything else.
Click to expand...


That's great if we can get everyone to agree to that!

However Sneekin if there really were NO additional issues attached,
then people would have no problem substituting civil unions for marriage
if it truly is just the secular relationship.

Among my friends and their friends, there are many who are fine either way,
but since not everyone agrees, they are perfectly fine with sticking with civil unions
and not HAVING to call this marriage in the govt process. People are free to call themselves
married and that doesn't change.

In fact, in Texas, we'd have MORE freedom to declare married or not,
because right now if you announce or present yourself as married,
and that makes it formal, then the law requires you to go through the state to get divorced.
Even if you never FORMALLY got married. Certain things like announcing it can be
grounds for establishing common law marriage. 

but if the declaration of marriage personally is separate from the civil licensing
through the state that requires dissolution if separating or divorcing,
then people would have MORE freedom to marry and unmarry WITHOUT going through the state.

The licensing and civil contracts and dissolutions and changes would remain through the state.
So if you never set those up, then you never have to go through a formal legal divorce.

Just like hooking up as boyfriend and girlfriend, and then separating when you both agree to,
you'd have more freedom without the state getting involved in when you joined and when you unjoined.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger I'm saying to keep it out of govt if you want free choice.
> Keep the language secular where everyone agrees to it.
> 
> I've found more common agreement to keep Civil Unions in govt
> and manage contracts that way and NOT specify any conditions on
> the social relationships between the partners who form a legal contract or domestic partnership.
> 
> If brother and sister, or two neighbors want to run a household together and share contractual
> duties or legal guardianship, that has ZERO to do with if they are having romantic relations
> much less if they have to be husband and wife.
> 
> And if people don't agree on benefits policies, those are social values also,
> that can be separated by party if people cannot agree on state or federal laws for all people in that state or across the nation.
> 
> Not to worry rightwinger I already gave up trying to explain it.
> 
> I am happy enough to find the other people who get it,
> and maybe that's enough to separate our beliefs from govt
> and leave everyone else who believe in dominating one political belief "for all people"
> every time majority rule decides an election. I don't believe in that,
> but if you and others do, I cannot change your minds for you.
> 
> All I can do is sue or petition to separate my taxes and my representation
> from people like you who believe in violating each other's by majority rule
> and claim that gives you license to impose your beliefs, political or otherwise,
> onto others who don't agree. and call them delusional, just like people
> say that about liberals and try to censor them for it.
> 
> I believe this impositional bullying is a DANGER to the very liberal progressive
> ideals I believe in regarding free choice, and protecting beliefs and creeds from
> discrimination, exclusion, coercion, bullying, imposition, penalty, and deprivation of equal protection rights and liberties.
> 
> I understand you and others believe in protecting rights by establishing them through govt,
> but I believe this still requires consensus where political beliefs differ.
> 
> I don't believe in forcing or imposing them without consent, or it's not
> valid authority of law if not all people consent to that policy.  I believe
> in matters of belief, all objections and conflicts should be resolved to
> ensure equal representation and protection of interests, regardless of creed.
> 
> But my standards are higher than even very intelligent articulate people like
> you and Faun can handle.
> 
> so it's not fair to expect you to understand this and change your minds
> if you are set on seeing opponents with other beliefs as "delusional."
> 
> That's why opponents of liberal beliefs say the same thing, give up
> and just resort to voting liberals out of office.
> 
> You are danger to your own party principles and you don't even see it.
> Where's the inclusion, the free choice.
> Both sides have resorted to painting the other as delusional,
> and that's where I have to leave you to your own devices if that's the best I can expect from you.
> 
> Thanks for your best efforts!
> 
> Just know that people say the same thing and think
> liberals are "mentally ill" or "deluded" in depending on govt for rights when to them
> that is a false and dangerous premise.
> 
> Or they want "everyone else" to pay for their programs
> so when I advocate to separate tracks so taxpayers have a choice,
> they say "liberals will never support that because they want OTHER people
> to pay for their programs".
> 
> That makes no sense to me. If I and other Democrats believe in sustainable
> health care, we should be able to fund it ourselves. And if it's not affordable,
> something is wrong with the terms and conditions, and we'd have to change
> them such as requiring all people get help for criminal illness abuse or addiction
> if that's what driving costs up that could otherwise pay for health care.
> 
> I hope it's finally time to separate social programs and funding by party,
> Because I'm sick of fighting back and forth when all parties have enough
> resources to manage their own policies and not interfere with each other!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Government is in the marriage business...
> 
> They certify it and make it legal
> They provide tax breaks
> They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
> They supervise the dissolution of marriage
> 
> What do you want them to stop doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
> because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
> such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
> and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
> choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.
> 
> Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
> or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
> and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
> due to their beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't make laws based on peoples' feelings or religious objections. If we did, capital punishment would be unconstitutional, pork would be banned, cotton/wool blends would be punishable, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Faun I also believe in separating funding for the death penalty
> so people can have a free choice but it doesn't impose on other people's choice of funding.
> 
> This would take a lot of the "emotional hype" out of election campaigns
> if all issues were resolved one by one instead of lumped together,
> voting for one party to dominate while the other in the minority risks losing representation.
> 
> *A lot of fear based bullying going on now would be eliminated
> if we based laws on consensus or separation by party so everyone
> is equally represented and not forced to fund the beliefs of others.*
> 
> As for fabric, by the time the Greens Democrats and Social Workers
> organize labor pools and worker owned coops and business networks,
> maybe we will see more locally grown "hemp" fabric and/or whatever is more sustainable.
> maybe we won't rely so much on foreign slave labor for clothing and electronic devices
> if we organize labor and factories as campuses providing education, health care and housing
> as part of work-study programs to ensure students and workers have protection from abuse,
> even if working for barter or credit, or lower training wages in exchange for low cost housing and services.
> 
> *Religious beliefs and objections are part of how people express consent or dissent.
> I believe the right solutions will satisfy people's standards regardless if these are expressed religiously, politically, spiritually or by secular laws, business models, etc.*
> Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is complete and utter nonsense. We don't have two sets of laws; one for Democrats and one for Republicans.  Either laws are Constitutional or they're not. They're not Constitutional for one party but unconstitutional for another.
Click to expand...


Dear Faun if the Democratic platform seeks to BAN reparative therapy but DEFEND the free choice of abortion and gender change procedures for minors; while the Republican platform seeks to DEFEND the free choice of reparative therapy and BAN abortion and gender surgery for minors,
then we ARE dealing with two polar opposite political BELIEFS.

collectively these can be considered Political Religions:
one in promoting social and general welfare through govt as its major focus and rule
AND
one in promoted LIMITED federal govt where national defense is its unique role (and most other social functions can or should be done outside so it doesn't bog down govt in bureaucratic waste interfering with govt duties)

So YES Faun it WOULD or SHOULD BE UNCONSTITITIONAL for one group to IMPOSE or ESTABLISH its BELIEFS as a national religion for ALL the public to be COMPELLED to pay taxes under and comply with!

But guess what, that's what Obama did in enforcing ACA mandates and declaring
the belief in "health care as right" as the "law of the land"
offending people who BELIEVE in putting the Constitution first as the law of the land,
and requiring state ratified AMENDMENTS before granting any such authority to federal govt.

(The federal exchanges and mandated insurance in essence constitute a FAITH BASED system that people either BELIEVE in or DON'T. these aren't proven or disproven, so both positions for or against this system are FAITH BASED. and yet our govt REQUIRES participation and funding, and this isn't a choice, even though it is AGAINST people's beliefs and faith in limited govt and free market health care!)

so yes, we ARE dealing with political beliefs and religions if you consider the whole set as one system,
and we ARE dealing with political leaders and lobbies seeking to IMPOSE THESE AS LAW
whether "right to life"
or "right to health care"
FOR THE WHOLE NATION

(AND YES I DO BELIEVE THAT SHOULD BE BARRED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!)


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sbiker
> 1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
> 2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
> 3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
> 4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
> 
> So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
> How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
> 
> 
> 
> Easy
> 
> If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
> 
> If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
> 
> What is not fair about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
> yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
> 
> but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
> that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.
> 
> Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.
> 
> We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.
> 
> Let me put it another way.
> 
> I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire  civil institution that I want-  because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Syriusly it's not doing away with it. It's giving people the *choice* of either opening up the sake process for all people, or of changing it to just civil unions for all people and stick to just the secular contracts and remove the social attachments. People can CHOOSE to have marriage in addition, but there is no reason for govt to require a particular kind of social relationship in order to get a license and benefits for a civil partnership that is secular only.
> 
> At least give people that choice of how much to put into govt laws and language and how much to leave private. Either all people of a state agree, or they privatize the parts they don't agree to open up to all peopleas the policy thats going to be public..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily- nothing prevents a state from ending all civil marriage. States are not required to have legal marriage- only that if they do have legal marriage they must provide it equally to all.
> 
> If you want your state to end legal marriage and replace it with civil unions then of course you are free to pursue that.
> 
> I just want to point out that the vast majority of married people want to be legally married- not to be 'civilly united"- what you propose would not bring about consensus- but again someone imposing their decision on others- for example my legal marriage would end- and either be- or not be- replaced by something else i do not want.
> 
> I am quite happy with the state of marriage as it is with regards to access to marriage. Now if we can just get everyone- straight and gay- to treat marriage with more respect- as a life long commitment- rather than serial monogamy- that would be worthwhile.
Click to expand...


But Sneekin according to Faun et al
the point of marriage through the state IS the CIVIL contracts only.

So that would continue through the state.

And the best way to teach people to respect relationships is
to treat ALL relationships as lifetime commitments. 
That can't be mandated by govt, but has to be taught by
example experience and free choice.  Totally a personal
responsibility and process that people must decide on their own.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sbiker
> 1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
> 2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
> 3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
> 4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
> 
> So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
> How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
> 
> 
> 
> Easy
> 
> If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
> 
> If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
> 
> What is not fair about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
> yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
> 
> but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
> that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.
> 
> Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.
> 
> We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.
> 
> Let me put it another way.
> 
> I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire  civil institution that I want-  because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Syriusly
> for the analogy about pork and Muslims,
> it's more like this:
> 
> 1. Let's take something like the Jewish traditions of Kosher foods being embedded in business
> and public policies.  And some have argued this is violating separation of church and state,
> but there are some practices in place, and people have accepted and tolerated them.
> 
> 2. Now let's say a MUSLIM group says we want the same recognition as the JEWISH who
> have their practices recognized in public policy.
> 
> So the court says sure, if Jewish laws are practiced so should Muslim laws be practiced.
> 
> And there are objections:
> A. one group that favors Judeo-Christian beliefs but not Muslim rejects the new reforms.
> B. one group says BOTH sets of rules should have be en removed from policy and kept private choice
> if businesses want to follow them or not. but none should be forced or ENDORSED BY GOVT to begin with.
> C. Muslims are yelling but if Jewish traditions get to be practiced, that's discrimination
> if you don't let ours be practiced, too.
> 
> So again, the two choices are to remove all of them,
> keep all of them as equal choices, or agree how to write laws
> where both could be practiced by free choice without govt ENDORSING any one set of beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How it's been handled in the past (yes, these things have come up before) - Christmas is a good example - it's a secular holiday as well as a religious holiday - the ONLY reason it's a federal holiday.  If there was a shellfish ban (originally Jewish, for example), and entrenched for the last 250 years,  it would probably stay as is.  But apparently you don't know any Muslims - they wouldn't push this onto everyone else (nor would Jews) in fact.  In many cities, Jews and Muslims have banded together to defend each other's Mosques and Synagogues from Christian persecution.    Your list isn't valid.  They simply wouldn't do it.  However, if you are talking about something as silly as say a hot dog, most people are proud to offer Kosher already.  If you would have read up on Halal versus Kosher, observed the differences, and checked the rules, you would have seen it's not that big of a deal.   Quite a bit of similarities in dietary restrictions (Halal being slightly more lenient).  Kosher has a more strict religious aspect (yet minimal) than halal.
> 
> Other than food, they have the same rights as every american - and the food is religiously imposed.
> 
> In other words, Muslims and Jews would not let it progress to your options 2 and 3.  Try and get out more, and meet jews and muslims.   I'm friends with the most left wing Rabbi (or person) I've ever met.   Burned his draft card, marched, you name it.   Best friends with the local Imam.   Best friends with most christians, except those that hate Muslims and Jews).  He does pity them and tolerate them, however.  You're grasping at straws, and failing miserably.
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin I think you misunderstand the example I was giving.
It's hypothetical for the construct only, not the content!
It is not about these groups literally.

What I was saying is the pattern of the laws that are being contested
a. marriage laws were already crossing the line with church and state
b. LGBT rights were introduced to change the terms of those laws
c. since not all people agree, it isn't fixed just by changing the terms.

I was comparing the same PATTERN to what if
a. food laws contain a tradition that is biased toward one group's beliefs
b. another group comes in to challenge and change the food laws to accommodate their beliefs
c. but the first group doesn't agree to open it up to the other group or groups and their members or beliefs

So in both cases, there is a THIRD group arguing NONE of those practices
or beliefs should be in govt in the first place. And if you'd stick to GENERIC
terms and not get specific about group a or group b, then neither has to end up
getting either "established or prohibited" to have beliefs represented.

The laws should be NEUTRAL and not incorporate EITHER group's practices
that the other group doesn't follow.

So that was the meaning I was trying to convey.
the raw pattern, not ANY of the content
which I think you took literally to mean I really
thought those groups are like that.

I'm just using it as the pattern to show the argument
that BOTH biases need to be removed and keep govt policy NEUTRAL.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Emily, but it's not about BELIEFS.   You've been asked this before, and I don't remember your answer, so I'll ask again.  Hypothetically, let's say your faith or your intellect or your policies are against SSM.   The Government struck down (did not change the law, they struck down a law that violated the constitution, several amendments).   How is this asking you to change your beliefs?   Are you required to marry a woman?  No.  Is your church, group, intellect etc ordered by the government to change?  Absolutely not.  You are completely off base here.  It never violated your religious freedom.  You are still able to hate it or like it.   If it's against your religion, it's STILL against your religion, and you will note, the government itself says it cannot demand your religion change it's beliefs.
> 
> Your nonsense about prayers is different - praying out loud violates my rights if I'm not of the faith professed in the prayers - it violates MY freedom of religion.  Bring peace?  Seriously?  Try just reading what I said, and studying the matter.   You want to violate my rights, and that's acceptable.  I don't want to violate your rights, and that is unacceptable to you.  My suggestion?  Hire an attorney at this point, maybe at 200 an hour when the money actually changes hand will it sink in for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 1. I have stated consistently that the bans excluding gay marriage are equally unconstitutional *for the same reasons* and I agree that Doma and other faith based and biased laws DO need to be struck down
> 2. By that same standard, neither can govt pass laws that introduce Other Biases on marriage equally faith based, and relative to people's values and beliefs
> 3. I pointed out that Atheists are not "forced" to be or change to other beliefs to sue to Remove Crosses from public buildings. Where in the First Amendment does it require someone to be "forced"
> It's by principle alone, on the left this principle is called separation of church and state, on the right it's called separation of federal jurisdiction from states rights
> 4. Yes it's about Political Beliefs.
> 
> The belief about LGBT orientation/identity/relations are NOT proven scientifically but remain FAITH based. It's a Spiritual belief if this is natural or unnatural, if it's a choice of behavior that can change or NOT a choice.
> 
> The Belief that marriage is a Constitutional right or a practice under free exercise of religion that belongs to people or states is a Political Belief.
> 
> While I agree with you that you and anyone has the right to your belief it is a civil natural right for gay couples equally, not everyone shares this belief. Since it is faith based, it's only fair not to impose it by govt against beliefs of others.
> 
> So Sneekin and also Faun
> I propose to you to pass a Constitutional Amendment on recognizing Political Beliefs such as right to marriage that is faith based, so it is Constitutional and passed by consent of people and States; and in order to make it fair where people of all political beliefs support its passage, include ALL political beliefs such as the right to life protected at conception which is also faith based.
> 
> Then write this Amendment that allows free choice to recognize and fund political beliefs separately by party so it does not impose on taxpayers of other beliefs. That would be fair to people of all beliefs.
> 
> 5. Lastly I'm sorry you don't get that your belief in marriage as a right is a belief. Neither do Christians who believe right to life is natural from conception.
> 
> There are many non-Christians and even gay people and gay couples who do NOT believe in gay marriage through govt!
> 
> So this matter of preference of belief is spiritual and or political, it's a free choice, it's not about discriminating against a class of people because even that is faith based, not proven, and a choice to believe it's a born trait or why or how and whether it can change.
> 
> I believe it is spiritual, so beliefs are protected individually and can't be mandated by govt.
> 
> I believe we can form a consensus on law that respects free choice ie is not mandated through govt without consent of the public
> 
> The same way you Obama and others choose to recognize and support gay marriage, it should remain a free choice. No law forced you or Obama, you chose freely. So please recognize the same right of ALL Americans to choose freely.
> 
> PS as for cost of lawyers
> This is also in violation of my Constitutional beliefs in due process and the right to petition for redress of grievances. Why should mistakes made in passing unconstitutional laws such as DOMA and ACA be charged to the contesters to correct the problem? The cost and burden should be on the proponents.
> 
> I have proposed to sue members and leaders of the Democratic Party to cover the legal costs as part of the damage.
> 
> I could not find a lawyer wiling to take this on before because the work exceeds the ability to bankroll it on comtigency. But Sneekin that is part of the tactics of legal abuse and monopoly. If lawyers control the cost and the game, no laws can be challenged without resources.
> 
> So these are not inalienable rights, but depending on political lobbying and or money.
> 
> Now however, there may be enough support to demand Democrats responsible for passing biased faith based laws and rulings pay the costs of correcting these to be Constitutional instead of imposing that cost on people who argued it wasn't Constitutional to begin with.
> 
> One person suggested having a vote in Congress on whether a bill is Constitutional or not Before proposing and voting on it through the House and Senate, so we agree up front does this require an Amendment to expand and authorize federal government to make such a law. That would save time and money fighting over states rights and religious freedom or bias in laws.
> 
> Sorry if you don't see this as compelling interest. But I see the bigger pattern of political beliefs that should be managed by conflict resolution and consensus on laws that reflects the will and consent of all people regardless of creed and which side they're on
> 
> I believe that is natural law, Constitutional duty and Government Ethics. See www.ethics-commission.net
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a handful of gays that don't believe in it.  They, like you, fail to grasp the concept that civil marriage doesn't fall under separation of church and state.  Already been ruled on.  Read the Iowa Supreme Court decision that repeatedly upheld lower court rulings in Iowa that SSM on it's face, because it violates the 14th amendment of the US constitution, as well as other federal and State amendments.Gay marriage has technically been legal since the passage of the 14th amendment, try and grasp that concept.  It's not faith based law.  You continue to claim states can have laws on the books that grant people of separate race, sexual preference, etc different rights based on who they want to marry.  Read Loving, even watch the movie - there are enough facts in the movie for you to grasp. Your religion can refuse to marry two people.  It doesn't stop those people from going  to a different church, city hall, or a justice of the peace and getting married.  Focus, Emily, grasp the concept it's not 1st amendment.  Lawyers aren't controlling the costs, you are. You are claiming LGBT needs to have different laws written for them than heterosexuals need, and that simply is not true.  Laws are in place.   You don't seem to comprehend that at this point, it would take a constitutional amendment.  38 states are NOT going to vote for an amendment to take away a civil right - because they know it would be challenged any way, and it would never pass, just as passing an amendment to not allow interracial couples to be able to marry would not pass. THINK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to worry Sneekin
> By proving spiritual healing works effectively to restore people's natural default status, that will solve both problems.
> 
> Once people get that spiritual healing is natural, and what is going on when people change orientation, that will solve both the faith based issue of how much is a choice spiritually and also resolve the conflicts between people over Natural rights and laws so we can reach a consensus by free choice!
> 
> Very good, I agree research to prove how orientation and spiritual healing works will solve multiple levels of conflicts and will result in consensus the right way by free choice not forced by govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People don't change their orientation.  They suppress it.   When confronted with choice, 99 percent stop suppression.   Try reading the medical journals.  It blows up any thoughts about "spiritual healing" changing someone's sexual orientation.   Even those practicing conversion therapy these days will tell you they don't change the orientation, they show one how to suppress their attraction and feelings.   READ.
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin 
I don't know if we are talking about the same process.
When for example I walked and talked someone through this same spiritual healing process
of forgiving and receiving healing, that person ended coming out as transsexual after letting go
of all the resentment and layers "suppressing" that person's natural personality and identity as female.

According to you, the spiritual healing is just allowing this person to 
SUPPRESS their male birth gender and associations with it,
and to act female unnaturally.

I think it is the other way!

The spiritual healing allowed the person to LET GO of the unnatural suppression
and restore their natural default identity spiritually which came out when that person finally felt freed.

I don't think you can be spiritually FREED and SUPPRESSING yourself at the same time.
That is contradictory.

I think you must be referring to something else.
Like if people are faking it, like telling themselves they can change their behavior
on the outside instead of working through the process on the inside.

Spiritual healing is not dictated from external or unnatural will or conditions.
It is about letting go of fear and unresolved issues
that otherwise obstruct the natural process the mind and body go through
for self-healing and harmonious balance.

You sound like you are talking about the opposite process
of suppression and external expectations to control or compel behavior.
But that's exactly what healing has to overcome in order to work!


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here Faun
> here is a response I posted to someone else
> who argued that homosexuality is NOT proven scientifically to be a born innate fixed condition
> [and who APPEARS TO CORRELATE homosexuality and transgender identity with "mental health problems"]
> 
> ====================================
> _The other author is Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the leading psychiatrists in the world. He was psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore from 1975 to 2001. These scientists reviewed hundreds of peer reviewed studies on sexual orientation and gender identity from the biological, psychological and social sciences. Their conclusions were as follows:_.........................
> 
> _the belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property – that people are “born that way” –* is not supported by scientific evidence.*
> The belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex – so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ – *is not supported by scientific evidence*._.......................
> 
> _Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behaviour will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood._..............
> 
> _Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity._.............................. .............
> 
> _The second bombshell was exploded by a top researcher for the American Psychological Association (APA), lesbian activist, Dr. Lisa Diamond, co-author-in-chief of ‘the APA Handbook’ of sexuality and psychology and one of the APA’s most respected members. She admitted that sexual orientation was “fluid” and not unchangeable. By doing so, Dr. Diamond confirmed that the myth that “homosexuals can’t change” is now a dead-end theory_
> ===========================================================
> 
> Dear sec
> Yes and no
> 1. studies on identical twins do not show correlation in orientation.
> some studies were inflated to show higher than 50%, but it's definitely NOT 100% as a genetic cause would show
> One source: Homosexuality Can it be Healed by Dr. Francis MacNutt
> for interview of Judith MacNutt on 20 cases of homosexual clients healed by spiritual therapy
> see: Interview - Francis & Judith MacNutt - Mastering Life
> 
> 2. homosexual and transgender identity can still be attributed to factors in the WOMB.
> studies on brains show a similarity between the brains of females and of gay males.
> Even if not genetic, it could be a condition by birth and not someone's choice.
> 
> When I look at people who claim to be spiritual soulmates, is that something
> either one of them chose? How they were incarnated as black or white, male or female?
> 
> 3. my argument is to treat LGBT beliefs orientation and gender as SPIRITUALLY determined.
> So this covers any and all beliefs equally, and does not discriminate against one or another.
> No matter what someone believes, since both sides are faith based and neither proven nor disproven
> by science, they remain free choice; and certain govt should never be abused to impose a faith-based bias
> or force someone to change their beliefs. These should all be included equally, whether for or against gay marriage
> or believing homosexuality is natural or unnatural, a choice of behavior or not, or it can or cannot change.
> 
> Some people can change, some cannot.
> Some believe the change is merely reverting back to default natural status at birth, and not really changing orientation
> So like someone's expression of identity as Muslim or Christian, atheist, liberal prochoice, or conservative prolife,
> I believe in treating one's beliefs about LGBT as a CREED and not denying disparaging or harassing people regardless
> what their views are, why, and if these change or not. Some people cannot help and cannot change how they believe.
> And that goes for both sides!
> 
> 
> 
> McHugh is not one of the top psychiatrists, unless you follow that with one of the top most discredited.  It most certainly is genetic - otherwise, feel free to explain how every mammal has a percentage of offspring that have same sex relations.    Again, it's a straight up lie that anyone has actually been converted.   The few people that "stuck", numbering under 5-10, were already determined to be bisexual, and just stopped sleeping with men for the time being.  You seem to confuse the sex act with the sexual preference - they are not the same.  Anyone can be forced into a SS act, it doesn't mean they are gay.  Anyone can be forced into a heterosexual act, it doesn't mean they are straight.  It's not spiritually determined - if it is, explain those gay mice.  Or even beyond mammals, explain the gay ducks..  How do you explain atheist gays?  You are too focused on making everyone happy - it has been proven (McHugh is about the last person of name standing, against the millions with the exact opposite opinion).  No one can change, they can simply abstain - and what usually happens is one of two things - they "backslide", resuming SS relations, or two, they kill themselves.   I lost a dear friend that way in high school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> I believe it is spiritually determined and up to someone's process if they change or not.
> 
> No, it is not shown to be genetic because studies on identical twins may show a tendency
> but not a correlation.
> 
> Whatever you cite about other mammals, the smaller % is argued as an anomaly and not natural.
> 
> Yes, I do believe people have changed, but what you are saying is anyone who has,
> was always heterosexual to begin with and they weren't really homosexual.
> And if they are naturally homosexual you are saying they don't change but suppress it.
> 
> What is your opinion about Chirlane McCray, is she bisexual and just "suppressing" her lesbian past or was it false and not her true self:
> ‘Are You Still a Lesbian?’ Bill de Blasio’s Wife Doesn’t Have an Answer
> 
> Here are more links to resources about people changing orientation.
> So by your theory these were never gay to begin with or they couldn't come out as heterosexual:
> How To Defeat Homosexual Activists 101 A Real Education
> Obama has problem with this sex-identity group
> Brothers Road | Brothers on a Road Less Traveled
> 
> That's fine, and I do hope the research on spiritual healing
> will prove what is going on.
> 
> Neil Warren of eharmony wanted to team up with companies
> to invest millions each to resolve this issue with research.
> I think your angle is fair and proveable.
> But I would apply the Christian Healing Ministries method that work internally to heal
> people's spiritually, and not other forms of reparative therapy that work externally and fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bill DeBlasio's wife is bisexual.  McHugh has been discredited.  If you have ever gone through this conversion therapy, or seen it performed, you would know better.  It's illegal in most states because it leads to suicide in adults and mostly children.   Are you pro suicide for gay children?
> 
> I've been intimately involved with the therapy, various treatments, and various researches as I worked on my undergrad and grad degrees, you have not.  I find your comments ludicrous.  To quote the most discredited man in history is sad.  Neil had to do that - eharmony was sued for not allowing SS relations to be pursued when he founded the corporation.  It took years and lawsuits.
> 
> You are lying now about what I said - I said they were BISEXUAL, not Heterosexual.   You apparently are unaware of how frequent this occurs.   You can have 2 boys that start having sex in their early teens, and consider themselves 100 percent gay, into their 30's and 40's.  Then they have sex with a woman after too many drinks - and now, they are straight?  Nope - bisexual.  DeBlasio's wife only had sex with women.  She was an outspoken lesbian.   She met Bill, fell in love, the rest is history.  Those people would go through conversion therapy and be "cured".   Not that 15 year old boy that vomits every time he see's a naked female.  You'll just have someone who doesn't have sex with anyone.
Click to expand...


Hi Sneekin No, we are DEFINITELY not talking about the same thing.
Nobody "performs" or forces spiritual healing on anyone.

It is the same natural process by which people either come out gay or straight or transgender
or whatever is their NATURAL self.  it is about letting go, forgiving and undoing all
that conditioning, certainly NOT imposing more conditions on someone!

You are talking about something FORCED unnatural and abusive, against
people's will, nature and natural process.

clearly these are opposites and not the same thing at all!

In fact what you are talking about causes so much damage
the people who are seeking spiritual healing and RECOVERY 
have to let go and undo all that damage in addition as layers added on top!


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is in the marriage business...
> 
> They certify it and make it legal
> They provide tax breaks
> They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
> They supervise the dissolution of marriage
> 
> What do you want them to stop doing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
> because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
> such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
> and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
> choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.
> 
> Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
> or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
> and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
> due to their beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't make laws based on peoples' feelings or religious objections. If we did, capital punishment would be unconstitutional, pork would be banned, cotton/wool blends would be punishable, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Faun I also believe in separating funding for the death penalty
> so people can have a free choice but it doesn't impose on other people's choice of funding.
> 
> This would take a lot of the "emotional hype" out of election campaigns
> if all issues were resolved one by one instead of lumped together,
> voting for one party to dominate while the other in the minority risks losing representation.
> 
> *A lot of fear based bullying going on now would be eliminated
> if we based laws on consensus or separation by party so everyone
> is equally represented and not forced to fund the beliefs of others.*
> 
> As for fabric, by the time the Greens Democrats and Social Workers
> organize labor pools and worker owned coops and business networks,
> maybe we will see more locally grown "hemp" fabric and/or whatever is more sustainable.
> maybe we won't rely so much on foreign slave labor for clothing and electronic devices
> if we organize labor and factories as campuses providing education, health care and housing
> as part of work-study programs to ensure students and workers have protection from abuse,
> even if working for barter or credit, or lower training wages in exchange for low cost housing and services.
> 
> *Religious beliefs and objections are part of how people express consent or dissent.
> I believe the right solutions will satisfy people's standards regardless if these are expressed religiously, politically, spiritually or by secular laws, business models, etc.*
> Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is complete and utter nonsense. We don't have two sets of laws; one for Democrats and one for Republicans.  Either laws are Constitutional or they're not. They're not Constitutional for one party but unconstitutional for another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun if the Democratic platform seeks to BAN reparative therapy but DEFEND the free choice of abortion and gender change procedures for minors; while the Republican platform seeks to DEFEND the free choice of reparative therapy and BAN abortion and gender surgery for minors,
> then we ARE dealing with two polar opposite political BELIEFS.
> 
> collectively these can be considered Political Religions:
> one in promoting social and general welfare through govt as its major focus and rule
> AND
> one in promoted LIMITED federal govt where national defense is its unique role (and most other social functions can or should be done outside so it doesn't bog down govt in bureaucratic waste interfering with govt duties)
> 
> So YES Faun it WOULD or SHOULD BE UNCONSTITITIONAL for one group to IMPOSE or ESTABLISH its BELIEFS as a national religion for ALL the public to be COMPELLED to pay taxes under and comply with!
> 
> But guess what, that's what Obama did in enforcing ACA mandates and declaring
> the belief in "health care as right" as the "law of the land"
> offending people who BELIEVE in putting the Constitution first as the law of the land,
> and requiring state ratified AMENDMENTS before granting any such authority to federal govt.
> 
> (The federal exchanges and mandated insurance in essence constitute a FAITH BASED system that people either BELIEVE in or DON'T. these aren't proven or disproven, so both positions for or against this system are FAITH BASED. and yet our govt REQUIRES participation and funding, and this isn't a choice, even though it is AGAINST people's beliefs and faith in limited govt and free market health care!)
> 
> so yes, we ARE dealing with political beliefs and religions if you consider the whole set as one system,
> and we ARE dealing with political leaders and lobbies seeking to IMPOSE THESE AS LAW
> whether "right to life"
> or "right to health care"
> FOR THE WHOLE NATION
> 
> (AND YES I DO BELIEVE THAT SHOULD BE BARRED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!)
Click to expand...

You are free to believe anything you like; but fortunately for the rest of us, your beliefs, being counter to how laws are actually enforced, bear no resemblance to reality. There is only one law for everyone. We don't enforce laws differently based on personal beliefs but on constitutionality.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger
> And people have to AGREE what's right
> Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
> Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right
> 
> Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
> Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
> 
> What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger with Faith-Based laws, yes, people would have to agree
> or else all it takes is one atheist or nonbeliever in that thing to protest that
> govt should not establish a faith based bias or belief,  and by principle that bias should be removed.
> 
> A good example of a faith based concept people happen to agree on:
> JUSTICE
> Even though this is completely faith-based and never proven or established as existing,
> people have faith in it and AGREE to use these terms in our laws
> and even inscribe them on public buildings.
> Nobody complains because we AGREE on this even though it is FAITH BASED.
> 
> But when it comes to retributive justice and restorative justice,
> no, people do not agree. thus we have fights going on over
> the death penalty and taxpayers funding life imprisonment instead of executions etc.
> I am asking to separate funding on that issue also!
> 
> Similar with abortion.
> We generally agree murder is unlawful and punishable as a crime.
> but some people believe abortion is murder, and others do not.
> Until we agree on how to write or separate laws,
> groups have be en fighting over this to defend their beliefs from each other's.
> 
> How cruel is this suffering and how long are we going to let it go on,
> knowing neither side agrees to biases in laws by the other?
> 
> That's why I argue to separate funding by party,
> set up separate representation and programs where people
> do not feel threatened by any other group dictating their beliefs.
> If political and/or religious beliefs prevent agreement on public laws,
> then set up separate means similar to private religious schools
> and treat partisan programs like private religious programs.
> So people can get the same tax breaks for investing in their
> own policies if the rest of the public doesn't agree to fund them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US does not have faith based laws nor should it
> 
> Why can't you answer the simple questions I asked?
> Why do I get a 300 word diatribe on something unrelated to what I posted?
> 
> Now.....
> Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
> Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
> 
> What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rightwinger they have to agree with each other
> where marriage or other beliefs get mixed in with public policy
> 
> I don't have a say in other state laws, but I can have equal
> voice in Texas law or Houston or Democratic Party if that's how we decide how to manage policies
> and benefits. I prefer by party, but others may want it through state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even on this you are wrong.   The Democratic Party can outlaw gay marriage, Emily can outlaw gay marriage, Houston can outlaw gay marriage, and Texas can outlaw gay marriage.   Of course,  you don't have an equal voice, if you think that your voice means anything in this case.  It violates FEDERAL law.  I don't care how you manage policies.  If you are the lone voice in the wilderness, you "might" be heard (but not by the entire state, and probably not even by all of Houston), but it has ZERO effect on the outcome.
Click to expand...


No, by natural laws, we make laws by consent of the governed.

So if people wanted to "outlaw gay marriage" it would have to be by consensus 
of all the people under that law, and could not apply to people outside that jurisdiction and representation.

Or else it violates natural laws.
Sneekin

That's why we can't outlaw abortion because it would violate consent of people affected by those laws.
Only if there was a consensus and everyone AGREED what exactly to ban, 
then we could make such a law as enforceable.
Otherwise it won't work because it's going against human nature.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
> because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
> such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
> and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
> choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.
> 
> Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
> or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
> and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
> due to their beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't make laws based on peoples' feelings or religious objections. If we did, capital punishment would be unconstitutional, pork would be banned, cotton/wool blends would be punishable, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Faun I also believe in separating funding for the death penalty
> so people can have a free choice but it doesn't impose on other people's choice of funding.
> 
> This would take a lot of the "emotional hype" out of election campaigns
> if all issues were resolved one by one instead of lumped together,
> voting for one party to dominate while the other in the minority risks losing representation.
> 
> *A lot of fear based bullying going on now would be eliminated
> if we based laws on consensus or separation by party so everyone
> is equally represented and not forced to fund the beliefs of others.*
> 
> As for fabric, by the time the Greens Democrats and Social Workers
> organize labor pools and worker owned coops and business networks,
> maybe we will see more locally grown "hemp" fabric and/or whatever is more sustainable.
> maybe we won't rely so much on foreign slave labor for clothing and electronic devices
> if we organize labor and factories as campuses providing education, health care and housing
> as part of work-study programs to ensure students and workers have protection from abuse,
> even if working for barter or credit, or lower training wages in exchange for low cost housing and services.
> 
> *Religious beliefs and objections are part of how people express consent or dissent.
> I believe the right solutions will satisfy people's standards regardless if these are expressed religiously, politically, spiritually or by secular laws, business models, etc.*
> Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is complete and utter nonsense. We don't have two sets of laws; one for Democrats and one for Republicans.  Either laws are Constitutional or they're not. They're not Constitutional for one party but unconstitutional for another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun if the Democratic platform seeks to BAN reparative therapy but DEFEND the free choice of abortion and gender change procedures for minors; while the Republican platform seeks to DEFEND the free choice of reparative therapy and BAN abortion and gender surgery for minors,
> then we ARE dealing with two polar opposite political BELIEFS.
> 
> collectively these can be considered Political Religions:
> one in promoting social and general welfare through govt as its major focus and rule
> AND
> one in promoted LIMITED federal govt where national defense is its unique role (and most other social functions can or should be done outside so it doesn't bog down govt in bureaucratic waste interfering with govt duties)
> 
> So YES Faun it WOULD or SHOULD BE UNCONSTITITIONAL for one group to IMPOSE or ESTABLISH its BELIEFS as a national religion for ALL the public to be COMPELLED to pay taxes under and comply with!
> 
> But guess what, that's what Obama did in enforcing ACA mandates and declaring
> the belief in "health care as right" as the "law of the land"
> offending people who BELIEVE in putting the Constitution first as the law of the land,
> and requiring state ratified AMENDMENTS before granting any such authority to federal govt.
> 
> (The federal exchanges and mandated insurance in essence constitute a FAITH BASED system that people either BELIEVE in or DON'T. these aren't proven or disproven, so both positions for or against this system are FAITH BASED. and yet our govt REQUIRES participation and funding, and this isn't a choice, even though it is AGAINST people's beliefs and faith in limited govt and free market health care!)
> 
> so yes, we ARE dealing with political beliefs and religions if you consider the whole set as one system,
> and we ARE dealing with political leaders and lobbies seeking to IMPOSE THESE AS LAW
> whether "right to life"
> or "right to health care"
> FOR THE WHOLE NATION
> 
> (AND YES I DO BELIEVE THAT SHOULD BE BARRED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are free to believe anything you like; but fortunately for the rest of us, your beliefs, being counter to how laws are actually enforced, bear no resemblance to reality. There is only one law for everyone. We don't enforce laws differently based on personal beliefs but on constitutionality.
Click to expand...


by what you posed Faun I would agree
if that if the Republicans don't agree to a law because they say it's unconstitutional because it violates
their beliefs, then it IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL and that law should NOT be enforced but changed.
if the Democrats don't agree to a law because they argue it's unconstitutional because it violates
their beliefs, same thing, it should be struck down or changed until both sides AGREE it is constitutional!

the problem Faun is we have DEMOCRATS insisting ACA and health care laws are constitutional
because THEY BELIEVE govt should be the central default for managing health care "as a right"
while REPUBLICANS insist it ISN'T constitutional and needs to be revised.

So I agree with you, since there is only one law, then if people don't agree because of their beliefs,
that law CANNOT be enforced as "law for all people"

We SHOULD use that standard of satisfying ALL parties and people's beliefs
before claiming to establish a law that touches on those beliefs.

Then we WOULDN'T have one group saying it's the law
and the other saying it violates law. We've got that going on now
because we don't finish the process of resolving conflicts to AGREE on one law!


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin I looked everywhere and can't find your message
where you said it's impossible to sue the Democrats to repay costs and fix problems
caused by DOMA or ACA "because how can you tell who are members"

The reply I wanted to post is that corrections and reimbursement are
VOLUNTARY. the same way people choose affiliation freely, then
choosing to side with the corrections or not is up to people.

That will show who is really in charge of govt.
Whoever takes responsibility for fixing problems and managing the costs.

So this would separate the sheep from the goats.
The people who lead will lead and those who follow will follow.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
> yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
> 
> but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
> that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.
> 
> Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.
> 
> We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.
> 
> Let me put it another way.
> 
> I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire  civil institution that I want-  because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Syriusly
> for the analogy about pork and Muslims,
> it's more like this:.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you just ignored what I said.
> 
> As I am now going to ignore what you said.
> 
> We do not end government licensing just because a religious group doesn't believe in what the license is for.
> 
> 
> We do not stop driver's licenses just because the Amish think driving a car is wrong
> We do not stop licensing a pig slaughterhouse just because Jews and Muslims think eating pig is wrong.
> We do not close all slaughterhouses just because Hindu's think killing animals is wrong.
> We do not stop licensing bars because Southern Baptists and Mormons think drinking alcohol is wrong.
> See the pattern here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, we aren't "stopping" the licensing Syriusly but
> refining it to be just about the CIVIL contracts, as Faun pointed out is the intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, that's all marriage has been about - it's ALWAYS BEEN a civil contract.  Why can't you just admit that?   The fact that you or anyone else, of any religion wish to add an entire other ceremony on top of the CIVIL MARRIAGE is of no impact to ANYONE ELSE.  It's JUST ABOUT THE CONTRACT.   Feel free to read Texas law, if you think it's anything else.
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin and Syriusly 
I think we must be talking past each other.
Here Faun and Sneekin are saying the same thing
that govt is only about the civil contract part of marraige.

So Syriusly how is this "ending marriage or taking rights away"
if it's just everyone AGREEING on language and terms that CLARIFY
govt licenses are only about the civil contracts and nothing to do with terms on the Social relationships?


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
> if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
> If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state.
> 
> Some states don't require car insurance, if the driver has "ability to pay" and can prove it.
> So in that state, the same driver with the same car is under different rules.
> 
> States like Nevada have legalized prostitution, that only applies in that state.
> 
> For national policies on health care and other social benefits,
> I recommend to my fellow progressive Democrats and Greens
> to organize by party. So people can have collective representation
> and management of resources to fund policies that correspond
> and represent beliefs in marriage, health care, prison alternatives,
> educational priorities, etc.
> 
> if not everyone agrees on social policies through federal govt.
> AND by the Platform of the Veterans Party of America
> "ALL social legislation is Unconstitutional"
> then why not manage it by party and have taxpayers
> pay directly into the programs of choice?
> 
> I know tons of progressives who believe in paying
> for education and health care instead of funding
> war and the death penalty.
> 
> Why not give taxpayers that choice?
> 
> If it's organized by party then the responsibility
> for all the terms and agreements is delegated
> to one national group to represent its members,
> similar to states being responsible for representing its citizens.
> 
> Just proportionally delegate federal budgets to allot
> money to states, and states divide it by party by
> proportion of taxpayers and taxmoney coming in.
> so if GOP do not want to pay to federal govt
> except for military, they don't get federal funds for health care
> except for VA/vets if that's all they approve.
> If Dems want singlepayer health care and no death penalty,
> then that's where their tax money goes or doesn't go.
> 
> So each pays for their share and their members
> work out their terms and conditions, from prolife
> to gay marriage, whatever they believe or don't believe in.
> 
> If states can agree, then it's done by state.
> 
> This is if the population of states CAN'T agree,
> why not create two separate tracks and let
> taxpayers choose just like we do when we
> donate to parties or vote for platforms and reps.
> 
> 
> 
> In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question
> 
> With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you  handle gay couples traveling between states?
> 
> Try to answer in less than 50 words
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered that already rightwinger
> each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
> civil marriage, civil unions.
> 
> And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
> If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.
> 
> What part of my answer did you not get
> and I will explain it again.
> 
> I answered two different ways
> 1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
> 2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
> that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
> it can be national without going through state or federal govt
> 
> There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
> nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't get it
> 
> First off...allowing same sex marriage by party or religious affiliation means gays can change religion or party in order to get married
> 
> You avoid the key issue. What happens when a married, same sex couple either travels or moves to a state where it is not recognized?
> 
> If a partner becomes seriously ill, does the spouse lose all marital rights?
> What happens to the children of a same sex marriage when they move to a state that bans it?
> If you move to a state that bans it....are you effectively divorced or just a non-person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, please address rightwinger - these sum up what we all have been saying in under 100 words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger and Sneekin
> What happens if a contractor who follows the rules in Houston or Texas
> moves to another state? Well, the other states may have different rules or regulations
> on building codes and licensing master electricians or contractors to work on jobs.
> 
> The process is generally the same, but some of the terms and conditions may be different.
> The main goals of SAFETY will be the same across the states, but not all terms and conditions
> may be exactly alike unless all people across the nation AGREE to those.
> 
> When people switch schools, the credits at one school may be different than the one
> they are transferring from. But the MAIN standards agreed upon for accreditation will be met.
> It doesn't have to be perfectly the same for every school in ALL aspects,
> just the main policies that matter.
> 
> That's why if all states stick to a common policy, such as secular civil unions as the neutral standard,
> that part would be uniform across states and possibly the nation.
> But the more you attach personal conditions and social relations into the equation,
> that's going to make it harder if not impossible to come to an agreement.
> 
> What you are asking about "recognizing all marriages as the same" is
> like asking what happens if a Christian who is baptized with sprinkling
> is not recognized by another denomination that believes in full immersion?
> Well that part is private.
> 
> Our national constitutional laws use GENERAL language like free exercise of
> religion or no discrimination on the basis of CREED, but do NOT micromanage the details.
> 
> So if we keep the private practices that are relative out of the equation,
> the default policy left is just the civil contracts and unions that deal with
> legal and financial roles and terms in contracts, not anything to do with interpersonal relations
> that are private and remain the free choice of individuals.
> 
> Sneekin I saw very frustrated sounding messages from you regarding
> the term marriage. Sorry but if not all people agree to use that for civil marriage,
> that's not my fault.  That's how some people think.
> 
> So if you are going to ask people to be sensitive about using terms like
> creation instead of universe, because creation insinuates a creator while universe does not,
> that's just how some people prefer to use more neutral terms
> and not terms that are associated with things you don't mean.
> 
> People's perceptions ARE TIED TO LANGUAGE.
> 
> You objected to the term "traditional" which I did not mean any offense by,
> but it implied some negative things to you. That's not what I meant at ALL,
> but as long as that word invokes different MEANINGS on your side of the fence,
> then using that word is NOT effective and is NOT communicating the same thing to you that I mean.
> 
> So if I am going to communicate and reach an agreement with you,
> yes,the words we use matter. They have to mean the same things on both
> sides or people end up talking past each other.
> 
> It's almost like two different dialects or languages
> when people don't mean the same things by the same words.
> 
> I notice this with religion and politics, that the issues of words
> conveying different meanings causes a lot of offense when people don't realize it.
> 
> Sorry this is so frustrating to you, but believe me
> the frustration is mutual.  Most of my other friends who are conservatives
> have plumb given up on liberals, cannot understand or communicate,
> and have even decided liberalism must be a "mental disorder"
> because they just can't make sense of the mentality.
> 
> So it's at least mutual.
Click to expand...

Emily, I'm through arguing with you.  I really don't care what you or your conservative friends think about what civil marriage is called.  The name of it legally is marriage, it's a civil contract between two people, end of discussion.  

Next - workers moving from state to state is not the same as marriage.   If you live in Wisconsin, you cannot marry your first cousin.  If you live in Illinois, you can.   So, Wisconsin residents had to go to Illinois.  The current governor tried to block it by creating legislation, but their Supreme Court informed him he cannot undo a marriage done in another state.

I'm not asking anyone to be sensitive about creation versus science.  I'm trying to get you to understand that legally, creationism isn't SCIENCE.   Not on the SAT or ACT.   Got it?   Public schools MUST teach science.  I really don't care what you or your private school teaches, because, as an employer, I simply would refuse to hire someone so blatantly incompetent (if they never learned science, reading, writing and math).  

Even your contractor example is wrong.   It's why we have licensing laws.   Just because you can build a house, cut hair, or be a lawyer in Texas, doesn't mean you can do it in any other state - it requires in many cases, additional schooling, and definitely testing/exams/etc.  I don't know of any contractor that's so ignorant as to think he could move from state to state and immediately start working without proper credentials.  So again, very bad example, and completely off topic from marriage (it does transfer from state to state, all of them).  Do you understand?  If you don't, put one line down - that you are through with the discussion with me.   You repeat yourself, you get discredited, you use the same arguments again, you get proven wrong again, ad infinitum.  Then you obfuscate, drift off to completely unrelated topics (ie, contractors), and accuse us of saying things that we didn't say (but in fact, you have throughout this thread).

You don't get to rename it, neither do your friends. It's settled law.   No one cares what you think, because YOU VOTED YOUR REPRESENTATIVES INTO OFFICE.  THEY APPROVED THE SCOTUS JUDGES.   So, to simplify it for you, you voted on it and agreed it was ok.   deal with it.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
> if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
> If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state.
> 
> Some states don't require car insurance, if the driver has "ability to pay" and can prove it.
> So in that state, the same driver with the same car is under different rules.
> 
> States like Nevada have legalized prostitution, that only applies in that state.
> 
> For national policies on health care and other social benefits,
> I recommend to my fellow progressive Democrats and Greens
> to organize by party. So people can have collective representation
> and management of resources to fund policies that correspond
> and represent beliefs in marriage, health care, prison alternatives,
> educational priorities, etc.
> 
> if not everyone agrees on social policies through federal govt.
> AND by the Platform of the Veterans Party of America
> "ALL social legislation is Unconstitutional"
> then why not manage it by party and have taxpayers
> pay directly into the programs of choice?
> 
> I know tons of progressives who believe in paying
> for education and health care instead of funding
> war and the death penalty.
> 
> Why not give taxpayers that choice?
> 
> If it's organized by party then the responsibility
> for all the terms and agreements is delegated
> to one national group to represent its members,
> similar to states being responsible for representing its citizens.
> 
> Just proportionally delegate federal budgets to allot
> money to states, and states divide it by party by
> proportion of taxpayers and taxmoney coming in.
> so if GOP do not want to pay to federal govt
> except for military, they don't get federal funds for health care
> except for VA/vets if that's all they approve.
> If Dems want singlepayer health care and no death penalty,
> then that's where their tax money goes or doesn't go.
> 
> So each pays for their share and their members
> work out their terms and conditions, from prolife
> to gay marriage, whatever they believe or don't believe in.
> 
> If states can agree, then it's done by state.
> 
> This is if the population of states CAN'T agree,
> why not create two separate tracks and let
> taxpayers choose just like we do when we
> donate to parties or vote for platforms and reps.
> 
> 
> 
> In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question
> 
> With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you  handle gay couples traveling between states?
> 
> Try to answer in less than 50 words
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered that already rightwinger
> each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
> civil marriage, civil unions.
> 
> And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
> If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.
> 
> What part of my answer did you not get
> and I will explain it again.
> 
> I answered two different ways
> 1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
> 2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
> that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
> it can be national without going through state or federal govt
> 
> There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
> nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't get it
> 
> First off...allowing same sex marriage by party or religious affiliation means gays can change religion or party in order to get married
> 
> You avoid the key issue. What happens when a married, same sex couple either travels or moves to a state where it is not recognized?
> 
> If a partner becomes seriously ill, does the spouse lose all marital rights?
> What happens to the children of a same sex marriage when they move to a state that bans it?
> If you move to a state that bans it....are you effectively divorced or just a non-person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, please address rightwinger - these sum up what we all have been saying in under 100 words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger and Sneekin
> What happens if a contractor who follows the rules in Houston or Texas
> moves to another state? Well, the other states may have different rules or regulations
> on building codes and licensing master electricians or contractors to work on jobs.
> 
> The process is generally the same, but some of the terms and conditions may be different.
> The main goals of SAFETY will be the same across the states, but not all terms and conditions
> may be exactly alike unless all people across the nation AGREE to those.
> 
> When people switch schools, the credits at one school may be different than the one
> they are transferring from. But the MAIN standards agreed upon for accreditation will be met.
> It doesn't have to be perfectly the same for every school in ALL aspects,
> just the main policies that matter.
> 
> That's why if all states stick to a common policy, such as secular civil unions as the neutral standard,
> that part would be uniform across states and possibly the nation.
> But the more you attach personal conditions and social relations into the equation,
> that's going to make it harder if not impossible to come to an agreement.
> 
> What you are asking about "recognizing all marriages as the same" is
> like asking what happens if a Christian who is baptized with sprinkling
> is not recognized by another denomination that believes in full immersion?
> Well that part is private.
> 
> Our national constitutional laws use GENERAL language like free exercise of
> religion or no discrimination on the basis of CREED, but do NOT micromanage the details.
> 
> So if we keep the private practices that are relative out of the equation,
> the default policy left is just the civil contracts and unions that deal with
> legal and financial roles and terms in contracts, not anything to do with interpersonal relations
> that are private and remain the free choice of individuals.
> 
> Sneekin I saw very frustrated sounding messages from you regarding
> the term marriage. Sorry but if not all people agree to use that for civil marriage,
> that's not my fault.  That's how some people think.
> 
> So if you are going to ask people to be sensitive about using terms like
> creation instead of universe, because creation insinuates a creator while universe does not,
> that's just how some people prefer to use more neutral terms
> and not terms that are associated with things you don't mean.
> 
> People's perceptions ARE TIED TO LANGUAGE.
> 
> You objected to the term "traditional" which I did not mean any offense by,
> but it implied some negative things to you. That's not what I meant at ALL,
> but as long as that word invokes different MEANINGS on your side of the fence,
> then using that word is NOT effective and is NOT communicating the same thing to you that I mean.
> 
> So if I am going to communicate and reach an agreement with you,
> yes,the words we use matter. They have to mean the same things on both
> sides or people end up talking past each other.
> 
> It's almost like two different dialects or languages
> when people don't mean the same things by the same words.
> 
> I notice this with religion and politics, that the issues of words
> conveying different meanings causes a lot of offense when people don't realize it.
> 
> Sorry this is so frustrating to you, but believe me
> the frustration is mutual.  Most of my other friends who are conservatives
> have plumb given up on liberals, cannot understand or communicate,
> and have even decided liberalism must be a "mental disorder"
> because they just can't make sense of the mentality.
> 
> So it's at least mutual.
Click to expand...

Emily, we rerepeat - only YOU are trying to put changes/differences into effect.  

You lost in in your opening sentence here:

"States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state."

That flies in the face of the law.   There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE. Wrap your mind around it.  There is ONLY MARRIAGE.   In your church, with your conservative friends, feel free to call it greens n chitlins or fatback and beans if you want.  In your church, you can even claim they aren't really married (in the eyes of your church only).   Just realize, once you walk through that door, the Constitution kicks in, full force and effect.  Two people can get married.   PERIOD.  Comprende?


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.
> 
> Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.
> 
> We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.
> 
> Let me put it another way.
> 
> I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire  civil institution that I want-  because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Syriusly
> for the analogy about pork and Muslims,
> it's more like this:.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you just ignored what I said.
> 
> As I am now going to ignore what you said.
> 
> We do not end government licensing just because a religious group doesn't believe in what the license is for.
> 
> 
> We do not stop driver's licenses just because the Amish think driving a car is wrong
> We do not stop licensing a pig slaughterhouse just because Jews and Muslims think eating pig is wrong.
> We do not close all slaughterhouses just because Hindu's think killing animals is wrong.
> We do not stop licensing bars because Southern Baptists and Mormons think drinking alcohol is wrong.
> See the pattern here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, we aren't "stopping" the licensing Syriusly but
> refining it to be just about the CIVIL contracts, as Faun pointed out is the intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, that's all marriage has been about - it's ALWAYS BEEN a civil contract.  Why can't you just admit that?   The fact that you or anyone else, of any religion wish to add an entire other ceremony on top of the CIVIL MARRIAGE is of no impact to ANYONE ELSE.  It's JUST ABOUT THE CONTRACT.   Feel free to read Texas law, if you think it's anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's great if we can get everyone to agree to that!
> 
> However Sneekin if there really were NO additional issues attached,
> then people would have no problem substituting civil unions for marriage
> if it truly is just the secular relationship.
> 
> Among my friends and their friends, there are many who are fine either way,
> but since not everyone agrees, they are perfectly fine with sticking with civil unions
> and not HAVING to call this marriage in the govt process. People are free to call themselves
> married and that doesn't change.
> 
> In fact, in Texas, we'd have MORE freedom to declare married or not,
> because right now if you announce or present yourself as married,
> and that makes it formal, then the law requires you to go through the state to get divorced.
> Even if you never FORMALLY got married. Certain things like announcing it can be
> grounds for establishing common law marriage.
> 
> but if the declaration of marriage personally is separate from the civil licensing
> through the state that requires dissolution if separating or divorcing,
> then people would have MORE freedom to marry and unmarry WITHOUT going through the state.
> 
> The licensing and civil contracts and dissolutions and changes would remain through the state.
> So if you never set those up, then you never have to go through a formal legal divorce.
> 
> Just like hooking up as boyfriend and girlfriend, and then separating when you both agree to,
> you'd have more freedom without the state getting involved in when you joined and when you unjoined.
Click to expand...

SIGHHHHHH.........EMILY, EMILY, EMILY.....
There really are no additional issues involved, no matter how much you lie, cajole, or try to mislead. A Good example of that is boyfriend / girlfriend - hint - you don't have a clue - remember those 1138 additional rights?  You lost at least 1130 of them, if not 1135.   And civil unions require civil divorces, just as marriage requires a divorce.  You seem confused on this subject. If you are Catholic, and get your marriage annulled, you still have to go and get either a divorce or legal annulment.   Even though, Emily, the subject is whether or not gay marriage is a civil right, it's not about what you and your friends think it is, or how you and your friends are hell-bent on trying to circumvent federal laws.

Declaration of marriage is a requirement.  It's a matter of public record.  There's a physical license for it. The exception is common law marriage, which has been banned in all but 8 states.  Look for Texas to lose it soon, as  Common Law Marriage in is allowed in only specific circumstances (Tex. Family Law §1.101; Tex. Family Law §2.401-2.402). Most of the other 7 states have specific rules for them to be valid as well.  Even common-law marriages have been known to reek havoc with other state and federal laws, and still requires a legal divorce if it is recognized as a valid marriage.  Yes, even in Texas.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is in the marriage business...
> 
> They certify it and make it legal
> They provide tax breaks
> They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
> They supervise the dissolution of marriage
> 
> What do you want them to stop doing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
> because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
> such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
> and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
> choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.
> 
> Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
> or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
> and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
> due to their beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't make laws based on peoples' feelings or religious objections. If we did, capital punishment would be unconstitutional, pork would be banned, cotton/wool blends would be punishable, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Faun I also believe in separating funding for the death penalty
> so people can have a free choice but it doesn't impose on other people's choice of funding.
> 
> This would take a lot of the "emotional hype" out of election campaigns
> if all issues were resolved one by one instead of lumped together,
> voting for one party to dominate while the other in the minority risks losing representation.
> 
> *A lot of fear based bullying going on now would be eliminated
> if we based laws on consensus or separation by party so everyone
> is equally represented and not forced to fund the beliefs of others.*
> 
> As for fabric, by the time the Greens Democrats and Social Workers
> organize labor pools and worker owned coops and business networks,
> maybe we will see more locally grown "hemp" fabric and/or whatever is more sustainable.
> maybe we won't rely so much on foreign slave labor for clothing and electronic devices
> if we organize labor and factories as campuses providing education, health care and housing
> as part of work-study programs to ensure students and workers have protection from abuse,
> even if working for barter or credit, or lower training wages in exchange for low cost housing and services.
> 
> *Religious beliefs and objections are part of how people express consent or dissent.
> I believe the right solutions will satisfy people's standards regardless if these are expressed religiously, politically, spiritually or by secular laws, business models, etc.*
> Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is complete and utter nonsense. We don't have two sets of laws; one for Democrats and one for Republicans.  Either laws are Constitutional or they're not. They're not Constitutional for one party but unconstitutional for another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun if the Democratic platform seeks to BAN reparative therapy but DEFEND the free choice of abortion and gender change procedures for minors; while the Republican platform seeks to DEFEND the free choice of reparative therapy and BAN abortion and gender surgery for minors,
> then we ARE dealing with two polar opposite political BELIEFS.
> 
> collectively these can be considered Political Religions:
> one in promoting social and general welfare through govt as its major focus and rule
> AND
> one in promoted LIMITED federal govt where national defense is its unique role (and most other social functions can or should be done outside so it doesn't bog down govt in bureaucratic waste interfering with govt duties)
> 
> So YES Faun it WOULD or SHOULD BE UNCONSTITITIONAL for one group to IMPOSE or ESTABLISH its BELIEFS as a national religion for ALL the public to be COMPELLED to pay taxes under and comply with!
> 
> But guess what, that's what Obama did in enforcing ACA mandates and declaring
> the belief in "health care as right" as the "law of the land"
> offending people who BELIEVE in putting the Constitution first as the law of the land,
> and requiring state ratified AMENDMENTS before granting any such authority to federal govt.
> 
> (The federal exchanges and mandated insurance in essence constitute a FAITH BASED system that people either BELIEVE in or DON'T. these aren't proven or disproven, so both positions for or against this system are FAITH BASED. and yet our govt REQUIRES participation and funding, and this isn't a choice, even though it is AGAINST people's beliefs and faith in limited govt and free market health care!)
> 
> so yes, we ARE dealing with political beliefs and religions if you consider the whole set as one system,
> and we ARE dealing with political leaders and lobbies seeking to IMPOSE THESE AS LAW
> whether "right to life"
> or "right to health care"
> FOR THE WHOLE NATION
> 
> (AND YES I DO BELIEVE THAT SHOULD BE BARRED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!)
Click to expand...

You are wrong here as well.  Abortion is legal.  Reparative Therapy is currently banned for children under 18.   How do you arrive that these two laws are establishing a religion?  BTW, Gender Change isn't done on minors, normally, unless it's in the case of Intersexed children. HRT can start, puberty blockers can start.  But that isn't gender change.  This cannot be construed as political religions, as they are applicable to all.  Conservatives want to ban abortion, and require reparative therapy (perhaps), Democrats want business as usual.  Not a religion.  In fact, you are once again making up facts.  Fortunately, no one is imposing religion on anyone.  Abortion is the law of the land for now.   It would have to have the SCOTUS overturn the law, which is highly unlikely.  Only more restrictive measures could be applied.  

Obama didn't enforce anything - it's not his job.  It's the job of the congressmen - which, YOU ELECTED.  Health care is not faith based. Get over yourself.  I wish I knew what article you read - I'd rip it up.  

Free market health care has made millionaires into billionaires.   It's made the poor more poor.  And the upper middle is now the lower middle class. For some reason, you think that this would all magically work when the ACA went into effect.  Things take time.   I'd much rather have my tax bill cut in half, because I'm not paying for people to go to the ER for treatment (they now have Medicaid/MediCAL, etc), or some other ACA option, and have my tax bill at least twice as much.   Do you even have a clue as to the costs of having that cough treated in the ER versus a Redi-Med facility?  On the magnitude of 10-100 times more.  But - I digress, as do you. Stay on topic.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy
> 
> If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
> 
> If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
> 
> What is not fair about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
> yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
> 
> but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
> that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.
> 
> Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.
> 
> We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.
> 
> Let me put it another way.
> 
> I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire  civil institution that I want-  because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Syriusly it's not doing away with it. It's giving people the *choice* of either opening up the sake process for all people, or of changing it to just civil unions for all people and stick to just the secular contracts and remove the social attachments. People can CHOOSE to have marriage in addition, but there is no reason for govt to require a particular kind of social relationship in order to get a license and benefits for a civil partnership that is secular only.
> 
> At least give people that choice of how much to put into govt laws and language and how much to leave private. Either all people of a state agree, or they privatize the parts they don't agree to open up to all peopleas the policy thats going to be public..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily- nothing prevents a state from ending all civil marriage. States are not required to have legal marriage- only that if they do have legal marriage they must provide it equally to all.
> 
> If you want your state to end legal marriage and replace it with civil unions then of course you are free to pursue that.
> 
> I just want to point out that the vast majority of married people want to be legally married- not to be 'civilly united"- what you propose would not bring about consensus- but again someone imposing their decision on others- for example my legal marriage would end- and either be- or not be- replaced by something else i do not want.
> 
> I am quite happy with the state of marriage as it is with regards to access to marriage. Now if we can just get everyone- straight and gay- to treat marriage with more respect- as a life long commitment- rather than serial monogamy- that would be worthwhile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Sneekin according to Faun et al
> the point of marriage through the state IS the CIVIL contracts only.
> 
> So that would continue through the state.
> 
> And the best way to teach people to respect relationships is
> to treat ALL relationships as lifetime commitments.
> That can't be mandated by govt, but has to be taught by
> example experience and free choice.  Totally a personal
> responsibility and process that people must decide on their own.
Click to expand...

So - let me see - we just print more money to pay for your changes?   You'll never get the laws changed to drop marriage - sorry.   Marriage should be lifetime, but it doesn't have to be.  Syrius, Faun and I all three told you the point of marriage through the state IS the CIVIL contracts only.  You are obviously clueless as to rights granted at the state and federal level, that are leveraged by the poor, who need them, by the middle class, and even the 1 percenters.   Yes, Even Donald Trump would file married.........Why are you so hell bent on making these changes.....it's really sad and pathetic.   That and the fact it would never make it through the Supreme Court.....


----------



## Sneekin

*Emily - you said:*

"What I was saying is the pattern of the laws that are being contested
a. marriage laws were already crossing the line with church and state
b. LGBT rights were introduced to change the terms of those laws
c. since not all people agree, it isn't fixed just by changing the terms."

*Sneekin said: *
Pretty simple here, Emily
a.  Give me an example of where civil crossed the line with church and state?  That would mean that the state would be able to order churches to perform wedding that violate their religious beliefs.  This is a lie.
b.  LGBT rights were introduced to change the terms of those laws.  WRONG.  Prior to Obergefell/Windsor, the laws state Marriage was between two people, one male, one female (I'm paraphrasing, Emily).  Those ruling found the phrase (one man, one woman) violated the 14th amendment of the constitution.  This was REMOVED.  NO LGBT RIGHTS WERE ADDED INTO Texas Law or any other's state law.  You lied.
c.  Since not all people agree, it isn't fixed just by changing the terms " - as someone else put to you, hows that no negroes sign working out for you?  FIrst of all, we are NOT a democracy, but a constitutional republic.  We don't vote on everything.  Second:   No law was made.   YOUR LAW in TEXAS was found ILLEGAL, and the SCOTUS invalidated those words.   It makes no difference whether or not you, your friends, or anyone else agrees.   According to the US Constitution, it most certainly was fixed just by striking the invalid portion of the law. So, that statement was also a lie.  You are wrong, 3 out of 3.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.
> 
> Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.
> 
> We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.
> 
> Let me put it another way.
> 
> I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire  civil institution that I want-  because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Syriusly
> for the analogy about pork and Muslims,
> it's more like this:.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you just ignored what I said.
> 
> As I am now going to ignore what you said.
> 
> We do not end government licensing just because a religious group doesn't believe in what the license is for.
> 
> 
> We do not stop driver's licenses just because the Amish think driving a car is wrong
> We do not stop licensing a pig slaughterhouse just because Jews and Muslims think eating pig is wrong.
> We do not close all slaughterhouses just because Hindu's think killing animals is wrong.
> We do not stop licensing bars because Southern Baptists and Mormons think drinking alcohol is wrong.
> See the pattern here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, we aren't "stopping" the licensing Syriusly but
> refining it to be just about the CIVIL contracts, as Faun pointed out is the intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, that's all marriage has been about - it's ALWAYS BEEN a civil contract.  Why can't you just admit that?   The fact that you or anyone else, of any religion wish to add an entire other ceremony on top of the CIVIL MARRIAGE is of no impact to ANYONE ELSE.  It's JUST ABOUT THE CONTRACT.   Feel free to read Texas law, if you think it's anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Syriusly
> I think we must be talking past each other.
> Here Faun and Sneekin are saying the same thing
> that govt is only about the civil contract part of marraige.
> 
> So Syriusly how is this "ending marriage or taking rights away"
> if it's just everyone AGREEING on language and terms that CLARIFY
> govt licenses are only about the civil contracts and nothing to do with terms on the Social relationships?
Click to expand...

SImply put, you've asked, we've all answered you - repeatedly.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't make laws based on peoples' feelings or religious objections. If we did, capital punishment would be unconstitutional, pork would be banned, cotton/wool blends would be punishable, etc...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Faun I also believe in separating funding for the death penalty
> so people can have a free choice but it doesn't impose on other people's choice of funding.
> 
> This would take a lot of the "emotional hype" out of election campaigns
> if all issues were resolved one by one instead of lumped together,
> voting for one party to dominate while the other in the minority risks losing representation.
> 
> *A lot of fear based bullying going on now would be eliminated
> if we based laws on consensus or separation by party so everyone
> is equally represented and not forced to fund the beliefs of others.*
> 
> As for fabric, by the time the Greens Democrats and Social Workers
> organize labor pools and worker owned coops and business networks,
> maybe we will see more locally grown "hemp" fabric and/or whatever is more sustainable.
> maybe we won't rely so much on foreign slave labor for clothing and electronic devices
> if we organize labor and factories as campuses providing education, health care and housing
> as part of work-study programs to ensure students and workers have protection from abuse,
> even if working for barter or credit, or lower training wages in exchange for low cost housing and services.
> 
> *Religious beliefs and objections are part of how people express consent or dissent.
> I believe the right solutions will satisfy people's standards regardless if these are expressed religiously, politically, spiritually or by secular laws, business models, etc.*
> Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is complete and utter nonsense. We don't have two sets of laws; one for Democrats and one for Republicans.  Either laws are Constitutional or they're not. They're not Constitutional for one party but unconstitutional for another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun if the Democratic platform seeks to BAN reparative therapy but DEFEND the free choice of abortion and gender change procedures for minors; while the Republican platform seeks to DEFEND the free choice of reparative therapy and BAN abortion and gender surgery for minors,
> then we ARE dealing with two polar opposite political BELIEFS.
> 
> collectively these can be considered Political Religions:
> one in promoting social and general welfare through govt as its major focus and rule
> AND
> one in promoted LIMITED federal govt where national defense is its unique role (and most other social functions can or should be done outside so it doesn't bog down govt in bureaucratic waste interfering with govt duties)
> 
> So YES Faun it WOULD or SHOULD BE UNCONSTITITIONAL for one group to IMPOSE or ESTABLISH its BELIEFS as a national religion for ALL the public to be COMPELLED to pay taxes under and comply with!
> 
> But guess what, that's what Obama did in enforcing ACA mandates and declaring
> the belief in "health care as right" as the "law of the land"
> offending people who BELIEVE in putting the Constitution first as the law of the land,
> and requiring state ratified AMENDMENTS before granting any such authority to federal govt.
> 
> (The federal exchanges and mandated insurance in essence constitute a FAITH BASED system that people either BELIEVE in or DON'T. these aren't proven or disproven, so both positions for or against this system are FAITH BASED. and yet our govt REQUIRES participation and funding, and this isn't a choice, even though it is AGAINST people's beliefs and faith in limited govt and free market health care!)
> 
> so yes, we ARE dealing with political beliefs and religions if you consider the whole set as one system,
> and we ARE dealing with political leaders and lobbies seeking to IMPOSE THESE AS LAW
> whether "right to life"
> or "right to health care"
> FOR THE WHOLE NATION
> 
> (AND YES I DO BELIEVE THAT SHOULD BE BARRED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are free to believe anything you like; but fortunately for the rest of us, your beliefs, being counter to how laws are actually enforced, bear no resemblance to reality. There is only one law for everyone. We don't enforce laws differently based on personal beliefs but on constitutionality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> by what you posed Faun I would agree
> if that if the Republicans don't agree to a law because they say it's unconstitutional because it violates
> their beliefs, then it IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL and that law should NOT be enforced but changed.
> if the Democrats don't agree to a law because they argue it's unconstitutional because it violates
> their beliefs, same thing, it should be struck down or changed until both sides AGREE it is constitutional!
> 
> the problem Faun is we have DEMOCRATS insisting ACA and health care laws are constitutional
> because THEY BELIEVE govt should be the central default for managing health care "as a right"
> while REPUBLICANS insist it ISN'T constitutional and needs to be revised.
> 
> So I agree with you, since there is only one law, then if people don't agree because of their beliefs,
> that law CANNOT be enforced as "law for all people"
> 
> We SHOULD use that standard of satisfying ALL parties and people's beliefs
> before claiming to establish a law that touches on those beliefs.
> 
> Then we WOULDN'T have one group saying it's the law
> and the other saying it violates law. We've got that going on now
> because we don't finish the process of resolving conflicts to AGREE on one law!
Click to expand...

Holyfuckingshit! 

No, Emily, laws are not unconstitutional because either party believes they are. Even worse for your nonsense, laws are not deemed constitutional because both parties agree to that.

What country do you live in that you believe that nonsense.

At the state and federal level, both parties pass laws. Sometimes in agreement, sometimes not. Constitutionality of laws passed is not even in question. ALL laws are considered constitutional when passed and remain so until challenged within the judicial branch of our government. If a law is determined to be unconstitutional, that judgement is rendered by the presiding judge(s), not the political parties, as you asininely believe.

I believe Sneekin claims to be an attorney. He can correct me if I'm mistaken.

This post of yours fully explains why you're so wrong in your arguments and why you have failed miserably to convince anyone to accept your position -- you have no fucking clue what you're spouting. Like Sbiker's idiocy about why some Jews don't eat pork, I don't even know where you come up with this shit.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.
> 
> Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.
> 
> We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.
> 
> Let me put it another way.
> 
> I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire  civil institution that I want-  because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Syriusly
> for the analogy about pork and Muslims,
> it's more like this:.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you just ignored what I said.
> 
> As I am now going to ignore what you said.
> 
> We do not end government licensing just because a religious group doesn't believe in what the license is for.
> 
> 
> We do not stop driver's licenses just because the Amish think driving a car is wrong
> We do not stop licensing a pig slaughterhouse just because Jews and Muslims think eating pig is wrong.
> We do not close all slaughterhouses just because Hindu's think killing animals is wrong.
> We do not stop licensing bars because Southern Baptists and Mormons think drinking alcohol is wrong.
> See the pattern here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, we aren't "stopping" the licensing Syriusly but
> refining it to be just about the CIVIL contracts, as Faun pointed out is the intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, that's all marriage has been about - it's ALWAYS BEEN a civil contract.  Why can't you just admit that?   The fact that you or anyone else, of any religion wish to add an entire other ceremony on top of the CIVIL MARRIAGE is of no impact to ANYONE ELSE.  It's JUST ABOUT THE CONTRACT.   Feel free to read Texas law, if you think it's anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Syriusly
> I think we must be talking past each other.
> Here Faun and Sneekin are saying the same thing
> that govt is only about the civil contract part of marraige.
> 
> So Syriusly how is this "ending marriage or taking rights away"
> if it's just everyone AGREEING on language and terms that CLARIFY
> govt licenses are only about the civil contracts and nothing to do with terms on the Social relationships?
Click to expand...

You never answered my question -- *do you believe Churches should do away with marriages?*


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right
> 
> Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
> Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
> 
> What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger with Faith-Based laws, yes, people would have to agree
> or else all it takes is one atheist or nonbeliever in that thing to protest that
> govt should not establish a faith based bias or belief,  and by principle that bias should be removed.
> 
> A good example of a faith based concept people happen to agree on:
> JUSTICE
> Even though this is completely faith-based and never proven or established as existing,
> people have faith in it and AGREE to use these terms in our laws
> and even inscribe them on public buildings.
> Nobody complains because we AGREE on this even though it is FAITH BASED.
> 
> But when it comes to retributive justice and restorative justice,
> no, people do not agree. thus we have fights going on over
> the death penalty and taxpayers funding life imprisonment instead of executions etc.
> I am asking to separate funding on that issue also!
> 
> Similar with abortion.
> We generally agree murder is unlawful and punishable as a crime.
> but some people believe abortion is murder, and others do not.
> Until we agree on how to write or separate laws,
> groups have be en fighting over this to defend their beliefs from each other's.
> 
> How cruel is this suffering and how long are we going to let it go on,
> knowing neither side agrees to biases in laws by the other?
> 
> That's why I argue to separate funding by party,
> set up separate representation and programs where people
> do not feel threatened by any other group dictating their beliefs.
> If political and/or religious beliefs prevent agreement on public laws,
> then set up separate means similar to private religious schools
> and treat partisan programs like private religious programs.
> So people can get the same tax breaks for investing in their
> own policies if the rest of the public doesn't agree to fund them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US does not have faith based laws nor should it
> 
> Why can't you answer the simple questions I asked?
> Why do I get a 300 word diatribe on something unrelated to what I posted?
> 
> Now.....
> Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
> Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
> 
> What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rightwinger they have to agree with each other
> where marriage or other beliefs get mixed in with public policy
> 
> I don't have a say in other state laws, but I can have equal
> voice in Texas law or Houston or Democratic Party if that's how we decide how to manage policies
> and benefits. I prefer by party, but others may want it through state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even on this you are wrong.   The Democratic Party can outlaw gay marriage, Emily can outlaw gay marriage, Houston can outlaw gay marriage, and Texas can outlaw gay marriage.   Of course,  you don't have an equal voice, if you think that your voice means anything in this case.  It violates FEDERAL law.  I don't care how you manage policies.  If you are the lone voice in the wilderness, you "might" be heard (but not by the entire state, and probably not even by all of Houston), but it has ZERO effect on the outcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, by natural laws, we make laws by consent of the governed.
> 
> So if people wanted to "outlaw gay marriage" it would have to be by consensus
> of all the people under that law, and could not apply to people outside that jurisdiction and representation.
> 
> Or else it violates natural laws.
> Sneekin
> 
> That's why we can't outlaw abortion because it would violate consent of people affected by those laws.
> Only if there was a consensus and everyone AGREED what exactly to ban,
> then we could make such a law as enforceable.
> Otherwise it won't work because it's going against human nature.
Click to expand...

Emily, it's been pointed out to you repeatedly - There is no gay marriage.  There is no way to outlaw gay marriage.  And no, you can't do it by consensus.  You have absolutely NO CLUE how laws work.  

FIrst of all, it takes a majority (simple majority or more) to pass or change a law.  It doesn't require the consensus of all the people - that is simply laughable.  In fact, you are wrong on applicability - the jurisdiction is the entire US, and representation are ALL US CITIZENS.  

Abortion probably won't, but could be outlawed.  Again, it doesn't require the consent of the people affected by the law, it doesn't require a consensus, and it doesn't required everyone to agree to anything.  WRONG AGAIN.   When another abortion case makes it to the SCOTUS, the court can rule and restrict it, no matter what you said.   It can also be banned by constitutional amendment - you need to read up on that process.  That would probably take at least 10 years, and more than likely wouldn't have enough votes to pass.  Sorry, this post of yours was wrong as well.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin I looked everywhere and can't find your message
> where you said it's impossible to sue the Democrats to repay costs and fix problems
> caused by DOMA or ACA "because how can you tell who are members"
> 
> The reply I wanted to post is that corrections and reimbursement are
> VOLUNTARY. the same way people choose affiliation freely, then
> choosing to side with the corrections or not is up to people.
> 
> That will show who is really in charge of govt.
> Whoever takes responsibility for fixing problems and managing the costs.
> 
> So this would separate the sheep from the goats.
> The people who lead will lead and those who follow will follow.


Won't be addressed - this is so off topic it's not even funny.  This is about marriage, you are babbling about the ACA.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy
> 
> If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
> 
> If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
> 
> What is not fair about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
> yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
> 
> but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
> that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.
> 
> Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.
> 
> We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.
> 
> Let me put it another way.
> 
> I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire  civil institution that I want-  because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Syriusly
> for the analogy about pork and Muslims,
> it's more like this:.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you just ignored what I said.
> 
> As I am now going to ignore what you said.
> 
> We do not end government licensing just because a religious group doesn't believe in what the license is for.
> 
> 
> We do not stop driver's licenses just because the Amish think driving a car is wrong
> We do not stop licensing a pig slaughterhouse just because Jews and Muslims think eating pig is wrong.
> We do not close all slaughterhouses just because Hindu's think killing animals is wrong.
> We do not stop licensing bars because Southern Baptists and Mormons think drinking alcohol is wrong.
> See the pattern here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, we aren't "stopping" the licensing Syriusly but
> refining it to be just about the CIVIL contracts, as Faun pointed out is the intent.
Click to expand...


Marriage licenses are just about CIVIL contracts.


----------



## Syriusly

Sneekin said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are lots of societies allowing same sex marriage now.
> 
> Most of the western world as a matter of fact.
> 
> But hey- you are in luck- the Islamic world does not allow same sex marriage- but do allow polygamy(which is as ancient as marriage is).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in Neitherlands, in 2001. Tell me about "no problems" from this marriages fifty years after
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in the Netherlands in 2001. First gay marriage in the United States was in 2004.
> Tell me what problems has this caused in the last 11-15 years.
> 
> But don't worry- if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Syriusly, that's not even true any more.  There are lots of gay Muslims, including Gay Imams - right here in the US of A - and gay Muslims get married either civilly or by an Imam.
> 
> Back story: Imam Daayiee Abdullah is the first America’s openly gay Muslim, and he performs same-sex marriages for gay Muslims. (published 2013)
> 
> I think you'll make his head explode though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to the Muslim countries of the world. I am not aware of a single country where Islam is the official religion that allows 'gay marriage'.
> 
> Muslims, straight or gay, can marry who they choose in the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Muslims can marry whoever they want in many other countries, however.  What you are saying is the same as saying Catholics can only marry opposite sex Catholics in the Country of Vatican City.   Any country that allows SSM allows the marriage between LGBT Muslims.
Click to expand...


Not really- and while I generally agree with your points, please don't say what I am saying- I do say what I am saying 

I was responding to the discussion on societies and gay marriage. 

SSM marriage is now recognized in most Western countries- in most countries that we would consider the 'First world', the countries with the most religious freedom, with the highest standard of learning.

The countries that have moved to make SSM illegal- or keep it illegal- are among the most corrupt, repressive countries in the world- the ones with the least religious freedom and low standards of living. 

Yet there are Americans who think that those countries are the ones America should emulate.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right
> 
> Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
> Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
> 
> What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger with Faith-Based laws, yes, people would have to agree
> or else all it takes is one atheist or nonbeliever in that thing to protest that
> govt should not establish a faith based bias or belief,  and by principle that bias should be removed.
> 
> A good example of a faith based concept people happen to agree on:
> JUSTICE
> Even though this is completely faith-based and never proven or established as existing,
> people have faith in it and AGREE to use these terms in our laws
> and even inscribe them on public buildings.
> Nobody complains because we AGREE on this even though it is FAITH BASED.
> 
> But when it comes to retributive justice and restorative justice,
> no, people do not agree. thus we have fights going on over
> the death penalty and taxpayers funding life imprisonment instead of executions etc.
> I am asking to separate funding on that issue also!
> 
> Similar with abortion.
> We generally agree murder is unlawful and punishable as a crime.
> but some people believe abortion is murder, and others do not.
> Until we agree on how to write or separate laws,
> groups have be en fighting over this to defend their beliefs from each other's.
> 
> How cruel is this suffering and how long are we going to let it go on,
> knowing neither side agrees to biases in laws by the other?
> 
> That's why I argue to separate funding by party,
> set up separate representation and programs where people
> do not feel threatened by any other group dictating their beliefs.
> If political and/or religious beliefs prevent agreement on public laws,
> then set up separate means similar to private religious schools
> and treat partisan programs like private religious programs.
> So people can get the same tax breaks for investing in their
> own policies if the rest of the public doesn't agree to fund them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US does not have faith based laws nor should it
> 
> Why can't you answer the simple questions I asked?
> Why do I get a 300 word diatribe on something unrelated to what I posted?
> 
> Now.....
> Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
> Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
> 
> What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rightwinger they have to agree with each other
> where marriage or other beliefs get mixed in with public policy
> 
> I don't have a say in other state laws, but I can have equal
> voice in Texas law or Houston or Democratic Party if that's how we decide how to manage policies
> and benefits. I prefer by party, but others may want it through state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even on this you are wrong.   The Democratic Party can outlaw gay marriage, Emily can outlaw gay marriage, Houston can outlaw gay marriage, and Texas can outlaw gay marriage.   Of course,  you don't have an equal voice, if you think that your voice means anything in this case.  It violates FEDERAL law.  I don't care how you manage policies.  If you are the lone voice in the wilderness, you "might" be heard (but not by the entire state, and probably not even by all of Houston), but it has ZERO effect on the outcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, by natural laws, we make laws by consent of the governed.
> 
> So if people wanted to "outlaw gay marriage" it would have to be by consensus
> of all the people under that law, and could not apply to people outside that jurisdiction and representation.
> 
> Or else it violates natural laws.
> Sneekin
> 
> That's why we can't outlaw abortion because it would violate consent of people affected by those laws.
> Only if there was a consensus and everyone AGREED what exactly to ban,
> then we could make such a law as enforceable.
> Otherwise it won't work because it's going against human nature.
Click to expand...


Abortion has been outlawed before- the only reason it is not banned in many states is because of the Supreme Court. 

Just as mixed race marriages were outlawed and same gender marriages were outlawed.

All with the support of the majority.

Our system does not rely upon consensus for anything- and for good reason. While consensus is a grand idea- outside of relatively small groups it is virtually impossible to attain. There will always be those who oppose something or anything. There will always be contrarians. You know- the guys in every election who writes the 'con' arguments for even initiatives that are wildly popular with most voters. 

We have a legislative process to make laws- that does not require a consensus- but a majority.
We have a judicial process to decide on the constitutionality of the laws- and that has nothing do with majority or consensus.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.
> 
> Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.
> 
> We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.
> 
> Let me put it another way.
> 
> I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire  civil institution that I want-  because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Syriusly
> for the analogy about pork and Muslims,
> it's more like this:.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you just ignored what I said.
> 
> As I am now going to ignore what you said.
> 
> We do not end government licensing just because a religious group doesn't believe in what the license is for.
> 
> 
> We do not stop driver's licenses just because the Amish think driving a car is wrong
> We do not stop licensing a pig slaughterhouse just because Jews and Muslims think eating pig is wrong.
> We do not close all slaughterhouses just because Hindu's think killing animals is wrong.
> We do not stop licensing bars because Southern Baptists and Mormons think drinking alcohol is wrong.
> See the pattern here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, we aren't "stopping" the licensing Syriusly but
> refining it to be just about the CIVIL contracts, as Faun pointed out is the intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, that's all marriage has been about - it's ALWAYS BEEN a civil contract.  Why can't you just admit that?   The fact that you or anyone else, of any religion wish to add an entire other ceremony on top of the CIVIL MARRIAGE is of no impact to ANYONE ELSE.  It's JUST ABOUT THE CONTRACT.   Feel free to read Texas law, if you think it's anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Syriusly
> I think we must be talking past each other.
> Here Faun and Sneekin are saying the same thing
> that govt is only about the civil contract part of marraige.
> 
> So Syriusly how is this "ending marriage or taking rights away"
> if it's just everyone AGREEING on language and terms that CLARIFY
> govt licenses are only about the civil contracts and nothing to do with terms on the Social relationships?
Click to expand...


If you can get everyone to agree to anything let me know.

I don't agree to change the name of my marriage. I don't agree to change our form of civil marriage. I like our marriage laws. I like that same gender couples can marry each other legally just as my wife and I are legally married.

If you can get everyone to agree with me- well then that works for me.


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy
> 
> If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
> 
> If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
> 
> What is not fair about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
> yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
> 
> but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
> that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.
> 
> Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.
> 
> We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.
> 
> Let me put it another way.
> 
> I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire  civil institution that I want-  because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Syriusly
> for the analogy about pork and Muslims,
> it's more like this:.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you just ignored what I said.
> 
> As I am now going to ignore what you said.
> 
> We do not end government licensing just because a religious group doesn't believe in what the license is for.
> 
> 
> We do not stop driver's licenses just because the Amish think driving a car is wrong
> We do not stop licensing a pig slaughterhouse just because Jews and Muslims think eating pig is wrong.
> We do not close all slaughterhouses just because Hindu's think killing animals is wrong.
> We do not stop licensing bars because Southern Baptists and Mormons think drinking alcohol is wrong.
> See the pattern here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, we aren't "stopping" the licensing Syriusly but
> refining it to be just about the CIVIL contracts, as Faun pointed out is the intent.
Click to expand...


That's all the government does....enforce the CIVIL aspects of a marriage license

If you agreed to raise your children Catholic (my father did) the government does not enforce it
If you reported to your minister that you are a virgin, the government does not enforce it if you are not


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
> if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
> If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state.
> 
> Some states don't require car insurance, if the driver has "ability to pay" and can prove it.
> So in that state, the same driver with the same car is under different rules.
> 
> States like Nevada have legalized prostitution, that only applies in that state.
> 
> For national policies on health care and other social benefits,
> I recommend to my fellow progressive Democrats and Greens
> to organize by party. So people can have collective representation
> and management of resources to fund policies that correspond
> and represent beliefs in marriage, health care, prison alternatives,
> educational priorities, etc.
> 
> if not everyone agrees on social policies through federal govt.
> AND by the Platform of the Veterans Party of America
> "ALL social legislation is Unconstitutional"
> then why not manage it by party and have taxpayers
> pay directly into the programs of choice?
> 
> I know tons of progressives who believe in paying
> for education and health care instead of funding
> war and the death penalty.
> 
> Why not give taxpayers that choice?
> 
> If it's organized by party then the responsibility
> for all the terms and agreements is delegated
> to one national group to represent its members,
> similar to states being responsible for representing its citizens.
> 
> Just proportionally delegate federal budgets to allot
> money to states, and states divide it by party by
> proportion of taxpayers and taxmoney coming in.
> so if GOP do not want to pay to federal govt
> except for military, they don't get federal funds for health care
> except for VA/vets if that's all they approve.
> If Dems want singlepayer health care and no death penalty,
> then that's where their tax money goes or doesn't go.
> 
> So each pays for their share and their members
> work out their terms and conditions, from prolife
> to gay marriage, whatever they believe or don't believe in.
> 
> If states can agree, then it's done by state.
> 
> This is if the population of states CAN'T agree,
> why not create two separate tracks and let
> taxpayers choose just like we do when we
> donate to parties or vote for platforms and reps.
> 
> 
> 
> In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question
> 
> With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you  handle gay couples traveling between states?
> 
> Try to answer in less than 50 words
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered that already rightwinger
> each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
> civil marriage, civil unions.
> 
> And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
> If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.
> 
> What part of my answer did you not get
> and I will explain it again.
> 
> I answered two different ways
> 1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
> 2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
> that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
> it can be national without going through state or federal govt
> 
> There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
> nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't get it
> 
> First off...allowing same sex marriage by party or religious affiliation means gays can change religion or party in order to get married
> 
> You avoid the key issue. What happens when a married, same sex couple either travels or moves to a state where it is not recognized?
> 
> If a partner becomes seriously ill, does the spouse lose all marital rights?
> What happens to the children of a same sex marriage when they move to a state that bans it?
> If you move to a state that bans it....are you effectively divorced or just a non-person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, please address rightwinger - these sum up what we all have been saying in under 100 words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger and Sneekin
> What happens if a contractor who follows the rules in Houston or Texas
> moves to another state? Well, the other states may have different rules or regulations
> on building codes and licensing master electricians or contractors to work on jobs.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Dear Emily

You are confusing personal Constitutional rights with business regulation

A person has a 14th amendment right to equal protection under the laws. If I am a married person, I am a married person in every state. Loving vs Virginia settled that

A business is obligated to follow the rules in the municipality in which they operate. Even town by town


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Syriusly
> for the analogy about pork and Muslims,
> it's more like this:.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you just ignored what I said.
> 
> As I am now going to ignore what you said.
> 
> We do not end government licensing just because a religious group doesn't believe in what the license is for.
> 
> 
> We do not stop driver's licenses just because the Amish think driving a car is wrong
> We do not stop licensing a pig slaughterhouse just because Jews and Muslims think eating pig is wrong.
> We do not close all slaughterhouses just because Hindu's think killing animals is wrong.
> We do not stop licensing bars because Southern Baptists and Mormons think drinking alcohol is wrong.
> See the pattern here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, we aren't "stopping" the licensing Syriusly but
> refining it to be just about the CIVIL contracts, as Faun pointed out is the intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, that's all marriage has been about - it's ALWAYS BEEN a civil contract.  Why can't you just admit that?   The fact that you or anyone else, of any religion wish to add an entire other ceremony on top of the CIVIL MARRIAGE is of no impact to ANYONE ELSE.  It's JUST ABOUT THE CONTRACT.   Feel free to read Texas law, if you think it's anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Syriusly
> I think we must be talking past each other.
> Here Faun and Sneekin are saying the same thing
> that govt is only about the civil contract part of marraige.
> 
> So Syriusly how is this "ending marriage or taking rights away"
> if it's just everyone AGREEING on language and terms that CLARIFY
> govt licenses are only about the civil contracts and nothing to do with terms on the Social relationships?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can get everyone to agree to anything let me know.
> 
> I don't agree to change the name of my marriage. I don't agree to change our form of civil marriage. I like our marriage laws. I like that same gender couples can marry each other legally just as my wife and I are legally married.
> 
> If you can get everyone to agree with me- well then that works for me.
Click to expand...


Dear Syriusly That's right.
And others are saying that also.
That nobody has the right to abuse govt to change
their definition of marriage either!
AGREED!


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you just ignored what I said.
> 
> As I am now going to ignore what you said.
> 
> We do not end government licensing just because a religious group doesn't believe in what the license is for.
> 
> 
> We do not stop driver's licenses just because the Amish think driving a car is wrong
> We do not stop licensing a pig slaughterhouse just because Jews and Muslims think eating pig is wrong.
> We do not close all slaughterhouses just because Hindu's think killing animals is wrong.
> We do not stop licensing bars because Southern Baptists and Mormons think drinking alcohol is wrong.
> See the pattern here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, we aren't "stopping" the licensing Syriusly but
> refining it to be just about the CIVIL contracts, as Faun pointed out is the intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, that's all marriage has been about - it's ALWAYS BEEN a civil contract.  Why can't you just admit that?   The fact that you or anyone else, of any religion wish to add an entire other ceremony on top of the CIVIL MARRIAGE is of no impact to ANYONE ELSE.  It's JUST ABOUT THE CONTRACT.   Feel free to read Texas law, if you think it's anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Syriusly
> I think we must be talking past each other.
> Here Faun and Sneekin are saying the same thing
> that govt is only about the civil contract part of marraige.
> 
> So Syriusly how is this "ending marriage or taking rights away"
> if it's just everyone AGREEING on language and terms that CLARIFY
> govt licenses are only about the civil contracts and nothing to do with terms on the Social relationships?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can get everyone to agree to anything let me know.
> 
> I don't agree to change the name of my marriage. I don't agree to change our form of civil marriage. I like our marriage laws. I like that same gender couples can marry each other legally just as my wife and I are legally married.
> 
> If you can get everyone to agree with me- well then that works for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Syriusly That's right.
> And others are saying that also.
> That nobody has the right to abuse govt to change
> their definition of marriage either!
> AGREED!
Click to expand...


The ones who were abusing government were those insisting that the government enforce their hatred




.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Sneekin Faun rightwinger Syriusly 
Thank you SO MUCH for all your intelligent responses
articulating exactly what is going on with this law and process.

I have be en out sick, and just cheating and replying by cell phone.
but when I have time I will go back, thank or info all your points
that are informative and appreciated, and outline all your points.
This is EXACTLY what should have been addressed in reforming laws.
BEFORE DOMA was written and passed, it should have already resolved all these things.

This would be a full time job to revise laws including ACA which at this point
has at least two separate versions. BOTH can be offered as equal tracks
and let TAXPAYERS decide which to enroll and pay into. 

With marriage and civil unions, I think we could have a consensus at each state level
and possibly nationally instead of separating. 

If only some fringe groups opt out due to religious beliefs, I think that is possible
also. I certainly do not believe in forcing anyone's marriage through the state who
wants to keep theirs private.  But if people insist on having THEIR marriage through
the state, why shouldn't they be able to have that and not force everyone to do it that way?

I think this is similar to the issue over GUN regulations,
whether right to bear arms is an unrestricted right, or
how much does govt get involved in the regulations?

Because right to bear arms is written as an Amendment into the Constitution
as one of its founding principles, the right to marriage would also have to
be written as an Amendment to have the same weight.

So THAT'S why it seems so imbalanced to others looking at this
from the other perspective:
1. why do liberals insist on REMOVING a right or trying to regulate
it away if right to bear arms is WRITTEN into the Bill of Rights.
Why INSIST on the definition of "people" as "militia only"
2. Then COMPLAIN when people define marriage as "one man one woman only"
if it isn't govt's job to dictate that either!
There is no Amendment to the Constitution that state the right to marry
as a right that cannot be disparaged by the other rights by enumeration.
The right of states and persons is Amendment 10 so that can be used
to defend the BELIEFS in right to marriage, but the same standard
should also apply to BELIEFS in right to bear arms.

Faun does NOT get how one issue has anything to do with others.

But it is the whole CONTEXT of how we approach laws and govt
that is affecting how we interpret and WRITE laws.

The left and right don't even see the Second Amendment the same way
and that's a WRITTEN law.

Why not get THAT straight, and then maybe we can write an Amendment
to deal with right to marriage right to health care and other political beliefs.

If we haven't solved the issue of why people interpret the ability of govt
to regulate arms, when there IS a written Amendment on that, then
similar conflicts are happening with the ability of govt to regulate marriage.

there is something DIFFERENT in the basic core beliefs about govt
and the relation between people and authority of law that is causing
these "cross communications" preventing conflicts from getting resolved.

Lastly, the progressives have been pushing for a Peace
department that focuses on diplomatic solutions instead of war.
I have proposed to expand the Justice dept to the Dept of Justice and Peace
to work on MEDIATION and conflict resolution as a public service.

Since nobody wants other people to regulate or take away
either their right to marriage or right to bear arms, and we
don't interpret laws or govt the same way, I say this calls
for MEDIATION to work this out.  

So if anything you have convinced me we need mediation
and the govt ought to incorporate that assistance in the process
of judicial rulings, legislative reforms, and crafting executive orders
where any objections or conflicts can be resolved to prevent from
passing and rejecting, passing and rejecting, ruling and appealing
over and over because there were flaws or issues left unaddressed.

Thank you!


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you just ignored what I said.
> 
> As I am now going to ignore what you said.
> 
> We do not end government licensing just because a religious group doesn't believe in what the license is for.
> 
> 
> We do not stop driver's licenses just because the Amish think driving a car is wrong
> We do not stop licensing a pig slaughterhouse just because Jews and Muslims think eating pig is wrong.
> We do not close all slaughterhouses just because Hindu's think killing animals is wrong.
> We do not stop licensing bars because Southern Baptists and Mormons think drinking alcohol is wrong.
> See the pattern here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, we aren't "stopping" the licensing Syriusly but
> refining it to be just about the CIVIL contracts, as Faun pointed out is the intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, that's all marriage has been about - it's ALWAYS BEEN a civil contract.  Why can't you just admit that?   The fact that you or anyone else, of any religion wish to add an entire other ceremony on top of the CIVIL MARRIAGE is of no impact to ANYONE ELSE.  It's JUST ABOUT THE CONTRACT.   Feel free to read Texas law, if you think it's anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Syriusly
> I think we must be talking past each other.
> Here Faun and Sneekin are saying the same thing
> that govt is only about the civil contract part of marraige.
> 
> So Syriusly how is this "ending marriage or taking rights away"
> if it's just everyone AGREEING on language and terms that CLARIFY
> govt licenses are only about the civil contracts and nothing to do with terms on the Social relationships?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can get everyone to agree to anything let me know.
> 
> I don't agree to change the name of my marriage. I don't agree to change our form of civil marriage. I like our marriage laws. I like that same gender couples can marry each other legally just as my wife and I are legally married.
> 
> If you can get everyone to agree with me- well then that works for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Syriusly That's right.
> And others are saying that also.
> That nobody has the right to abuse govt to change
> their definition of marriage either!
> AGREED!
Click to expand...


Nobody can force anyone to agree on a definition of marriage. You can believe that marriage is the coming together of 3 women, two men and a yak- and the government cannot make you believe otherwise. 

It is not an abuse of government to provide equal protection for regulations. 
It is not an abuse of government to regulate slaughter houses, even though some Americans don't believe animals should be slaughtered.
It is not an abuse of government to license the marriages of Americans- even if they are mixed race or same gender.

Frankly I don't know what you think you are in agreement with me on.  As I said- if you want complete agreement by everybody on marriage- all you have to do is get everyone to agree with me. Because I have no intention on agreeing on something else.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Sneekin Faun rightwinger Syriusly
> Thank you SO MUCH for all your intelligent responses
> articulating exactly what is going on with this law and process.
> 
> I have be en out sick, and just cheating and replying by cell phone!



Frankly Emily I prefer short succinct answers from you- I can almost follow what point you are trying to make.

Your long responses- like this- go off on all sorts of tangents that I consider to be irrelevant and I don't bother to read.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you just ignored what I said.
> 
> As I am now going to ignore what you said.
> 
> We do not end government licensing just because a religious group doesn't believe in what the license is for.
> 
> 
> We do not stop driver's licenses just because the Amish think driving a car is wrong
> We do not stop licensing a pig slaughterhouse just because Jews and Muslims think eating pig is wrong.
> We do not close all slaughterhouses just because Hindu's think killing animals is wrong.
> We do not stop licensing bars because Southern Baptists and Mormons think drinking alcohol is wrong.
> See the pattern here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, we aren't "stopping" the licensing Syriusly but
> refining it to be just about the CIVIL contracts, as Faun pointed out is the intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, that's all marriage has been about - it's ALWAYS BEEN a civil contract.  Why can't you just admit that?   The fact that you or anyone else, of any religion wish to add an entire other ceremony on top of the CIVIL MARRIAGE is of no impact to ANYONE ELSE.  It's JUST ABOUT THE CONTRACT.   Feel free to read Texas law, if you think it's anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Syriusly
> I think we must be talking past each other.
> Here Faun and Sneekin are saying the same thing
> that govt is only about the civil contract part of marraige.
> 
> So Syriusly how is this "ending marriage or taking rights away"
> if it's just everyone AGREEING on language and terms that CLARIFY
> govt licenses are only about the civil contracts and nothing to do with terms on the Social relationships?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can get everyone to agree to anything let me know.
> 
> I don't agree to change the name of my marriage. I don't agree to change our form of civil marriage. I like our marriage laws. I like that same gender couples can marry each other legally just as my wife and I are legally married.
> 
> If you can get everyone to agree with me- well then that works for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Syriusly That's right.
> And others are saying that also.
> That nobody has the right to abuse govt to change
> their definition of marriage either!
> AGREED!
Click to expand...

No one has changed the definition of marriage.  Your people in Texas wanted to violate the 14th amendment, and illegally have a law preventing two people from getting married, which is what the definition of civil marriage is.  It was appealed through the court system, Texas fighting, all the way to the SCOTUS, where they (as other courts did as well) invalidated the phrase between "a man and a woman".  If you bothered reading your own laws regarding marriage, you would realize that  they themselves didn't change.   The state DOMA had 5 words invalidated.  Do you understand?   Do you grasp that this only affected CIVIL marriage?  Your church wedding and the weddings performed for your conservative friends were not impacted in the least.  The state did not touch a single word of your church's rules.  Try again.

Wait - I re-read your blather - you are claiming someone changed YOUR definition of marriage.  That my dear, is impossible, as your definition is only your opinion.   If the state of Texas adopted a state religion, abused government and changed the definition of marriage within the state, it certainly didn't make the news.  None of my family down there was aware of these changes - perhaps you could reference what your state religion is?  Could you tell us what your state directed to the religions within the state regarding marriage?   I know some attorneys down there (I'm sure you do as well) that would be more than willing to file suit against the state for violations of our first amendment right of freedom of religion.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Sneekin Faun rightwinger Syriusly
> Thank you SO MUCH for all your intelligent responses
> articulating exactly what is going on with this law and process.
> 
> I have be en out sick, and just cheating and replying by cell phone.
> but when I have time I will go back, thank or info all your points
> that are informative and appreciated, and outline all your points.
> This is EXACTLY what should have been addressed in reforming laws.
> BEFORE DOMA was written and passed, it should have already resolved all these things.
> 
> This would be a full time job to revise laws including ACA which at this point
> has at least two separate versions. BOTH can be offered as equal tracks
> and let TAXPAYERS decide which to enroll and pay into.
> 
> With marriage and civil unions, I think we could have a consensus at each state level
> and possibly nationally instead of separating.
> 
> If only some fringe groups opt out due to religious beliefs, I think that is possible
> also. I certainly do not believe in forcing anyone's marriage through the state who
> wants to keep theirs private.  But if people insist on having THEIR marriage through
> the state, why shouldn't they be able to have that and not force everyone to do it that way?
> 
> I think this is similar to the issue over GUN regulations,
> whether right to bear arms is an unrestricted right, or
> how much does govt get involved in the regulations?
> 
> Because right to bear arms is written as an Amendment into the Constitution
> as one of its founding principles, the right to marriage would also have to
> be written as an Amendment to have the same weight.
> 
> So THAT'S why it seems so imbalanced to others looking at this
> from the other perspective:
> 1. why do liberals insist on REMOVING a right or trying to regulate
> it away if right to bear arms is WRITTEN into the Bill of Rights.
> Why INSIST on the definition of "people" as "militia only"
> 2. Then COMPLAIN when people define marriage as "one man one woman only"
> if it isn't govt's job to dictate that either!
> There is no Amendment to the Constitution that state the right to marry
> as a right that cannot be disparaged by the other rights by enumeration.
> The right of states and persons is Amendment 10 so that can be used
> to defend the BELIEFS in right to marriage, but the same standard
> should also apply to BELIEFS in right to bear arms.
> 
> Faun does NOT get how one issue has anything to do with others.
> 
> But it is the whole CONTEXT of how we approach laws and govt
> that is affecting how we interpret and WRITE laws.
> 
> The left and right don't even see the Second Amendment the same way
> and that's a WRITTEN law.
> 
> Why not get THAT straight, and then maybe we can write an Amendment
> to deal with right to marriage right to health care and other political beliefs.
> 
> If we haven't solved the issue of why people interpret the ability of govt
> to regulate arms, when there IS a written Amendment on that, then
> similar conflicts are happening with the ability of govt to regulate marriage.
> 
> there is something DIFFERENT in the basic core beliefs about govt
> and the relation between people and authority of law that is causing
> these "cross communications" preventing conflicts from getting resolved.
> 
> Lastly, the progressives have been pushing for a Peace
> department that focuses on diplomatic solutions instead of war.
> I have proposed to expand the Justice dept to the Dept of Justice and Peace
> to work on MEDIATION and conflict resolution as a public service.
> 
> Since nobody wants other people to regulate or take away
> either their right to marriage or right to bear arms, and we
> don't interpret laws or govt the same way, I say this calls
> for MEDIATION to work this out.
> 
> So if anything you have convinced me we need mediation
> and the govt ought to incorporate that assistance in the process
> of judicial rulings, legislative reforms, and crafting executive orders
> where any objections or conflicts can be resolved to prevent from
> passing and rejecting, passing and rejecting, ruling and appealing
> over and over because there were flaws or issues left unaddressed.
> 
> Thank you!


You will note, this is not a 2nd amendment conversation, Emily.  But as the SCOTUS (Scalia, even) points out, no right is absolute.  Your 2nd amendment right does not allow you to have nuclear weapons, rocket launchers, most bombs, heavy artillery, etc.  No liberal is trying to take your rights away.  While you want the mentally ill to be weaponized (quite the outbreak of shootings in Texas from the mentally ill crowd), we want them to go through a background check to see if they psychologically are able to carry without harming themselves or others.  We don't need another Texas mom shooting her small children.  

You propose to change the DOJ to something else?  You do realize that the DOJ is a cabinet position, established  in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution.  Do you know the requirements, even, to add to or remove from Cabinet positions established by the constitution?

You claim people are trying to take away their right to marry.  The only ones that do are right wing conservative nut jobs.   *If there are others, PLEASE LIST THEM.
*
Emily, you do realize that the ACA was originally written in the mid 1990's by the conservative think tank (Heritage group), because Hillary Clinton, as first lady, was developing a health care system on it's own.   Her's didn't get implemented, and it was shelved until Romney dusted it off, tweaked and implemented it. It was constitutional.  Obama took the republican plan, gave it to the mixed Congress, and had them develop it out nationwide.  It was done.  It passed.  It went to the SCOTUS.  It was deemed constitutional, mandates and all.  Why you think you can now just make changes to a law at your own whim, without going through lawmakers is pretty laughable.  Taxpayers already can decide - they can pay cash for insurance, they can go through the exchanges, or, depending on their job, opt to keep their work insurance -so you are wrong on this point as well.

We still aren't going to have civil unions AND marriages, with SSM going under one name, and marriage other another.  Nor, marriage by a JP/Judge/non-religious being called a civil union, and church being called marriage.   That's not the legal definition, as set forth in law. Again, *Marriage is a civil contract between 2 people.  *Your church, you, and I and everyone here do not have the power to change that.  You keep claiming "the people" or "the states" can define marriage as between one man and one woman. You can't - we have that silly *Fourteenth Amendment,* that gets in your way.  *It established due process and equal rights for ALL, not SOME.* Understand?  To answer your question a 10th or 20th time, NO, a state does NOT have the right to change it.

We all recognize (apparently excluding you) that both the 2nd and 14th amendments are both Laws.  You claim liberals don't, but that's not true.  We tell you the same thing the SCOTUS said.  Both are rights, and rights are not absolute.  If you are a felon, or (in most states) mentally ill and locked away, NO GUNS FOR YOU.   That's the second amendment.  The 14th amendment says 2 people can get married.  It's not absolute.  You can't marry your father, son, or sister.  Got it?

While I believe in the right to bear arms, I know it's not absolute, and I know it's open for interpretation.  If you don't comprehend the Militia argument, it's time for you to go back to Junior High, when most people are first exposed to the concept.

The Government does have the rights to regulate arms.   Call your local FBI office, and tell them you have 300 pounds of C4 in your garage, and see how fast you are arrested.  Tell them you can have it because of your second amendment rights.  

Department of Peace?  From  2001?  Bit of a stretch, and completely off topic.


----------



## rightwinger

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin Faun rightwinger Syriusly
> Thank you SO MUCH for all your intelligent responses
> articulating exactly what is going on with this law and process.
> 
> I have be en out sick, and just cheating and replying by cell phone.
> but when I have time I will go back, thank or info all your points
> that are informative and appreciated, and outline all your points.
> This is EXACTLY what should have been addressed in reforming laws.
> BEFORE DOMA was written and passed, it should have already resolved all these things.
> 
> This would be a full time job to revise laws including ACA which at this point
> has at least two separate versions. BOTH can be offered as equal tracks
> and let TAXPAYERS decide which to enroll and pay into.
> 
> With marriage and civil unions, I think we could have a consensus at each state level
> and possibly nationally instead of separating.
> 
> If only some fringe groups opt out due to religious beliefs, I think that is possible
> also. I certainly do not believe in forcing anyone's marriage through the state who
> wants to keep theirs private.  But if people insist on having THEIR marriage through
> the state, why shouldn't they be able to have that and not force everyone to do it that way?
> 
> I think this is similar to the issue over GUN regulations,
> whether right to bear arms is an unrestricted right, or
> how much does govt get involved in the regulations?
> 
> Because right to bear arms is written as an Amendment into the Constitution
> as one of its founding principles, the right to marriage would also have to
> be written as an Amendment to have the same weight.
> 
> So THAT'S why it seems so imbalanced to others looking at this
> from the other perspective:
> 1. why do liberals insist on REMOVING a right or trying to regulate
> it away if right to bear arms is WRITTEN into the Bill of Rights.
> Why INSIST on the definition of "people" as "militia only"
> 2. Then COMPLAIN when people define marriage as "one man one woman only"
> if it isn't govt's job to dictate that either!
> There is no Amendment to the Constitution that state the right to marry
> as a right that cannot be disparaged by the other rights by enumeration.
> The right of states and persons is Amendment 10 so that can be used
> to defend the BELIEFS in right to marriage, but the same standard
> should also apply to BELIEFS in right to bear arms.
> 
> Faun does NOT get how one issue has anything to do with others.
> 
> But it is the whole CONTEXT of how we approach laws and govt
> that is affecting how we interpret and WRITE laws.
> 
> The left and right don't even see the Second Amendment the same way
> and that's a WRITTEN law.
> 
> Why not get THAT straight, and then maybe we can write an Amendment
> to deal with right to marriage right to health care and other political beliefs.
> 
> If we haven't solved the issue of why people interpret the ability of govt
> to regulate arms, when there IS a written Amendment on that, then
> similar conflicts are happening with the ability of govt to regulate marriage.
> 
> there is something DIFFERENT in the basic core beliefs about govt
> and the relation between people and authority of law that is causing
> these "cross communications" preventing conflicts from getting resolved.
> 
> Lastly, the progressives have been pushing for a Peace
> department that focuses on diplomatic solutions instead of war.
> I have proposed to expand the Justice dept to the Dept of Justice and Peace
> to work on MEDIATION and conflict resolution as a public service.
> 
> Since nobody wants other people to regulate or take away
> either their right to marriage or right to bear arms, and we
> don't interpret laws or govt the same way, I say this calls
> for MEDIATION to work this out.
> 
> So if anything you have convinced me we need mediation
> and the govt ought to incorporate that assistance in the process
> of judicial rulings, legislative reforms, and crafting executive orders
> where any objections or conflicts can be resolved to prevent from
> passing and rejecting, passing and rejecting, ruling and appealing
> over and over because there were flaws or issues left unaddressed.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> You will note, this is not a 2nd amendment conversation, Emily.  But as the SCOTUS (Scalia, even) points out, no right is absolute.  Your 2nd amendment right does not allow you to have nuclear weapons, rocket launchers, most bombs, heavy artillery, etc.  No liberal is trying to take your rights away.  While you want the mentally ill to be weaponized (quite the outbreak of shootings in Texas from the mentally ill crowd), we want them to go through a background check to see if they psychologically are able to carry without harming themselves or others.  We don't need another Texas mom shooting her small children.
> 
> You propose to change the DOJ to something else?  You do realize that the DOJ is a cabinet position, established  in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution.  Do you know the requirements, even, to add to or remove from Cabinet positions established by the constitution?
> 
> You claim people are trying to take away their right to marry.  The only ones that do are right wing conservative nut jobs.   *If there are others, PLEASE LIST THEM.
> *
> Emily, you do realize that the ACA was originally written in the mid 1990's by the conservative think tank (Heritage group), because Hillary Clinton, as first lady, was developing a health care system on it's own.   Her's didn't get implemented, and it was shelved until Romney dusted it off, tweaked and implemented it. It was constitutional.  Obama took the republican plan, gave it to the mixed Congress, and had them develop it out nationwide.  It was done.  It passed.  It went to the SCOTUS.  It was deemed constitutional, mandates and all.  Why you think you can now just make changes to a law at your own whim, without going through lawmakers is pretty laughable.  Taxpayers already can decide - they can pay cash for insurance, they can go through the exchanges, or, depending on their job, opt to keep their work insurance -so you are wrong on this point as well.
> 
> We still aren't going to have civil unions AND marriages, with SSM going under one name, and marriage other another.  Nor, marriage by a JP/Judge/non-religious being called a civil union, and church being called marriage.   That's not the legal definition, as set forth in law. Again, *Marriage is a civil contract between 2 people.  *Your church, you, and I and everyone here do not have the power to change that.  You keep claiming "the people" or "the states" can define marriage as between one man and one woman. You can't - we have that silly *Fourteenth Amendment,* that gets in your way.  *It established due process and equal rights for ALL, not SOME.* Understand?  To answer your question a 10th or 20th time, NO, a state does NOT have the right to change it.
> 
> We all recognize (apparently excluding you) that both the 2nd and 14th amendments are both Laws.  You claim liberals don't, but that's not true.  We tell you the same thing the SCOTUS said.  Both are rights, and rights are not absolute.  If you are a felon, or (in most states) mentally ill and locked away, NO GUNS FOR YOU.   That's the second amendment.  The 14th amendment says 2 people can get married.  It's not absolute.  You can't marry your father, son, or sister.  Got it?
> 
> While I believe in the right to bear arms, I know it's not absolute, and I know it's open for interpretation.  If you don't comprehend the Militia argument, it's time for you to go back to Junior High, when most people are first exposed to the concept.
> 
> The Government does have the rights to regulate arms.   Call your local FBI office, and tell them you have 300 pounds of C4 in your garage, and see how fast you are arrested.  Tell them you can have it because of your second amendment rights.
> 
> Department of Peace?  From  2001?  Bit of a stretch, and completely off topic.
Click to expand...


Why don't you two just get a room?

Both of your posts are so freak'n long


----------



## 12icer

The individual right to keep and bear arms has already been established MANY TIMES, and MANY WAYS. It is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES does not give rights to anyone, it defines the power the US government has to regulate them, and it does not define any finite group of THE PEOPLE who hold those rights. If you can find a finite group in there other than WE THE PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES. Produce it so we may all bask in the knowledge.


----------



## Faun

12icer said:


> The individual right to keep and bear arms has already been established MANY TIMES, and MANY WAYS. It is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES does not give rights to anyone, it defines the power the US government has to regulate them, and it does not define any finite group of THE PEOPLE who hold those rights. If you can find a finite group in there other than WE THE PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES. Produce it so we may all bask in the knowledge.


You sound thoroughly confused.

In your first sentence, you point out the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution gives people the right to bear arms.

In your second sentence, you claim the Constitution doesn't give us rights.


----------



## Sneekin

rightwinger said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin Faun rightwinger Syriusly
> Thank you SO MUCH for all your intelligent responses
> articulating exactly what is going on with this law and process.
> 
> I have be en out sick, and just cheating and replying by cell phone.
> but when I have time I will go back, thank or info all your points
> that are informative and appreciated, and outline all your points.
> This is EXACTLY what should have been addressed in reforming laws.
> BEFORE DOMA was written and passed, it should have already resolved all these things.
> 
> This would be a full time job to revise laws including ACA which at this point
> has at least two separate versions. BOTH can be offered as equal tracks
> and let TAXPAYERS decide which to enroll and pay into.
> 
> With marriage and civil unions, I think we could have a consensus at each state level
> and possibly nationally instead of separating.
> 
> If only some fringe groups opt out due to religious beliefs, I think that is possible
> also. I certainly do not believe in forcing anyone's marriage through the state who
> wants to keep theirs private.  But if people insist on having THEIR marriage through
> the state, why shouldn't they be able to have that and not force everyone to do it that way?
> 
> I think this is similar to the issue over GUN regulations,
> whether right to bear arms is an unrestricted right, or
> how much does govt get involved in the regulations?
> 
> Because right to bear arms is written as an Amendment into the Constitution
> as one of its founding principles, the right to marriage would also have to
> be written as an Amendment to have the same weight.
> 
> So THAT'S why it seems so imbalanced to others looking at this
> from the other perspective:
> 1. why do liberals insist on REMOVING a right or trying to regulate
> it away if right to bear arms is WRITTEN into the Bill of Rights.
> Why INSIST on the definition of "people" as "militia only"
> 2. Then COMPLAIN when people define marriage as "one man one woman only"
> if it isn't govt's job to dictate that either!
> There is no Amendment to the Constitution that state the right to marry
> as a right that cannot be disparaged by the other rights by enumeration.
> The right of states and persons is Amendment 10 so that can be used
> to defend the BELIEFS in right to marriage, but the same standard
> should also apply to BELIEFS in right to bear arms.
> 
> Faun does NOT get how one issue has anything to do with others.
> 
> But it is the whole CONTEXT of how we approach laws and govt
> that is affecting how we interpret and WRITE laws.
> 
> The left and right don't even see the Second Amendment the same way
> and that's a WRITTEN law.
> 
> Why not get THAT straight, and then maybe we can write an Amendment
> to deal with right to marriage right to health care and other political beliefs.
> 
> If we haven't solved the issue of why people interpret the ability of govt
> to regulate arms, when there IS a written Amendment on that, then
> similar conflicts are happening with the ability of govt to regulate marriage.
> 
> there is something DIFFERENT in the basic core beliefs about govt
> and the relation between people and authority of law that is causing
> these "cross communications" preventing conflicts from getting resolved.
> 
> Lastly, the progressives have been pushing for a Peace
> department that focuses on diplomatic solutions instead of war.
> I have proposed to expand the Justice dept to the Dept of Justice and Peace
> to work on MEDIATION and conflict resolution as a public service.
> 
> Since nobody wants other people to regulate or take away
> either their right to marriage or right to bear arms, and we
> don't interpret laws or govt the same way, I say this calls
> for MEDIATION to work this out.
> 
> So if anything you have convinced me we need mediation
> and the govt ought to incorporate that assistance in the process
> of judicial rulings, legislative reforms, and crafting executive orders
> where any objections or conflicts can be resolved to prevent from
> passing and rejecting, passing and rejecting, ruling and appealing
> over and over because there were flaws or issues left unaddressed.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> You will note, this is not a 2nd amendment conversation, Emily.  But as the SCOTUS (Scalia, even) points out, no right is absolute.  Your 2nd amendment right does not allow you to have nuclear weapons, rocket launchers, most bombs, heavy artillery, etc.  No liberal is trying to take your rights away.  While you want the mentally ill to be weaponized (quite the outbreak of shootings in Texas from the mentally ill crowd), we want them to go through a background check to see if they psychologically are able to carry without harming themselves or others.  We don't need another Texas mom shooting her small children.
> 
> You propose to change the DOJ to something else?  You do realize that the DOJ is a cabinet position, established  in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution.  Do you know the requirements, even, to add to or remove from Cabinet positions established by the constitution?
> 
> You claim people are trying to take away their right to marry.  The only ones that do are right wing conservative nut jobs.   *If there are others, PLEASE LIST THEM.
> *
> Emily, you do realize that the ACA was originally written in the mid 1990's by the conservative think tank (Heritage group), because Hillary Clinton, as first lady, was developing a health care system on it's own.   Her's didn't get implemented, and it was shelved until Romney dusted it off, tweaked and implemented it. It was constitutional.  Obama took the republican plan, gave it to the mixed Congress, and had them develop it out nationwide.  It was done.  It passed.  It went to the SCOTUS.  It was deemed constitutional, mandates and all.  Why you think you can now just make changes to a law at your own whim, without going through lawmakers is pretty laughable.  Taxpayers already can decide - they can pay cash for insurance, they can go through the exchanges, or, depending on their job, opt to keep their work insurance -so you are wrong on this point as well.
> 
> We still aren't going to have civil unions AND marriages, with SSM going under one name, and marriage other another.  Nor, marriage by a JP/Judge/non-religious being called a civil union, and church being called marriage.   That's not the legal definition, as set forth in law. Again, *Marriage is a civil contract between 2 people.  *Your church, you, and I and everyone here do not have the power to change that.  You keep claiming "the people" or "the states" can define marriage as between one man and one woman. You can't - we have that silly *Fourteenth Amendment,* that gets in your way.  *It established due process and equal rights for ALL, not SOME.* Understand?  To answer your question a 10th or 20th time, NO, a state does NOT have the right to change it.
> 
> We all recognize (apparently excluding you) that both the 2nd and 14th amendments are both Laws.  You claim liberals don't, but that's not true.  We tell you the same thing the SCOTUS said.  Both are rights, and rights are not absolute.  If you are a felon, or (in most states) mentally ill and locked away, NO GUNS FOR YOU.   That's the second amendment.  The 14th amendment says 2 people can get married.  It's not absolute.  You can't marry your father, son, or sister.  Got it?
> 
> While I believe in the right to bear arms, I know it's not absolute, and I know it's open for interpretation.  If you don't comprehend the Militia argument, it's time for you to go back to Junior High, when most people are first exposed to the concept.
> 
> The Government does have the rights to regulate arms.   Call your local FBI office, and tell them you have 300 pounds of C4 in your garage, and see how fast you are arrested.  Tell them you can have it because of your second amendment rights.
> 
> Department of Peace?  From  2001?  Bit of a stretch, and completely off topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you two just get a room?
> 
> Both of your posts are so freak'n long
Click to expand...

So leave these posts, if it's too challenging for you.  I'm simply answering every question she asks, or refuting literaelly every statement she makes.  I back it up with fact or cases when possible.   I see you just whine and complain it's too hard.  Why don't you get a room - by yourself?


----------



## Sbiker

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Faun I also believe in separating funding for the death penalty
> so people can have a free choice but it doesn't impose on other people's choice of funding.
> 
> This would take a lot of the "emotional hype" out of election campaigns
> if all issues were resolved one by one instead of lumped together,
> voting for one party to dominate while the other in the minority risks losing representation.
> 
> *A lot of fear based bullying going on now would be eliminated
> if we based laws on consensus or separation by party so everyone
> is equally represented and not forced to fund the beliefs of others.*
> 
> As for fabric, by the time the Greens Democrats and Social Workers
> organize labor pools and worker owned coops and business networks,
> maybe we will see more locally grown "hemp" fabric and/or whatever is more sustainable.
> maybe we won't rely so much on foreign slave labor for clothing and electronic devices
> if we organize labor and factories as campuses providing education, health care and housing
> as part of work-study programs to ensure students and workers have protection from abuse,
> even if working for barter or credit, or lower training wages in exchange for low cost housing and services.
> 
> *Religious beliefs and objections are part of how people express consent or dissent.
> I believe the right solutions will satisfy people's standards regardless if these are expressed religiously, politically, spiritually or by secular laws, business models, etc.*
> Faun
> 
> 
> 
> That is complete and utter nonsense. We don't have two sets of laws; one for Democrats and one for Republicans.  Either laws are Constitutional or they're not. They're not Constitutional for one party but unconstitutional for another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun if the Democratic platform seeks to BAN reparative therapy but DEFEND the free choice of abortion and gender change procedures for minors; while the Republican platform seeks to DEFEND the free choice of reparative therapy and BAN abortion and gender surgery for minors,
> then we ARE dealing with two polar opposite political BELIEFS.
> 
> collectively these can be considered Political Religions:
> one in promoting social and general welfare through govt as its major focus and rule
> AND
> one in promoted LIMITED federal govt where national defense is its unique role (and most other social functions can or should be done outside so it doesn't bog down govt in bureaucratic waste interfering with govt duties)
> 
> So YES Faun it WOULD or SHOULD BE UNCONSTITITIONAL for one group to IMPOSE or ESTABLISH its BELIEFS as a national religion for ALL the public to be COMPELLED to pay taxes under and comply with!
> 
> But guess what, that's what Obama did in enforcing ACA mandates and declaring
> the belief in "health care as right" as the "law of the land"
> offending people who BELIEVE in putting the Constitution first as the law of the land,
> and requiring state ratified AMENDMENTS before granting any such authority to federal govt.
> 
> (The federal exchanges and mandated insurance in essence constitute a FAITH BASED system that people either BELIEVE in or DON'T. these aren't proven or disproven, so both positions for or against this system are FAITH BASED. and yet our govt REQUIRES participation and funding, and this isn't a choice, even though it is AGAINST people's beliefs and faith in limited govt and free market health care!)
> 
> so yes, we ARE dealing with political beliefs and religions if you consider the whole set as one system,
> and we ARE dealing with political leaders and lobbies seeking to IMPOSE THESE AS LAW
> whether "right to life"
> or "right to health care"
> FOR THE WHOLE NATION
> 
> (AND YES I DO BELIEVE THAT SHOULD BE BARRED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are free to believe anything you like; but fortunately for the rest of us, your beliefs, being counter to how laws are actually enforced, bear no resemblance to reality. There is only one law for everyone. We don't enforce laws differently based on personal beliefs but on constitutionality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> by what you posed Faun I would agree
> if that if the Republicans don't agree to a law because they say it's unconstitutional because it violates
> their beliefs, then it IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL and that law should NOT be enforced but changed.
> if the Democrats don't agree to a law because they argue it's unconstitutional because it violates
> their beliefs, same thing, it should be struck down or changed until both sides AGREE it is constitutional!
> 
> the problem Faun is we have DEMOCRATS insisting ACA and health care laws are constitutional
> because THEY BELIEVE govt should be the central default for managing health care "as a right"
> while REPUBLICANS insist it ISN'T constitutional and needs to be revised.
> 
> So I agree with you, since there is only one law, then if people don't agree because of their beliefs,
> that law CANNOT be enforced as "law for all people"
> 
> We SHOULD use that standard of satisfying ALL parties and people's beliefs
> before claiming to establish a law that touches on those beliefs.
> 
> Then we WOULDN'T have one group saying it's the law
> and the other saying it violates law. We've got that going on now
> because we don't finish the process of resolving conflicts to AGREE on one law!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holyfuckingshit!
> 
> No, Emily, laws are not unconstitutional because either party believes they are. Even worse for your nonsense, laws are not deemed constitutional because both parties agree to that.
> 
> What country do you live in that you believe that nonsense.
> 
> At the state and federal level, both parties pass laws. Sometimes in agreement, sometimes not. Constitutionality of laws passed is not even in question. ALL laws are considered constitutional when passed and remain so until challenged within the judicial branch of our government. If a law is determined to be unconstitutional, that judgement is rendered by the presiding judge(s), not the political parties, as you asininely believe.
> 
> I believe Sneekin claims to be an attorney. He can correct me if I'm mistaken.
> 
> This post of yours fully explains why you're so wrong in your arguments and why you have failed miserably to convince anyone to accept your position -- you have no fucking clue what you're spouting. Like Sbiker's idiocy about why some Jews don't eat pork, I don't even know where you come up with this shit.
Click to expand...


Wait a second  I'm not afraid of be an idiot, but where did I discussed WHY some Jews don't eat pork?  Maybe almost of your "facts" to prove your position are "frying" too?


----------



## Sbiker

Syriusly said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> There's no problem for gays to have any sexual relations they want. There's no any problems for them (especially, because they're "artistic" and "creative") to develop own, gay rituals for marriage and so on (I doubt, married gays really to plan live married all remained life - as tradition of marriage generally need ). Instead of it - they performing lawyer aggression against tradition forms of marriage. They no need to have own - they only want to destroy something, they don't have. That'a a main problem, as I see...=
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are gays 'destroying' anything by spending years trying to partcipate in marriage?
> 
> My marriage was not destroyed because Emily and Trisha can now legally marry- was yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idyllic picture...  Let's continue to paint it.
> 
> Today Emily and Trisha perform legal marriage - well, let them to live happy.
> 
> Tomorrow they want children. Any parentless children - ok, it's good, let them to have.
> 
> Day after - they don't want children with unknown genetics. They want one of YOUR children. Why not - it's just another step to keep their rights.
> 
> Day after - they have a lobby to adopt law for obligatory homosexual practice. You dont' want it? "How do you know, you don't want, it's just a stereotype... Prove, you don't have stereotypes, make a homo-sex regularily"! Offcorse, it's for chilldren too...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today Jim and Sally are legally married.
> Tomorrow they want children- but Jim is infertile so they use a sperm donor- ok, it's good, let them.
> Day after- they don't want children with unknown genetics- Jim and Sally want one of your children. Why not- is just another step to keep their rights.
> Day after- they have a lobby to adopt a law prohibiting homosexual practice- oh wait- Jim and Sally did that years ago, until the courts overturned Jim and Sally telling Americans what kind of sex we are allowed to have.
> 
> Moral: Allowing Jim and Sally to marry will mean they are coming to take your children away.
Click to expand...


Ok, it's not good too, but it's very strange position. "We have a problem here - let's add here to another one". Problems must be solved, not to be hoarded. We have problems in tradition families - let's struggle for psychologist help, for control for them! It's more important... vital important for a lot of children, than a wishes of some gays - because this wishes are not needs of first like, but just a type of decoration of existing lifestyle...


----------



## Sbiker

Syriusly said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many letters!  Now I see, I'm discussing with lawyers
> 
> So what? (c) Metallica. Children really have a lot of problems in traditional families - so, let's add them another problem from homosexual? And 90% - it's because a part of this families so large, but probability of sexual abuse in homosexual families much higher...
> 
> Latin word was "Mas". "Marriage" formed in English, inherited from Latin
> 
> I could to predict much of your responces, but trying to solve problem not from lawyer sight of view, but breaking stereotypes. There are a lot of problems in both situation - to allow heterosexual of marriage or to forbid. And some of thes problems we really don't able to comprehend, because it concerns a large society phenomenons. What if our salvation will lead to demographic catastrophe in 2nd or in 3rd generation? It could be good for us, but what do you say about our grandchildren?
> 
> Maybe, it's just because US didn't have an enormous demographic losses from external aggression during all XX century, like we are...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? What would those SSM problems be?  Certainly not the same as the 90 percent of children being abused.   Here's a thought - instead of making up your facts, back them up with actual facts.
> 
> Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.
> You and Emily are looking for the word MATRIMONY - a religious ceremony joining two people together.  So have at it.   Don't get married, just as for matrimony, give up all of your tax benefits, decision making, protections for spouse and children, inheritance, survivorship, etc.  I really don't care.   But Marriage is a SECULAR term here.   Your church co-opted it, but we are talking CIVIL MARRIAGE.  CIVIL MARRIAGE is between two people.  PERIOD.  Man/Man, Woman/Woman, or Man/Woman.  Grasp that yet?
> 
> I am breaking your stereotypes. I'm almost 60.  I've got friends that were raised by their mom and "Aunt".   They were lesbians.  The kids (gen 1) are 60ish, no problems.  Well established, good incomes, etc.  Their children - 40ish - same, no different problems.  Their children (some 20ish) - no problems, out of college, working, good incomes.  The few of them with children have not claimed any problems with their lesbian mom/grandmom/great grandmom etc.  It's been checked.  This has gone on for years.  Get a Clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked
> 
> 
> 
> Really? What would those SSM problems be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and answered
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if you say, there were a lot of societies, allowing gay marriage - it will be true. So - which of this societies are living NOW? If you don't believe in religion and want scientific approach...  I would believe, SSM is progressive, useful and right - show me not a loser's example of it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are lots of societies allowing same sex marriage now.
> 
> Most of the western world as a matter of fact.
> 
> But hey- you are in luck- the Islamic world does not allow same sex marriage- but do allow polygamy(which is as ancient as marriage is).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in Neitherlands, in 2001. Tell me about "no problems" from this marriages fifty years after
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in the Netherlands in 2001. First gay marriage in the United States was in 2004.
> Tell me what problems has this caused in the last 11-15 years.
> 
> But don't worry- if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.
Click to expand...


Oh, no problems, Muslim fastfood - shaurma - is really more tasty than burgers 

Your propaganda in US now trying to mix Islam and Islamism - but really it's very different things, it could become an evil joke, if it will be continued...

p.s. 11-15 years is too few for world processes... I'm watching TV news - in 80th US used a terrible weapon against USSR - a freedom of info and opinion. USSR absorbs it as idea fully (instead of other states) - and fell. Now, after 30 years you have RT - and all your media screamed about "ideological diversion and so on" because now RT much close to truth than others  ALL thing we invented and advanced - are returned to us after some decades...


----------



## Sbiker

Sneekin said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable...
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the dumbest things I ever read here. Sorry, it just is.
> 
> _<smh>_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to mention, completely untrue.  Sbiker, perhaps you could tell us what Rabbi told you that story?  Did he also sell you a bridge to Brooklyn, as well?
Click to expand...


No, he just sold me another bridge much more closer to me - I'm waiting to visit it )


----------



## Sneekin

Sbiker said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? What would those SSM problems be?  Certainly not the same as the 90 percent of children being abused.   Here's a thought - instead of making up your facts, back them up with actual facts.
> 
> Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.
> You and Emily are looking for the word MATRIMONY - a religious ceremony joining two people together.  So have at it.   Don't get married, just as for matrimony, give up all of your tax benefits, decision making, protections for spouse and children, inheritance, survivorship, etc.  I really don't care.   But Marriage is a SECULAR term here.   Your church co-opted it, but we are talking CIVIL MARRIAGE.  CIVIL MARRIAGE is between two people.  PERIOD.  Man/Man, Woman/Woman, or Man/Woman.  Grasp that yet?
> 
> I am breaking your stereotypes. I'm almost 60.  I've got friends that were raised by their mom and "Aunt".   They were lesbians.  The kids (gen 1) are 60ish, no problems.  Well established, good incomes, etc.  Their children - 40ish - same, no different problems.  Their children (some 20ish) - no problems, out of college, working, good incomes.  The few of them with children have not claimed any problems with their lesbian mom/grandmom/great grandmom etc.  It's been checked.  This has gone on for years.  Get a Clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked
> 
> 
> 
> Really? What would those SSM problems be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and answered
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if you say, there were a lot of societies, allowing gay marriage - it will be true. So - which of this societies are living NOW? If you don't believe in religion and want scientific approach...  I would believe, SSM is progressive, useful and right - show me not a loser's example of it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are lots of societies allowing same sex marriage now.
> 
> Most of the western world as a matter of fact.
> 
> But hey- you are in luck- the Islamic world does not allow same sex marriage- but do allow polygamy(which is as ancient as marriage is).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in Neitherlands, in 2001. Tell me about "no problems" from this marriages fifty years after
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in the Netherlands in 2001. First gay marriage in the United States was in 2004.
> Tell me what problems has this caused in the last 11-15 years.
> 
> But don't worry- if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, no problems, Muslim fastfood - shaurma - is really more tasty than burgers
> 
> Your propaganda in US now trying to mix Islam and Islamism - but really it's very different things, it could become an evil joke, if it will be continued...
> 
> p.s. 11-15 years is too few for world processes... I'm watching TV news - in 80th US used a terrible weapon against USSR - a freedom of info and opinion. USSR absorbs it as idea fully (instead of other states) - and fell. Now, after 30 years you have RT - and all your media screamed about "ideological diversion and so on" because now RT much close to truth than others  ALL thing we invented and advanced - are returned to us after some decades...
Click to expand...

Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food.  Many Muslims don't eat it.  It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions.  It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all.  It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims.  The fact is, the meats used must be Halal.   Not all shawarma is Halal.  Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit.  If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.  

Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage?  Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat? 

11-15 years?  Try thousands of years.   Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember.   Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.  

Islam v Islamism? How racist of you.  Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East?  Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11.  You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims.  Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie?  Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them?  After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make.  On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.


----------



## Sbiker

Sneekin said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked
> and answered
> 
> And if you say, there were a lot of societies, allowing gay marriage - it will be true. So - which of this societies are living NOW? If you don't believe in religion and want scientific approach...  I would believe, SSM is progressive, useful and right - show me not a loser's example of it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are lots of societies allowing same sex marriage now.
> 
> Most of the western world as a matter of fact.
> 
> But hey- you are in luck- the Islamic world does not allow same sex marriage- but do allow polygamy(which is as ancient as marriage is).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in Neitherlands, in 2001. Tell me about "no problems" from this marriages fifty years after
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in the Netherlands in 2001. First gay marriage in the United States was in 2004.
> Tell me what problems has this caused in the last 11-15 years.
> 
> But don't worry- if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, no problems, Muslim fastfood - shaurma - is really more tasty than burgers
> 
> Your propaganda in US now trying to mix Islam and Islamism - but really it's very different things, it could become an evil joke, if it will be continued...
> 
> p.s. 11-15 years is too few for world processes... I'm watching TV news - in 80th US used a terrible weapon against USSR - a freedom of info and opinion. USSR absorbs it as idea fully (instead of other states) - and fell. Now, after 30 years you have RT - and all your media screamed about "ideological diversion and so on" because now RT much close to truth than others  ALL thing we invented and advanced - are returned to us after some decades...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food.  Many Muslims don't eat it.  It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions.  It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all.  It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims.  The fact is, the meats used must be Halal.   Not all shawarma is Halal.  Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit.  If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.
> 
> Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage?  Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat?
> 
> 11-15 years?  Try thousands of years.   Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember.   Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.
> 
> Islam v Islamism? How racist of you.  Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East?  Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11.  You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims.  Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie?  Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them?  After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make.  On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.
Click to expand...


Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )


> How racist of you.


Me? Are you really saying it after your own words about "marrying a large piece of dark meat"? Wonderful... At least, explain me a logic, how "Islam vs Islamism" related to racism... ))

Your logical arguments ended - so, you started psaking against me... Ok, now I see, there are no reasonable arguments for gay marriages, only a big piece of propaganda and irrational will to reach this target by all means...


----------



## Sneekin

Sbiker said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are lots of societies allowing same sex marriage now.
> 
> Most of the western world as a matter of fact.
> 
> But hey- you are in luck- the Islamic world does not allow same sex marriage- but do allow polygamy(which is as ancient as marriage is).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in Neitherlands, in 2001. Tell me about "no problems" from this marriages fifty years after
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in the Netherlands in 2001. First gay marriage in the United States was in 2004.
> Tell me what problems has this caused in the last 11-15 years.
> 
> But don't worry- if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, no problems, Muslim fastfood - shaurma - is really more tasty than burgers
> 
> Your propaganda in US now trying to mix Islam and Islamism - but really it's very different things, it could become an evil joke, if it will be continued...
> 
> p.s. 11-15 years is too few for world processes... I'm watching TV news - in 80th US used a terrible weapon against USSR - a freedom of info and opinion. USSR absorbs it as idea fully (instead of other states) - and fell. Now, after 30 years you have RT - and all your media screamed about "ideological diversion and so on" because now RT much close to truth than others  ALL thing we invented and advanced - are returned to us after some decades...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food.  Many Muslims don't eat it.  It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions.  It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all.  It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims.  The fact is, the meats used must be Halal.   Not all shawarma is Halal.  Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit.  If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.
> 
> Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage?  Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat?
> 
> 11-15 years?  Try thousands of years.   Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember.   Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.
> 
> Islam v Islamism? How racist of you.  Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East?  Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11.  You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims.  Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie?  Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them?  After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make.  On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )
> 
> 
> 
> How racist of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Me? Are you really saying it after your own words about "marrying a large piece of dark meat"? Wonderful... At least, explain me a logic, how "Islam vs Islamism" related to racism... ))
> 
> Your logical arguments ended - so, you started psaking against me... Ok, now I see, there are no reasonable arguments for gay marriages, only a big piece of propaganda and irrational will to reach this target by all means...
Click to expand...

I see history isn't your fine point.  The emperor was only in power until age 22.   His sexual preference had nothing to do with the fall of Rome.   Try and *INTELLIGENTLY and TRUTHFULLY* share with us how it had any impact.

Tell me how the children I grew up with, who had same sex parents, had any impact on 4 generations following - they were much more educated than you, and much more affluent.   So if we use your logic, then we all should have same sex parents - we'd be better off.

Yes, I'm saying that - shows just how perverted you are. I said that because you are more focused on a lie about a piece of roasted meat from Turkey than you are about facts.  You're wrong about the religion, and you are 100 percent off topic about marriage in the United States.  Hint - these is the US Message Board - the US stands for United States.  The thread is about gay-marriage - not about meat you seem overly fascinated about.  So if you love your meat that much, marry it.  Otherwise, stay on topic and answer questions put to you.  

 Psaking?  That's not a word in any language.  I point out your stupidity - that a roast of meat is somehow related to terrorism - when it's a common food throughout the Arab, and not Muslim world.  You are unable to answer my questions, so you ask how a race of people (Semitic, which is a race of people that are followers of the Abrahamic religions), nowadays known as Hebrew and Arabic. So rather than answer a question, you fell into a trap.  Begone!  You lack the education. 

You saw no arguments for gay marriage (which no longer exists, *Sbiker*.  The US recognizes *MARRIAGE*.  Marriage, to those of us that are able to read, is a civil contract between two people.   It's a right.  No arguments?  You mean that *Due Process *and *Equal Protection* only apply to those you grant them to? Wrong.  

You can have *opinions*. You are claiming them as *fact*.  If they are *facts*, you *must *be able to *back them up*.  *You can't, you just go off on a tangent about your meat fantasies*.   Are you going to *answer*?  *Or go out for a gyro*?  Why must you persecute religious people for their diet?  Do you attack Catholics when they didn't eat meat on Friday? The Talmud says you can't mix meat and milk (dairy). Learn what Kosher is.  Learn what Halal and Haram means.  

Apparently you are quick to make generalities about all Muslims, all Gays, other religious, ethnic, sexual or social groups.  The very definition of bigotry. The English noun _bigot_ is a term used to describe a prejudiced or closed-minded person, especially one who is intolerant or hostile towards different social groups (e.g. racial or religious groups), and especially one whose own beliefs are perceived as unreasonable or excessively narrow-minded, superstitious, or hypocritical.


----------



## Sneekin

Sbiker said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are lots of societies allowing same sex marriage now.
> 
> Most of the western world as a matter of fact.
> 
> But hey- you are in luck- the Islamic world does not allow same sex marriage- but do allow polygamy(which is as ancient as marriage is).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in Neitherlands, in 2001. Tell me about "no problems" from this marriages fifty years after
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in the Netherlands in 2001. First gay marriage in the United States was in 2004.
> Tell me what problems has this caused in the last 11-15 years.
> 
> But don't worry- if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, no problems, Muslim fastfood - shaurma - is really more tasty than burgers
> 
> Your propaganda in US now trying to mix Islam and Islamism - but really it's very different things, it could become an evil joke, if it will be continued...
> 
> p.s. 11-15 years is too few for world processes... I'm watching TV news - in 80th US used a terrible weapon against USSR - a freedom of info and opinion. USSR absorbs it as idea fully (instead of other states) - and fell. Now, after 30 years you have RT - and all your media screamed about "ideological diversion and so on" because now RT much close to truth than others  ALL thing we invented and advanced - are returned to us after some decades...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food.  Many Muslims don't eat it.  It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions.  It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all.  It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims.  The fact is, the meats used must be Halal.   Not all shawarma is Halal.  Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit.  If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.
> 
> Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage?  Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat?
> 
> 11-15 years?  Try thousands of years.   Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember.   Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.
> 
> Islam v Islamism? How racist of you.  Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East?  Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11.  You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims.  Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie?  Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them?  After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make.  On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )
> 
> 
> 
> How racist of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Me? Are you really saying it after your own words about "marrying a large piece of dark meat"? Wonderful... At least, explain me a logic, how "Islam vs Islamism" related to racism... ))
> 
> Your logical arguments ended - so, you started psaking against me... Ok, now I see, there are no reasonable arguments for gay marriages, only a big piece of propaganda and irrational will to reach this target by all means...
Click to expand...

Oh yes, *heterosexual empires have fallen time and time again* - do *you *want the same destiny?   *Your own statements actually contradict your "facts". * Your logic actually would indicate anything *other than a one man / one woman marriage* would be better, including *gay marriage* and/or *plural marriage*.


----------



## emilynghiem

Tennyson said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.
> 
> Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.
> 
> Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Tennyson
> 
> If Muslims petition to change the wording because "Shariah Law" is overly broad
> and unintentionally bans voluntary practice of prayer and charity by Muslims in private,
> but the state does not accommodate this as a religious conflict or bias,
> then the federal govt could be petitioned if it doesn't get resolved on a state level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> There is no constitutional concept of a state or individual petitioning the federal government over the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

Nonsense Tennyson how can prohibition be repealed if there wasn't a process?
if amendments can amend the Constitution, certainly they can clarify other amendments,
such as clarifying that free exercise of religion applies to ALL beliefs and creeds
not just members of organized religions.


----------



## emilynghiem

westwall said:


> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm, I'll go with Thomas Jefferson who wrote in the Declaration of Independence that  *"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."*  See that "pursuit of happiness" bit?  Yeah, right there.  That covers gay marriage.
Click to expand...


Dear westwall but also the Constitution includes not depriving liberty of persons without due process of laws to prove that a violation occurred first.
So if both sides feel the other is depriving them of representation, then both sides still have to answer to each other
before ASSUMING that it's the other side that is seeking to infringe or impose.

Neither side agrees to the arguments of the other.

This isn't settled or proven yet, and at this point it seems at least mutual.
So if both sides keep pushing for a policy that the other side objects to,
they are equally guilty of discriminating against the creed and representation of the others.


----------



## emilynghiem

Tennyson said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.
> 
> Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.
> 
> Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again, EXCELLENT demonstration of lying.   I'm quoting directly from established CASE LAW.  The courts, on more than one occasion, have made sure that the US decision didn't violate said law.  You are an internet troll and buffoon.  I can see you've repeatedly threatened and attacked and refused direct questions for verification and references.  Sorry, you can't bully me, Tenny.  You bore me. But I'm always happy to point out your stupidity.  I used to think you were just ignorant of a few facts, but you have proven that you are either completely stupid, or doing nothing but trolling to try and "win" these threads. There is no win or lose - but in your case, it's compounding one ignorant lie after another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot provide any Article or clause in the Construction to support your claim; that is why you have not. You cannot provide one iota of evidence that this was the intent; that is why you have not. The last bastion of one not educated regarding the Constitution and history is to cry about case law because they do not have an argument and cannot back up their statements with any historical evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, Troll, 4 people have already provided proof. Begone, trolling gnat. How many times before you understand you have been proven wrong? Again, CHILD, address posts to the person you are speaking to.  We don't want to read the blather prior to your inane rants. Otherwise, you'll be talking to yourself and ignored by the intelligent people.  buh-bye....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have yet to provide any article or clause to support your claim. You have not provided any evidence that your views are substantiated by the ;language or intent of the Constitution or Bill of Rights. You can dodge all you want; it only reflects poorly on you, not me.
Click to expand...


Dear Tennyson all of your views and opinions as well as Sneekin
are equal beliefs under the Free Exercise clause. (you can use the precedence or whatever
you want to communicate your beliefs, but your beliefs are yours independent of that and do not require justification.
what they require is consent of others if you are going to agree on them, so whatever language or laws
it take to communicate and establish that agreement between people is part of the democratic process, using freedom of speech press right to petition and due process).

I do NOT support the practice of IMPOSING interpretations of govt laws and precedence that disparage the political beliefs of others to express them using laws even in different ways.
People read the Second Amendment differently to express their beliefs, so until they reach a consensus, I am not going to censor one or impose the other, but continue including both interpretations for each person who uses the law to state their values.

If you and Sneekin depend on Case Law or written law or ruling "before having that freedom to apply it to political beliefs" that is your prerogative. But don't impose that on me. I am not trying to impose this in public, but I do use this in private to include everyone's beliefs and expressions of those as their honest attempt to share in their own words and terms they use for those concepts and principles.

I recognize the right to your own beliefs, and we are just using whatever means
it take to communicate how to establish a consensus on that.


----------



## emilynghiem

Tennyson said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?
Click to expand...


Dear Tennyson the passage of the Constitution was contingent on the agreement that a Bill of Rights would be added
to define the individual rights not protected in the body of the Constitution that only defined federal powers and duties.

so you cannot have the Constitution without the Bill of Rights
or it is like having the OT of the Bible without the NT!

In fact, the same way the Bible is summarized in 2-3 great commandments
1. love of God with all our heart mind and soul
2. love of neighbor as ourselves
3. love of one another as Christ Jesus loves us (ie with forgiveness and correction
that is Restorative Justice, not judgment and punishment or retributive justice)

I would say the First Amendment summarizes the whole of the law
that all other laws are based on
1. free exercise of religion as free will, equal executive power of each person
2. free speech and freedom of religion as equal judicial freedom of each person
3. free press and right to assemble as equal legislative or power of attorney of each person to authorize contracts
and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances
combines these as democratic due process of laws to resolve conflicts and establish agreed law and order.

All other laws come from these basic natural laws
that are inherent in human nature as combining
* Mind
* Body
* Spirit 

where laws or contracts/agreements connect
* INDIVIDUAL to 
* COLLECTIVE levels, based on the 
* RELATIONSHIP between the two.

both religious and political/civil laws attempt to define the terms of that RELATIONSHIP
so you will see this same pattern of THREE levels
in any system of laws, religion, philosophy or govt.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?
> 
> 
> 
> Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.  This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner.  Did you not even complete the sixth grade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to have forgotten to address this:
> 
> Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions.  The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution.   This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you.  Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers.  I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.
> 
> I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes).  You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution.  All men are created equal, not just old white men.
> 
> Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean_“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
> 1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
> 2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority
> 
> The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.
> 
> Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief.  Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.
> 
> Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?
Click to expand...


Dear Faun and Sneekin i am trying to go back and thank all your msgs.
I will answer later but trying to get pages 100 - 145 done.

As for right to marry I already explained under my system
the right already exists and is inalienable under religious freedom.

to me it is an INSULT to require courts to rule on this as that makes it dependent on govt and not inalienable!

I interpret govt different from others because I include different political beliefs
as equal religious freedom that can neither be established or prohibited
but should be agreed upon by consensus in order to carry weight of authority of law.

My system is different, but since I cannot impose it on others
I can only explain it to you, and hope you will continue trying to accommodate me
along with the other views of Constitutional govt.

Tennyson does not see the BOR as  part of the Constitution,
so he is like a Constitutional "Jew who lives by OT letter of the law"
and rejects the NT that teaches how to liberate people as equal by the Spirit of the laws
given in the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendments.

yet another denomination to deal with.
Never seen quite like that before!
But reminds me of Libertarians who reject IRS and Federal Reserve
as extraconstitutional. That is like adding something to the Bible that doesn't belong there!

Thanks and I hope to incorporate all your points into a position statement
outlining where the different issues stand on both sides.

We need help to communicate these, but going through laws
and using language that doesn't speak to everyone the same way
has be en obstructing and skewing this process of reaching agreement
on what the intent and laws mean, and what govt can or cannot do.

Thanks, if I don't finish now, I will try again later to thank all your
messages and content rightwinger and Syriusly also Thanks!!!


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions.  The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution.   This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you.  Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers.  I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.
> 
> I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes).  You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution.  All men are created equal, not just old white men.
> 
> Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean_“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”. _
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
> 1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
> 2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority
> 
> The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.
> 
> Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief.  Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.
> 
> Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
> 
> Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.
Click to expand...

 
People on both sides are being forced to change terms of the contract without agreeing to the changes and how they are worded or applied.
Unless the process recognizes consensus, it is pressuring one side to defend itself against the other, which isn't fair to eiether side.
Faun


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost Faun You could promote Civil Unions as neutral contracts between people independent of social relationships.  But bringing in and using the term Marriage involves Beliefs about Marriage. You might see this as a neutral term. But it's not neutral for people with religious beliefs about Marriage. It's like using the term Shariah to mean secular laws, but this discriminates against people for which Shariah means spiritual duties and practice within their faith -- to them it's not a neutral secular term.
> 
> So that's what's going wrong.  These laws and rulings aren't staying secular as you intend and interpret. They cross lines into affecting areas of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.
> 
> Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. Civil unions can be for everyone and avoid the issue of marriage beliefs not everyone shares. You are free to exercise, teach and practice your beliefs about marriage, but not to impose them through govt on people of other beliefs about marriage.
> 
> To be fair to all people of all beliefs, civil unions are universal and secular.
> 
> 2. If you want to impose further, that is like people who want prayer in schools to include Christian practice of invoking God through everyone joining in Christ Jesus name. I happen to understand GOD represents universal concepts that cover and include all people, but people do not agree on religious terms. It has to remain free choice where beliefs are involved.
> 
> Same with beliefs about marriage, not all people agree on religious terms, so out of respect for religious freedom it makes sense to stick with civil unions for the government to recognize as secular contracts and leave beliefs about marriage out of govt.
> 
> Again, if you believe otherwise, so do many Christians believe in integrating their beliefs through govt they believe are universal truth as well that includes all people.
> 
> 3. If you all agree to open the doors of govt to endorse and incorporate all manner of beliefs into laws and public institutions, then that's fair and you are including all people.
> 
> But it's discrimination to tell Christians that references to Crosses, prayers to God through Christ, and teaching creation through God all have to be Removed from public institutions while insisting that beliefs about gay marriage and homosexuality as natural must be included for tolerance even when it violates beliefs of others that these are not natural.
> 
> It's discriminating by creed, so it violates other laws.
> 
> Faun would you agree to a resolution allowing all Christian beliefs and practices to be endorsed and implemented in public policies and institutions, including Christian healing prayer and right to life for unborn and teaching creation in schools, in exchange for allowing beliefs in gate marriage?
> 
> I'm sure an agreement can be worked out if all beliefs are included equally as you are asking.
> 
> Are you willing to incorporate and include all beliefs equally as yours? Are only the beliefs you happen to agree with? Thanks Faun
> 
> Even if we cannot agree how to accommodate all beliefs equally, at least we tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The courts already ruled on civil unions versus marriage.  Marriage is a civil contract between 2 persons.   civil unions are being eliminated in some states already.  You are using the concept of separate but equal, which, in and of itself is also grossly illegal.   Do you also agree we need different doors, restaurants, drinking fountains for minorities?  Because that's what you say when you demand  SSM must be called civil unions.  That's separate but equal, illegal, and already ruled upon by the SCOTUS YEARS AGO, Emily!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> If you say marriage is different from prayer, how can you say it is like public accommodations?
> 
> And orientation is not like race and racial segregation.
> 
> 1. Race is determined even before birth by the genetics of the two parents even before conception because their DNA is set. Orientation is spiritual either from birth by conditions in the womb, or environment such as homosexuality resulting from sexual or other abuse, or spiritual karma. Peope have changed their orientation similar to changing ones identity of faith, which can't be said of race which is fixed genetically.
> 
> 2. Why are you taking it as insulting to treat LGBT beliefs as other beliefs or creeds that are someone s free choice and right to exercise freely without discrimination?
> 
> What is wrong with separate but equal political parties or religions?
> Is it offensive to have Catholics practice closed communion and eucharist while Lutherans have open ones anyone can participate in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  Orientation is like race, color, creed, national origin, etc (segregation can occur for any of those, including orientation).  Orientation is believed to occur NON-SPIRITUALLY prior to birth.  It doesn't occur from sexual abuse, because close to 50 percent of the population (male and female) would be gay, based on abuse).  People don't change their orientation, that's been disproven as well.   Being gay is not the act of sex.   You can be straight or gay, and never have sex.  so wrong....   Changing one's faith is changing your philosophy, not the same as you changing who you love.
> 2. LGBT is not a free choice.  Why do you claim it is?  You can't just change it, that's been proven literally thousands if not millions of times.  ex-gays become people that are still gay, not having sex, or sneaking around having same sex behind the back of their opposite sex partner.  Seen it happen too many times.
> 3.  What's wrong with "colored only" drinking fountains, entrances, restaurants, etc?  Did you really ask?   Different religious beliefs and political parties do not meet the criteria for separate but equal.  Add that to your list of questions to ask an attorney.
> Who are you asking about Catholic v Lutheran offensiveness?   It has nothing to do with separate but equal, either.   Really not cool.
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin
one area we disagree on
I find that with orientation with SOME it is not a choice and cannot change
but with others it is behavior or conditions only that can be changed.
If I had to guess, I'd say the majority cannot change and it's just the
minority that can; but as with LGBT and transgender being small
percentages, that doesn't justify excluding those either! Equal inclusion
means all, not just listening to the majority of LGBT and excluding the minority!

Like you said, if people are suppressing their natural orientation,
then the external behavior on top CAN be changed. So that applies
to homosexual behavior if the underlying default nature is heterosexual.

I do not agree with imposing either the belief that
* all cases are natural and not a choice
* all cases are unnatural and a choice of behavior

By the time we even agree to accept that it's not all one way or the other,
that same process will require the same openness and inclusion
needed to work through the issues to reach consensus or separation on policies.

Thanks for your help to sort through all the points.
I hope to outline these and present position statements
to party and religious leaders to work out these issues without
judging people for their differences in views and experiences.

All of them are valid from their viewpoints, and should be
included if we are going to represent all people in the outcomes.


----------



## Syriusly

Sbiker said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> There's no problem for gays to have any sexual relations they want. There's no any problems for them (especially, because they're "artistic" and "creative") to develop own, gay rituals for marriage and so on (I doubt, married gays really to plan live married all remained life - as tradition of marriage generally need ). Instead of it - they performing lawyer aggression against tradition forms of marriage. They no need to have own - they only want to destroy something, they don't have. That'a a main problem, as I see...=
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are gays 'destroying' anything by spending years trying to partcipate in marriage?
> 
> My marriage was not destroyed because Emily and Trisha can now legally marry- was yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idyllic picture...  Let's continue to paint it.
> 
> Today Emily and Trisha perform legal marriage - well, let them to live happy.
> 
> Tomorrow they want children. Any parentless children - ok, it's good, let them to have.
> 
> Day after - they don't want children with unknown genetics. They want one of YOUR children. Why not - it's just another step to keep their rights.
> 
> Day after - they have a lobby to adopt law for obligatory homosexual practice. You dont' want it? "How do you know, you don't want, it's just a stereotype... Prove, you don't have stereotypes, make a homo-sex regularily"! Offcorse, it's for chilldren too...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today Jim and Sally are legally married.
> Tomorrow they want children- but Jim is infertile so they use a sperm donor- ok, it's good, let them.
> Day after- they don't want children with unknown genetics- Jim and Sally want one of your children. Why not- is just another step to keep their rights.
> Day after- they have a lobby to adopt a law prohibiting homosexual practice- oh wait- Jim and Sally did that years ago, until the courts overturned Jim and Sally telling Americans what kind of sex we are allowed to have.
> 
> Moral: Allowing Jim and Sally to marry will mean they are coming to take your children away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, it's not good too, but it's very strange position. "We have a problem here - let's add here to another one". Problems must be solved, not to be hoarded. We have problems in tradition families - let's struggle for psychologist help, for control for them! It's more important... vital important for a lot of children, than a wishes of some gays - because this wishes are not needs of first like, but just a type of decoration of existing lifestyle...
Click to expand...


I have no clue what your post has to do with my post- nor do I know what 'problem' you are referring to. 

Couples- straight or gay- can marry- regardless of whether they have children or intend to have children.
People- straight or gay- can have children- whether or not they are married or whether they ever intend to get married.
Marriage exists outside of parenting. However, marriage is a benefit to children when their parents marry- as it provides some legal protections to the children. 

Preventing gay couples from marrying does not help a single child.  Not one. 
But it can harm children.

Why would you want that?


----------



## Syriusly

Sbiker said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are lots of societies allowing same sex marriage now.
> 
> Most of the western world as a matter of fact.
> 
> But hey- you are in luck- the Islamic world does not allow same sex marriage- but do allow polygamy(which is as ancient as marriage is).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in Neitherlands, in 2001. Tell me about "no problems" from this marriages fifty years after
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in the Netherlands in 2001. First gay marriage in the United States was in 2004.
> Tell me what problems has this caused in the last 11-15 years.
> 
> But don't worry- if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, no problems, Muslim fastfood - shaurma - is really more tasty than burgers
> 
> Your propaganda in US now trying to mix Islam and Islamism - but really it's very different things, it could become an evil joke, if it will be continued...
> 
> p.s. 11-15 years is too few for world processes... I'm watching TV news - in 80th US used a terrible weapon against USSR - a freedom of info and opinion. USSR absorbs it as idea fully (instead of other states) - and fell. Now, after 30 years you have RT - and all your media screamed about "ideological diversion and so on" because now RT much close to truth than others  ALL thing we invented and advanced - are returned to us after some decades...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food.  Many Muslims don't eat it.  It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions.  It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all.  It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims.  The fact is, the meats used must be Halal.   Not all shawarma is Halal.  Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit.  If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.
> 
> Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage?  Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat?
> 
> 11-15 years?  Try thousands of years.   Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember.   Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.
> 
> Islam v Islamism? How racist of you.  Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East?  Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11.  You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims.  Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie?  Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them?  After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make.  On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )
> .
Click to expand...


Yep- after existing for a thousand years, Rome fell after converting to Christianity. 

I think the lesson is clear......


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
> 1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
> 2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority
> 
> The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.
> 
> Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief.  Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.
> 
> Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .
> 
> 
> 
> Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
> 
> Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People on both sides are being forced to change terms of the contract without agreeing to the changes and how they are worded or applied.]
Click to expand...


There are only two parties to the marriage contract.

Who is being forced to change the terms of the marriage contract?

If two gay men decide to get married, then they agree to the terms of the marriage contract.
If a man and a woman decide to get married, then they agree to the terms of the marriage contract. 

But- the man and the woman do not get to prevent the contract between the gay men because the man and woman are not party to their contract. 

Once again you are confusing the issue. The issue is not the marriage contract- but the right to marry. 
And yes- there are persons who would like to prevent gay couples from marrying- and there are people who would like to prevent mixed race people from marrying- and there are people who would like to prevent people of two different religions from marrying. 

But none of those people are part of the marriage contract- they just want to control who can marry. 

Why would you want that?


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.  This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner.  Did you not even complete the sixth grade?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have forgotten to address this:
> 
> Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions.  The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution.   This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you.  Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers.  I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.
> 
> I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes).  You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution.  All men are created equal, not just old white men.
> 
> Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean_“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
> 1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
> 2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority
> 
> The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.
> 
> Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief.  Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.
> 
> Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun and Sneekin i am trying to go back and thank all your msgs.
> I will answer later but trying to get pages 100 - 145 done.
> 
> As for right to marry I already explained under my system
> the right already exists and is inalienable under religious freedom.
> 
> to me it is an INSULT to require courts to rule on this as that makes it dependent on govt and not inalienable!
Click to expand...


The courts rule on this issue because that is what the courts do. Courts act to protect our rights from the government who would restrict the rights of Americans.

Among the issues courts have ruled on that States had tried to restrict the rights of Americans include:

guns
birth control
voting
marriage
religion
speech
While you may think it is an insult that the courts address issues of rights, courts are the avenue for an individual to seek protection of his or her rights from the state.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ps Faun the compelling interest is upholding laws consistently.
> 
> Civil unions for everyone would keep beliefs about marriage out of government and protect religious freedom of people on both sides equally.
> 
> Otherwise if one side pushes traditional marriage only or the other side imposes beliefs about marriage for everyone this violates
> * beliefs of people of the other group
> * beliefs of people who believe in states rights to decide either way
> *beliefs of Constitutionalists like me who believe both sides should get their way without imposing on the other
> *beliefs of people who believe the state should just recognize civil unions
> 
> So pushing gay marriages through govt violates beliefs of all these other people.
> 
> While sticking to just civil unions includes all of them and doesn't exclude one more than the other.
> Everyone can follow their own beliefs about marriage by recognizing civil unions, so that covers all beliefs equally while yours does not.
> 
> 
> 
> States are already free to abandon civil marriages for all within their respective borders. If states want to offer only civil unions for everyone, there would be no legal issue with that. But that was not the case prior to Obergefell. At that time, states decided marriage would be available; but some states decided only certain people would have the right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily / Faun, let me raise the following problems/points/issues, Emily, you are hard pressed to be able to answer this one, as marriage is currently at the state level, recognized interstate, and civil unions are not.....
> 
> Again, since civil unions are being proposed / if included for only gays or those married outside of church, then that would be separate but equal, which in and of itself is patently illegal.   If just dropping marriage, then there is a huge cost involved, as any state that would have civil unions already on the books would literally have to rewrite each and every law, to mirror the existing marriage laws.  This would then have to be voted on, at great cost.  One would also have to check the legality of it, as there are numerous laws at the federal level that hinge on marriage, and not civil unions.  Does that mean if your state is the only state wishing to eliminate marriage and replace it, your state would fit the bill?   Your state would still have to deal with marriage in two aspects anyway - each state recognizes the other 49 states in regards to marriage.   If I am married in State A, and your State B has only civil unions, you still have to have in full force and effect, laws in place to recognize my incoming marriage.   If you have just a civil union in your state B, somehow it would have to magically convert to a marriage in my state if you move here - which doesn't address the fact that I may still have my civil union laws on the books - in which case, there is a whole other can of worms opened.  In fact, your "marriage by another name" may be completely invalidated in another state - which currently cannot happen. Marriage laws interstate allow me to have marriage age at 14 in my state, 18 in your state,  21 in yet another, but the 14 year old who is married would have a valid marriage in all states.   Simply not true in the case of civil unions.  Who would pay?
Click to expand...


Again the point is to have the state policy for all people whether this is agreed upon as civil unions, civil marriages, domestic partnerships,
or separate policies who knows, whatever the states agree to pass for all people.

And who would pay the cost is all the people who are lobbying to keep marriage or some form of it in the govt.

If you or others want to pay to reform it as just civil unions or split the policies by party,
yes, I would organize other Libertarians who believe in that to do the work or cover the costs.

We can create jobs for Veterans or other party leaders and candidates
who believe in limited govt and cutting or reforming social programs by transferring them to local jurisdiction.

We assess the cost of the most effective agreed way,
and include that in the reform proposal and budget.

with all the campaign funds fighting back and forth,
the billions spent on air time that does nothing to change policy directly
could go instead into setting up singlepayer health care
and social benefits in ways that everyone supports and nobody contests.

Sneekin

Also, all the costs to taxpayers of legal and corporate abuses
can be assessed, and start crediting back those costs to taxpayers
to fund or finance reforms to prevent future abuses and corruption.

Look at abuses of CPS! 

The restitution owed for damages done by abuse of that authority
could also pay for the reforms needed, by crediting the cost to taxpayers
back into a fund that would be reallocated for proper reforms and corrections.

If we need separate legislation for that,
I'm willing to put the work in and raise the funds to set up such
a Grievance process that assess debts and damages,
credits it back to the state or taxpayers, and then sets up 
means of backing those debts, possibly using
land property or programs as collateral, and selling shares
to donors or investors who buy out the debts or "lend" the money against them,
while wrongdoers either accept responsibility for paying back the debts
or the investors agree to buy them out in exchange for ownership of shares in the collateral.


----------



## Sbiker

Sneekin said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in Neitherlands, in 2001. Tell me about "no problems" from this marriages fifty years after
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in the Netherlands in 2001. First gay marriage in the United States was in 2004.
> Tell me what problems has this caused in the last 11-15 years.
> 
> But don't worry- if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, no problems, Muslim fastfood - shaurma - is really more tasty than burgers
> 
> Your propaganda in US now trying to mix Islam and Islamism - but really it's very different things, it could become an evil joke, if it will be continued...
> 
> p.s. 11-15 years is too few for world processes... I'm watching TV news - in 80th US used a terrible weapon against USSR - a freedom of info and opinion. USSR absorbs it as idea fully (instead of other states) - and fell. Now, after 30 years you have RT - and all your media screamed about "ideological diversion and so on" because now RT much close to truth than others  ALL thing we invented and advanced - are returned to us after some decades...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food.  Many Muslims don't eat it.  It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions.  It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all.  It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims.  The fact is, the meats used must be Halal.   Not all shawarma is Halal.  Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit.  If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.
> 
> Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage?  Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat?
> 
> 11-15 years?  Try thousands of years.   Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember.   Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.
> 
> Islam v Islamism? How racist of you.  Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East?  Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11.  You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims.  Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie?  Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them?  After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make.  On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )
> 
> 
> 
> How racist of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Me? Are you really saying it after your own words about "marrying a large piece of dark meat"? Wonderful... At least, explain me a logic, how "Islam vs Islamism" related to racism... ))
> 
> Your logical arguments ended - so, you started psaking against me... Ok, now I see, there are no reasonable arguments for gay marriages, only a big piece of propaganda and irrational will to reach this target by all means...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see history isn't your fine point.
Click to expand...


.. saying you, continuing to translate VERY strange "historical" info...



> The emperor was only in power until age 22.



WHICH emperor? For example, August became an emperor in the age of 36... What did you had to say?
And... just read it - Ben Carson: Gay Marriage Killed The Roman Empire - Joe.My.God. )



> Tell me how the children I grew up with, who had same sex parents, had any impact on 4 generations following



How it can be, if same-sex marriages legal at the US territory only since 2004 year? ) 



> Psaking?  That's not a word in any language.



Really? Wanna link?  Blog: Psaking it to State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki



> You can have *opinions*. You are claiming them as *fact*.



Stop and point, where I claiming it  I see, in your dreams I attacking all and everyone, for the meat eating, for the wrong religion, for the race... In reality - you attacking me, using periodically distorted info and being angry, when I'm trying to point on it, asking simple question. You saying, I don't have any education. Perfect, but if you don't able answer on my simple questions, referring on indefinite "22 age emperors" and claiming that "shawarma was invented in Turkey, so no one else can eat it" - do YOU really educated?  



> Apparently you are quick to make generalities about all Muslims



You're saying it, after YOU generalized all Muslim world as traditional marriage forcers (and I just offered to divide all this Muslim world at least on muslims and islamists). Wonderful!  Now I see, why you don't want "to recognize" the word "psaking"... 



> if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.
> , all Gays, other religious, ethnic, sexual or social groups.  The very definition of bigotry. The English noun _bigot_ is a term used to describe a prejudiced or closed-minded person, especially one who is intolerant or hostile towards different social groups (e.g. racial or religious groups), and especially one whose own beliefs are perceived as unreasonable or excessively narrow-minded, superstitious, or hypocritical.



Sorry, only in your wet dreams... 

I don't generally divide people by race, skin colour, religion or sexual orientation and here I'm just trying to understand, where in US is real border between rights of gays and rights of conservatives, and why..


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
> 
> Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People on both sides are being forced to change terms of the contract without agreeing to the changes and how they are worded or applied.]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are only two parties to the marriage contract.
> 
> Who is being forced to change the terms of the marriage contract?
> 
> If two gay men decide to get married, then they agree to the terms of the marriage contract.
> If a man and a woman decide to get married, then they agree to the terms of the marriage contract.
> 
> But- the man and the woman do not get to prevent the contract between the gay men because the man and woman are not party to their contract.
> 
> Once again you are confusing the issue. The issue is not the marriage contract- but the right to marry.
> And yes- there are persons who would like to prevent gay couples from marrying- and there are people who would like to prevent mixed race people from marrying- and there are people who would like to prevent people of two different religions from marrying.
> 
> But none of those people are part of the marriage contract- they just want to control who can marry.
> 
> Why would you want that?
Click to expand...


Dear Syriusly
I'm talking about the state and federal laws and rulings GOVERNING the marriage laws and social benefits/taxes related.

All citizens are parties to the laws as a contract.
so we all demand equal say in laws that affect us.


----------



## Sbiker

Syriusly said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in Neitherlands, in 2001. Tell me about "no problems" from this marriages fifty years after
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in the Netherlands in 2001. First gay marriage in the United States was in 2004.
> Tell me what problems has this caused in the last 11-15 years.
> 
> But don't worry- if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, no problems, Muslim fastfood - shaurma - is really more tasty than burgers
> 
> Your propaganda in US now trying to mix Islam and Islamism - but really it's very different things, it could become an evil joke, if it will be continued...
> 
> p.s. 11-15 years is too few for world processes... I'm watching TV news - in 80th US used a terrible weapon against USSR - a freedom of info and opinion. USSR absorbs it as idea fully (instead of other states) - and fell. Now, after 30 years you have RT - and all your media screamed about "ideological diversion and so on" because now RT much close to truth than others  ALL thing we invented and advanced - are returned to us after some decades...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food.  Many Muslims don't eat it.  It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions.  It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all.  It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims.  The fact is, the meats used must be Halal.   Not all shawarma is Halal.  Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit.  If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.
> 
> Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage?  Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat?
> 
> 11-15 years?  Try thousands of years.   Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember.   Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.
> 
> Islam v Islamism? How racist of you.  Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East?  Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11.  You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims.  Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie?  Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them?  After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make.  On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- after existing for a thousand years, Rome fell after converting to Christianity.
> 
> I think the lesson is clear......
Click to expand...


After converting to Christianity, Constantinople lived for another thousand years 

And Rome fell, continuing to practice homosexualism and other sexual perversions... 



> *I think the lesson is clear......*


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun yes the "marriage" becomes biased by faith if you include conditions that gay couples and marriage be recognized the same way which is faith based.
> 
> And yes, so is marriage also faith based by interpreting it to mean traditional couples only.
> 
> Both are faith based.
> 
> Civil unions or domestic partnership 's would be the neutral secular term.
> 
> 
> 
> Civil marriage is not faith based. It's a legally binding contract between two individuals. The individuals' race doesn't matter.... their religion (or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their sexual orientation or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their creed doesn't matter....
> 
> ... and now, since Obergefell, their gender doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure Faun we agree in spirit,
> So let's help make sure states write and pass laws by consensus so there is agreement not
> To interject faith based beliefs into laws on marriage and/or civil unions.
> 
> If states can pass laws using the term marriage or civil marriage, great!  But the same way I would not impose the word Jesus on people just because I know this means Equal Justice for all people universally. I'd  ask that laws reflect the same courtesy and cultural consideration.
> 
> I use the term universe instead of creation.
> Many Muslims object to the use of terms Jihad or Shariah to mean govt laws or political things outside their pure spiritual meaning.
> As long as there are atheists and Muslims under laws, they have the right to ask for neutral terms, as do Christians or others who do not agree to secular definitions of marriage but might agree to expand civil unions or partnerships  (or might agree to take restrictions off all other faith based terms and practices in public institutions such as God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer etc in exchange for tolerating LGBT expressions and inclusion in public institutions as equally endorsed by govt )
> 
> Texas laws implemented "moment of silence" instead of prayer in schools as a more secular neutral alternative.
> 
> So if people object to "marriage" terms we should agree to secularize it where it achieves the same goals without invoking faith based beliefs as well, state by state. Agreed!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil marriage is already secular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure Faun if people per state agree to that. Not all do.
> If they can't agree on being under social programs regulated through govt I also suggest to separate by party to solve related
> Issues as well.
> 
> If prolife don't want health care programs they fund to pay for abortion, then separate funding or policies. Why not solve several problems at once with the same effort?
> 
> I believe in rewarding people with health care coverage who go through spiritual healing to reduce costs to a minimum including wiping out drug abuse and addiction in the process, and cost of related crimes as a further cost saving measure
> 
> I don't believe in paying for health care and living expenses of convicted rapists or killers unless they agree to go through spiritual healing and accept help to work and pay back r restitution to victims society and taxpayers or donors who lend them support to do this during rehab.
> 
> Why not give all taxpayers a choice which social programs and terms of benefits to support?
> 
> These involve beliefs, either social or spiritual, political or religious.
> 
> Why not recognize equal religious and political freedom for people of all parties and creeds equally ?
> 
> Keep where we agree to be governed as public policy and law. But where we disagree by inherent beliefs, allow taxpayers the choice to separate fund in g to avoid imposing on each other's equally valid beliefs whether religious political secular spiritual or individual.
> 
> Otherwise that's discriminating by creed not to protect each person equally just because their creed doesn't meet a certain size or label.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters not if there are people who delude themselves into believing their hallucinations...
> 
> Civil marriage still remains secular.
Click to expand...


^ this is where I got the impression that you saw people who see the words and laws differently
as being "deluded" with "hallucinations" Faun 

Now i get you weren't TRYING to "discriminate" against other beliefs and were including them in how you saw the solution.
but if other people don't see it the same way you and I do as secular,
it's still leaving them out because their inherent belief system is different.

So I'm trying to go broader than that, and find a way to include
even the different belief systems people are coming from
that are the reason we don't see the laws the same way.

We need to include the broader context of where people are coming from,
if we are going to form laws that truly communicate to and represent all the public.

Not just people who can see it as secular as you and I can do.
I can try to accommodate both views. Most people take one side or the other
and wonder why the other side is arguing that's leaving them out and imposing!


----------



## Syriusly

Sbiker said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in the Netherlands in 2001. First gay marriage in the United States was in 2004.
> Tell me what problems has this caused in the last 11-15 years.
> 
> But don't worry- if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, no problems, Muslim fastfood - shaurma - is really more tasty than burgers
> 
> Your propaganda in US now trying to mix Islam and Islamism - but really it's very different things, it could become an evil joke, if it will be continued...
> 
> p.s. 11-15 years is too few for world processes... I'm watching TV news - in 80th US used a terrible weapon against USSR - a freedom of info and opinion. USSR absorbs it as idea fully (instead of other states) - and fell. Now, after 30 years you have RT - and all your media screamed about "ideological diversion and so on" because now RT much close to truth than others  ALL thing we invented and advanced - are returned to us after some decades...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food.  Many Muslims don't eat it.  It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions.  It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all.  It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims.  The fact is, the meats used must be Halal.   Not all shawarma is Halal.  Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit.  If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.
> 
> Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage?  Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat?
> 
> 11-15 years?  Try thousands of years.   Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember.   Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.
> 
> Islam v Islamism? How racist of you.  Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East?  Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11.  You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims.  Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie?  Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them?  After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make.  On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- after existing for a thousand years, Rome fell after converting to Christianity.
> 
> I think the lesson is clear......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After converting to Christianity, Constantinople lived for another thousand years
> 
> And Rome fell, continuing to practice homosexualism and other sexual perversions...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I think the lesson is clear......*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


So you admit that Rome fell after it converted to Christianity.

And that the Roman Empire existed for 2,000 years while practicing sexual perversions.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Faun if people per state agree to that. Not all do.
> If they can't agree on being under social programs regulated through govt I also suggest to separate by party to solve related
> Issues as well.
> 
> If prolife don't want health care programs they fund to pay for abortion, then separate funding or policies. Why not solve several problems at once with the same effort?
> 
> I believe in rewarding people with health care coverage who go through spiritual healing to reduce costs to a minimum including wiping out drug abuse and addiction in the process, and cost of related crimes as a further cost saving measure
> 
> I don't believe in paying for health care and living expenses of convicted rapists or killers unless they agree to go through spiritual healing and accept help to work and pay back r restitution to victims society and taxpayers or donors who lend them support to do this during rehab.
> 
> Why not give all taxpayers a choice which social programs and terms of benefits to support?
> 
> These involve beliefs, either social or spiritual, political or religious.
> 
> Why not recognize equal religious and political freedom for people of all parties and creeds equally ?
> 
> Keep where we agree to be governed as public policy and law. But where we disagree by inherent beliefs, allow taxpayers the choice to separate fund in g to avoid imposing on each other's equally valid beliefs whether religious political secular spiritual or individual.
> 
> Otherwise that's discriminating by creed not to protect each person equally just because their creed doesn't meet a certain size or label.
> 
> 
> 
> It matters not if there are people who delude themselves into believing their hallucinations...
> 
> Civil marriage still remains secular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun
> Sorry you have no right to dictate laws for other people when it comes to their beliefs.
> 
> You and I may be okay with this and also with prochoice laws, another unresolved area, but we are not other people.
> 
> I respect the right of consent to laws involving taxation. As long as people are under govt endorsing writing and enforcing laws, all those people have equal rights to dissent or consent.
> 
> Not everyone consents or believes as you or I do.
> 
> I respect your rights and beliefs equally as theirs
> 
> Sorry if you don't.
> 
> Www.equalinclusion.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're mistaken again. I am not dictating any laws. States are and states can dictate laws regardless of peoples' religious beliefs as long as they don't infringe on their freedom to exercise their religion or force them to act in a manner contradictory to their religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Faun
> when you demand that all people interpret marriage the same way to mean civil marriage
> you are dictating beliefs for people.
> 
> You implied that anyone who can't se e it that way is somehow "delusional"
> Well, that's what some people say about
> *atheists who can't see a Bible or Cross as historical but only see it as religious imposition
> * LGBT who are seen by some as mentally ill!!!
> 
> They can't impose their beliefs and neither can you or I.
> 
> So if people object to those laws due to their beliefs,
> I say resolve those objections until everyone agrees the laws are secular neutral and all inclusive.
> 
> You just SAID you believe those people have some "delusion or hallucination"
> 
> So no, it is NOT fair for you to impose YOUR beliefs about why they object religiously to marriage laws they disagree with on religious grounds.
> 
> You have become the same intolerant judges against diverse beliefs,
> assuming there is something DEFICIENT in that person because they have some belief you don't understand or agree with,
> SO MUCH that you seek to DEPRIVE others of their equal freedom to have EQUAL say in the same laws
> that YOU argue should include diverse beliefs and rights of others!
> 
> How contrary is that Faun???
> 
> I'm sorry you don't get it, but neither do people
> GET why atheists have to "sue to remove a cross," when that's not forcing anyone to change beliefs, and think something is "wrong or deficient" with atheist thinking when maybe that's just how their brains see the world nontheistically!
> 
> And you SOUND a lot like those who ASSUME
> transgender have "delusions and are imagining" they are the other gender,
> when that is part of their SPIRITUAL IDENTITY they aren't required to justify faith in!
> 
> Both end up discriminating against others for their beliefs.
> 
> Sorry but I don't believe in denigrating people as "delusional" just because
> you or I don't understand the REASON for their beliefs!
> 
> They have the right to those equally as the arguments you and I make for LGBT
> and the reasons for their beliefs and creeds as well!
> 
> You can judge them all you want, but you are acting the same as those
> you criticize for judging LGBT orientation/identity as "delusional" or mental disorders.
> 
> And neither should either belief be imposed on anyone else through govt
> or it's discriminating by creed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said, _"civil marriage is already secular,"_ which it is. You responded by stating not everyone believes that; which is what I pointed out is delusional and that no one is bound by such delusional beliefs.
> 
> And again... the topic is about same-sex marriage, not crosses.... not praying... not religion. It's a pity you're incapable of separating them from the topic.
Click to expand...


Again Faun just because you and I can frame and talk about this as secular
doesn't mean other people who can't or don't want to are delusional.

I can talk about God Jesus and the Bible in completely secular terms.
Not all people can even follow that! But I offer it as a CHOICE, though nobody can IMPOSE it.

that doesn't make either of us delusional, but different.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
> 
> Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People on both sides are being forced to change terms of the contract without agreeing to the changes and how they are worded or applied.]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are only two parties to the marriage contract.
> 
> Who is being forced to change the terms of the marriage contract?
> 
> If two gay men decide to get married, then they agree to the terms of the marriage contract.
> If a man and a woman decide to get married, then they agree to the terms of the marriage contract.
> 
> But- the man and the woman do not get to prevent the contract between the gay men because the man and woman are not party to their contract.
> 
> Once again you are confusing the issue. The issue is not the marriage contract- but the right to marry.
> And yes- there are persons who would like to prevent gay couples from marrying- and there are people who would like to prevent mixed race people from marrying- and there are people who would like to prevent people of two different religions from marrying.
> 
> But none of those people are part of the marriage contract- they just want to control who can marry.
> 
> Why would you want that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Syriusly
> I'm talking about the state and federal laws and rulings GOVERNING the marriage laws and social benefits/taxes related.
> 
> All citizens are parties to the laws as a contract.
> so we all demand equal say in laws that affect us.
Click to expand...


No- Emily we are not. 

A law is a law- it is not a contract. A contract has to have the agreement of all parties- a law does not.

As citizens we elect representatives who propose laws and vote on laws. Some of us will agree, and some of us will not agree- that is what happens. 

A contract is between parties who agree to be bound by the contract- such as a marriage contract. 
Once again you are confusing the issue. The issue is not the marriage contract- but the right to marry.
And yes- there are persons who would like to prevent gay couples from marrying- and there are people who would like to prevent mixed race people from marrying- and there are people who would like to prevent people of two different religions from marrying.

But none of those people are part of the marriage contract- they just want to control who can marry.

Why would you want that?


----------



## Syriusly

Sbiker said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in the Netherlands in 2001. First gay marriage in the United States was in 2004.
> Tell me what problems has this caused in the last 11-15 years.
> 
> But don't worry- if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, no problems, Muslim fastfood - shaurma - is really more tasty than burgers
> 
> Your propaganda in US now trying to mix Islam and Islamism - but really it's very different things, it could become an evil joke, if it will be continued...
> 
> p.s. 11-15 years is too few for world processes... I'm watching TV news - in 80th US used a terrible weapon against USSR - a freedom of info and opinion. USSR absorbs it as idea fully (instead of other states) - and fell. Now, after 30 years you have RT - and all your media screamed about "ideological diversion and so on" because now RT much close to truth than others  ALL thing we invented and advanced - are returned to us after some decades...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food.  Many Muslims don't eat it.  It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions.  It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all.  It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims.  The fact is, the meats used must be Halal.   Not all shawarma is Halal.  Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit.  If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.
> 
> Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage?  Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat?
> 
> 11-15 years?  Try thousands of years.   Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember.   Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.
> 
> Islam v Islamism? How racist of you.  Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East?  Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11.  You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims.  Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie?  Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them?  After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make.  On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )
> 
> 
> 
> How racist of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Me? Are you really saying it after your own words about "marrying a large piece of dark meat"? Wonderful... At least, explain me a logic, how "Islam vs Islamism" related to racism... ))
> 
> Your logical arguments ended - so, you started psaking against me... Ok, now I see, there are no reasonable arguments for gay marriages, only a big piece of propaganda and irrational will to reach this target by all means...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see history isn't your fine point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .. saying you, continuing to translate VERY strange "historical" info...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The emperor was only in power until age 22.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHICH emperor? For example, August became an emperor in the age of 36... What did you had to say?
> And... just read it - Ben Carson: Gay Marriage Killed The Roman Empire - Joe.My.God. )
> .
Click to expand...


Ben Carson apparently was a brilliant surgeon. 

But apparently is ignorant on history


----------



## Syriusly

Sbiker said:


> [Q
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me how the children I grew up with, who had same sex parents, had any impact on 4 generations following
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How it can be, if same-sex marriages legal at the US territory only since 2004 year? )
> .
Click to expand...


Why do you believe that only married couples  have children?


----------



## Sbiker

Syriusly said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, no problems, Muslim fastfood - shaurma - is really more tasty than burgers
> 
> Your propaganda in US now trying to mix Islam and Islamism - but really it's very different things, it could become an evil joke, if it will be continued...
> 
> p.s. 11-15 years is too few for world processes... I'm watching TV news - in 80th US used a terrible weapon against USSR - a freedom of info and opinion. USSR absorbs it as idea fully (instead of other states) - and fell. Now, after 30 years you have RT - and all your media screamed about "ideological diversion and so on" because now RT much close to truth than others  ALL thing we invented and advanced - are returned to us after some decades...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food.  Many Muslims don't eat it.  It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions.  It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all.  It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims.  The fact is, the meats used must be Halal.   Not all shawarma is Halal.  Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit.  If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.
> 
> Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage?  Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat?
> 
> 11-15 years?  Try thousands of years.   Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember.   Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.
> 
> Islam v Islamism? How racist of you.  Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East?  Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11.  You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims.  Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie?  Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them?  After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make.  On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- after existing for a thousand years, Rome fell after converting to Christianity.
> 
> I think the lesson is clear......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After converting to Christianity, Constantinople lived for another thousand years
> 
> And Rome fell, continuing to practice homosexualism and other sexual perversions...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I think the lesson is clear......*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that Rome fell after it converted to Christianity.
Click to expand...


Nope. I admit, Rome fell after continuing ot practice sexual perversion. And if you speaking about Roman Empire



> And that the* Roman Empire *existed for 2,000 years while practicing sexual perversions.



so, I said "After converting to Christianity, Constantinople lived for another thousand years". Constantinople was a capital of Roman Empire for a centuries, when Rome fell. Have you got this fact during your education?


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS thanks Faun for trying to talk through this, reason and understand it. Especially where it doesn't affect you, if it doesn't matter to you if secular laws use the word Marriage to mean secular civil contracts, or states rights vs federal rulings don't affect you and your beliefs. They do affect others whose beliefs are violated.
> 
> To me, it's no big deal to use the term Jihadist to mean warmongering terrorists who worship Jihadist as War against the world.  But to Muslims this is co-opting their faith and terms for spiritual practice in abusive contradictory ways. So if we write public laws and statements, it is imposing on or establishing adverse beliefs to use language in ways that conflict with people of faith for which these terms mean sacred things.
> 
> I don't always get it either, when it seems secular to me too, but out of respect for those who have other beliefs I will try to include them and their limits.
> 
> So if my LGBT friends need public endorsement of certain policies to feel equally represented in laws, let's find a way to achieve that in ways that don't overreach, go too far, and end up indirectly unintentionally violating other beliefs and principles.
> 
> Similar to gun laws and prolife beliefs. Those laws need to be written and focused correctly where they don't incidentally infringe on other rights .
> 
> If you want people to respect your rights, it makes sense to respect other peoples.
> 
> If you want them to hear your objections and what you need for representation, then of course, we listen to theirs too.
> 
> Like you said, the marriage laws must account for everyone.
> 
> So why would you override the objections of others, then argue the laws should reflect everyone???
> 
> How can they reflect the public unless we include all people's consent and resolve all issues causing objection!
> 
> 
> 
> State sanctioned marriage in the U.S. has always been a civil contract and has always been called "marriage." We don't call marriage something else for certain folks because others find it offensive. Equal protection under the law supersedes Christians' feelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Faun I agree with your other post and will reply to focus on that where we agree.
> 
> For this, opponents argue similar as you do that LGBT are trying to change the definition of marriage. You insist that it only means the CIVIL marriage. But that's not what that means to other citizens who have equal right to how laws are worded. CIVIL unions and domestic contracts would solve this problem for more people. So I'd leave that to states to work out terms.
> 
> If you are going to reform and expand on meanings of terms, let's do the same for the word God instead of cutting that out from public institutions to please the minority.
> 
> Let's agree God can mean universal truth wisdom or collective knowledge, laws of nature, Greater Public Good, forces of life etc. Depending on context. Let's agree Jesus means universal justice with mercy or equal justice for all humanity. So we don't have to remove that term or change the wording.
> 
> If you are willing to trade out compromises in tolerating different beliefs, maybe those opposing specific marriage beliefs would agree to tolerate those in exchange for tolerating beliefs about creation, etc. In public institutions instead of insisting on removal.
> 
> Including beliefs about creation or prayer isn't forcing anyone to change to those, yet these are removed due to faith based beliefs that are relative and free choice.
> 
> Well so are beliefs about LGBT, marriage, orientation/identity as natural or unnatural (or both as I believe they're not all unnatural/changeable nor all natural/unchangeable but depend on spiritual conditions the govt can't define for people).
> 
> If everyone agrees to equal treatment of beliefs, then we could achieve mutual  tolerance on all sides.
> 
> It just can't be one sided, Faun, only pushing liberal beliefs calling them secular while rejecting the beliefs of others as religious when both are equally Faith based and remain equal choice until proven by science or accepted by free will not force of govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay folks are not going to be denied access to their rights to marry the person of their choice (the same right enjoyed by straight folks) because some religious folks don't like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faun I'm not asking for that
> I'm basically asking help to sue Democrats to create a separate internal govt to practice those political beliefs without imposing on beliefs of others!
> 
> Right to health care, right to marriage, no death penalty, reproductive freedom, all these can be exercised through social programs directed and funded by liberal and Democratic party leaders with the funds already spent on lobbying and campaigns.
> 
> I'd further argue that reimbursement already owed to taxpayers for contested war contracts and ACA corporate payouts in the trillions could set up sustainable health care by reforming prisons into medical programs for early diagnosis screening and treatment of both physical and mental illness especially criminal disorders or other dangerous diseases that threaten public health and safety.
> 
> If Statists want to impose political beliefs by majority rule, have a separate govt that believes in that.
> 
> As for me I believe in consent of the governed, no taxation without representation, due process of laws before depriving people of rights and freedoms, and either consensus or separation on areas involving faith based beliefs to ensure equal protections of the laws without discrimination by creed.
> 
> One-sided imposition of left on right or right on left is not equal.
> 
> I believe in equal inclusion and representation or else separate taxation by party so each manages their own social agenda for members of like beliefs.
> 
> Sure there can still be national govt recognizing rights people believe in. Where the public agrees these can still be through federal govt.  Where parties disagree the federal taxes can be divided by party proportionally or allocate to states to work out their state or national agenda without imposing political beliefs on taxpayers who don't consent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except for the fact his would not be legal.   Think equal protection.  Think - the only way I can get assistance is to change my political affiliation?  Really?  If I get diagnosed with cancer, I have to change my political party to get better insurance?
Click to expand...


No, you make sure you have access to whatever plan you want by setting it up yourself.
If this has to be done by state or by party, then do it. Medical schools, charities, businesses, Vet run programs, etc.
but if it relies on federal intervention not all citizens agree to, why make it conditioned on that which you can't control?
set it up locally and sustainable first, based on agreed policy that everyone AGREEs on as public best interest,
so there is no reason to take it away if everyone agrees to invest in making it work, then expand on that nationally. 
Sneekin


----------



## Sbiker

Syriusly said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me how the children I grew up with, who had same sex parents, had any impact on 4 generations following
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How it can be, if same-sex marriages legal at the US territory only since 2004 year? )
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that only married couples  have children?
Click to expand...


No. But you have just confirmed, gays no need official marriage to organize their life how they want


----------



## Syriusly

Sbiker said:


> [QU
> I don't generally divide people by race, skin colour, religion or sexual orientation and here I'm just trying to understand, where in US is real border between rights of gays and rights of conservatives, and why..



There are no rights of gays or rights of conservatives here in the U.S.- we all have the same rights.
There are no special rights for Christians or Jews, or straights or gays. 
There are just American rights.


----------



## Sbiker

Syriusly said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QU
> I don't generally divide people by race, skin colour, religion or sexual orientation and here I'm just trying to understand, where in US is real border between rights of gays and rights of conservatives, and why..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no rights of gays or rights of conservatives here in the U.S.- we all have the same rights.
> There are no special rights for Christians or Jews, or straights or gays.
> There are just American rights.
Click to expand...


Really? Gays want official marriage, conervatives - no. If there are no special rights for them both, why they could not solve this conflict by simple voting?


----------



## Syriusly

Sbiker said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me how the children I grew up with, who had same sex parents, had any impact on 4 generations following
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How it can be, if same-sex marriages legal at the US territory only since 2004 year? )
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that only married couples  have children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. But you have just confirmed, gays no need official marriage to organize their life how they want
Click to expand...


No more than straights have a need for official marriage to organize their life how they want.

Again- my wife and I have been married for over 20 years. We didn't need to get married- we wanted to get legally married. 

Just like the gay couple that gets married. 

Of course marriage is a benefit- a legal protection for children. Which is why children whose parents legally marry have more legal protections- and why preventing gay parents from marrying harms their children.

Why would you want that?


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES I just pointed out the reasons.
> that it is discriminating against people of either belief
> to impose one way or another.
> 
> Whichever side of marriage laws govt takes, it leaves the other discriminated against.
> People on both sides feel the other creed is establishing a bias in law and govt
> unless all the related issues are resolved.
> 
> So it is in govt and public best interest either to require
> * consensus on laws including how they are written funded and enforced
> * or separation of policies such as by state or by party if needed to solve the conflicts.
> 
> Thanks Faun
> 
> 
> 
> As you've been told before, even though you can't understand it, same-sex marriage is not being imposed upon anyone who doesn't want it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered this before, several times.
> 
> I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"
> 
> If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
> then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."
> 
> Same principle. Faun
> 
> In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
> the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.
> 
> So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
> they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
> "if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."
> 
> Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
> And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
> Crosses
> Prayers
> God
> Jesus
> creation
> etc.
> from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
> and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
> and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.
> 
> Or that's discrimination by creed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed.   By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment.  I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs.  I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others.  Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh? Are gay folks not human? Do they not have the same rights as straight folks? And marriage is about many aspects, reproduction is but one. Not everyone who gets married has kids; yet they still have the right to get married. And many couples who do marry, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, raise families through adoption.
Click to expand...


To be like everyone else Faun
they cannot impose their faith based belief on others just because they have been persecuted for them.
Yes you can defend yourself from institutionalized discrimination.
but then if that goes TOO far and inadvertently disciriminates against beliefs of others,
that's equally wrongful and abusive.

Not all cases of LGBT orientation/identity are natural or not a choice,
not all are unnatural choice of behavior. Both beliefs are faith based
and not fully proven or disproven yet.

So like beliefs that Jesus means Justice and salvation for all people, not just people who are Christians or theists, but all people who receive forgiveness that is unconditìonal,
that "universal policy" can't be imposed through govt just because Christians have been persecuted, harassed and killed for their beliefs.


----------



## Syriusly

Sbiker said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QU
> I don't generally divide people by race, skin colour, religion or sexual orientation and here I'm just trying to understand, where in US is real border between rights of gays and rights of conservatives, and why..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no rights of gays or rights of conservatives here in the U.S.- we all have the same rights.
> There are no special rights for Christians or Jews, or straights or gays.
> There are just American rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Gays want official marriage, conervatives - no. If there are no special rights for them both, why they could not solve this conflict by simple voting?
Click to expand...


Really? You can't tell the difference between rights and opinions?


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? Are gay folks not human? Do they not have the same rights as straight folks? And marriage is about many aspects, reproduction is but one. Not everyone who gets married has kids; yet they still have the right to get married. And many couples who do marry, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, raise families through adoption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage - is not a rights. It's obligations. Spouses form a new society cell - and society gives them upkeep to do it. I mean not only reproduction, but education too. I know, some families don't have children and don't want to educate anyone, but why we have to add in this system families, known good as not able to educate children?
> 
> You speaking about rights of gays - did you remembered about rights of children? Without imposed homosexualism and without domestic sexual abuse?
> 
> Otherwise, what is the reason of official marriage, if you want to have a sex? "Because God forbid it?" So, God forbid an homosexualism too...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course marriage is a right. That's been reaffirmed no less than 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.
> 
> *Maynard v. Hill*, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
> 
> 
> *Meyer v. Nebraska*, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
> 
> 
> *Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson*, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
> 
> 
> *Griswold v. Connecticut*, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
> 
> 
> *Loving v. Virginia*, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
> 
> 
> *Boddie v. Connecticut*, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “Marriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
> 
> 
> *Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur*, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
> 
> 
> *Moore v. City of East Cleveland*, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
> 
> 
> *Carey v. Population Services International*, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
> 
> 
> *Zablocki v. Redhail*, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
> 
> 
> *Turner v. Safley*, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
> 
> 
> *Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey*, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
> 
> 
> *M.L.B. v. S.L.J.*, 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
> 
> 
> *Lawrence v. Texas*, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
> ... so marriage is most certainly a right -- and the courts (and many states) determined there are no compelling interests to deny folks equal protection under the law by restricting them access to the right to marry the person of their choice even if that other person happens to be of the same gender.
> 
> The bigger question is .... why on Earth would you seek to let the government take away rights from anybody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
> On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?
> 
> Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are the rights of any 'religious people' being taken away? No one is forcing any 'religious people' into gay marriage. No one is forcing them to have 'gay marriages' in their church.
> 
> And what about the religious gays who belong to a church that does allow gay marriage? Why would you deny them their religious beliefs?
> 
> The majority of Americans believe in marriage equality. That isn't the reason why gay couples have the right to marry each other- but it is a recognition that the majority of Americans have reached the same place as the law.
Click to expand...


Dear Syriusly if everyone can agree that the state marriages are civil only as Faun and I seem to agree in Spirit, but not all people yet agree on the language,
then attaching all the other social conditions to marriage is what is causing the
imposition of beliefs that not all people share.

If we keep the laws secular only, and don't attach or inject beliefs into it,
there wouldn't be this fear of legislating social values through govt not all people agree to.
People on both sides want to avoid that bias that excludes what represents them.

Sorry I haven't read all the msgs, rightwinger and Sneekin also,
but trying to finish thanking them all first. because I appreciate you 
asking and trying to pinpoint where we need to clarify. Thank you all!


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> _BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy._
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
> 
> It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
> In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
> If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
> Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger
> And people have to AGREE what's right
> Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
> Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right
> 
> Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
> Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
> 
> What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger with Faith-Based laws, yes, people would have to agree
> or else all it takes is one atheist or nonbeliever in that thing to protest that
> govt should not establish a faith based bias or belief,  and by principle that bias should be removed.
> 
> A good example of a faith based concept people happen to agree on:
> JUSTICE
> Even though this is completely faith-based and never proven or established as existing,
> people have faith in it and AGREE to use these terms in our laws
> and even inscribe them on public buildings.
> Nobody complains because we AGREE on this even though it is FAITH BASED.
> 
> But when it comes to retributive justice and restorative justice,
> no, people do not agree. thus we have fights going on over
> the death penalty and taxpayers funding life imprisonment instead of executions etc.
> I am asking to separate funding on that issue also!
> 
> Similar with abortion.
> We generally agree murder is unlawful and punishable as a crime.
> but some people believe abortion is murder, and others do not.
> Until we agree on how to write or separate laws,
> groups have be en fighting over this to defend their beliefs from each other's.
> 
> How cruel is this suffering and how long are we going to let it go on,
> knowing neither side agrees to biases in laws by the other?
> 
> That's why I argue to separate funding by party,
> set up separate representation and programs where people
> do not feel threatened by any other group dictating their beliefs.
> If political and/or religious beliefs prevent agreement on public laws,
> then set up separate means similar to private religious schools
> and treat partisan programs like private religious programs.
> So people can get the same tax breaks for investing in their
> own policies if the rest of the public doesn't agree to fund them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US does not have faith based laws nor should it
> 
> Why can't you answer the simple questions I asked?
> Why do I get a 300 word diatribe on something unrelated to what I posted?
> 
> Now.....
> Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
> Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?
> 
> What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She's not answering your question because she doesn't like the answer.
Click to expand...


No Faun I can't get to all the messages yet by rightwinger and Sneekin also.
My point is to reach consensus, so that requires answering each and every issue objection and conflict.
it just takes time. Thanks again and please bear with me while I go back
and try to catch all your msgs. from you and 3-4 other people. That's a lot!!!


----------



## Sbiker

Syriusly said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me how the children I grew up with, who had same sex parents, had any impact on 4 generations following
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How it can be, if same-sex marriages legal at the US territory only since 2004 year? )
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that only married couples  have children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. But you have just confirmed, gays no need official marriage to organize their life how they want
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more than straights have a need for official marriage to organize their life how they want.
> 
> Again- my wife and I have been married for over 20 years. We didn't need to get married- we wanted to get legally married.
> 
> Just like the gay couple that gets married.
> 
> Of course marriage is a benefit- a legal protection for children. Which is why children whose parents legally marry have more legal protections- and why preventing gay parents from marrying harms their children.
> 
> Why would you want that?
Click to expand...


I don't want that  I think only from position of children. If, as you saying, children feel comfortable in same-sex family and they only need to be legally married to be more happy - so, let them do it as fast as we can.

But I have serious doubts, living in homosexual families is really good for children. Much statistics, I've seen, usually said:
1. Homosexualist are in risk group of venereal diseases, including aids. Most of this diseases are dangerous for children.
2. Children in homosexual families are at high risk of sexual abuse and sexual violence. 
3. What about psychology and gender orientation of growing children? 

So, is it nesessary to open legal way to increase of unhappy children, to legalize SSM?


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faun here are examples where people ARE losing liberties they had before
> because of public accommodations laws crossing into BELIEFS about LGBT and
> requiring people to respect them or else change their operations policies
> (posted on separate thread Should businesses be sued or church adoption programs shut down over gay beliefs?):
> 
> A. A lesbian couple wanting to have a wedding reception, Kate and Ming Linsley, sued the Wildflower Inn after being turned away. The lawsuit was settled in August after the inn agreed to pay $30,000 and stop hosting weddings and receptions.
> 
> By signing the settlement agreement, the inn owners agreed that any future “disparate treatment of same-sex couples” is illegal, including “discouragement of the couples from using the accommodations, facilities, advantages and privileges of any place of public accommodation.”
> 
> Washington has a law already on the books that guarantees “the right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement” regardless of sexual orientation.
> 
> ^ NOTE 1 Faun: the same way you are saying nobody is being forced to have a gay wedding,
> well nobody is FORCING that couple to use that facility when many other gay friendly services would love to have that business!
> 
> NOTE 2 please note my offer of how to solve these issues where the facility can still be used without imposing on staff who don't have to be present:
> *"BTW how I would solve the business lawsuit cases
> 1. for the wedding sites, allow this to be rented but require the couple to bring in their own hired staff and pay for insurance to cover any damages to the site if the management does not want to be present at a gay wedding
> 
> 2. have businesses and customers sign WAIVERS in advance protecting both from legal actions or costs
> should there be disputes or conflicts for ANY REASON: require instead either mediation by mediator chosen by the customer, or if that fails, arbitration by arbiter chosen by the business; or else agree to REFRAIN from doing business if the dispute cannot be resolved by consensus of both parties to avoid legal issues or expenses.
> 
> This would protect both sides, regardless of the reason, and regardless what their beliefs are that may conflict."*
> 
> B. RE Catholic adoption services:
> 
> "#1 - Catholic adoption agencies should not be "shut down" that don't accommodate gay couples. As private, privately funded, non-profit organizations they should be able to place children according to their religious doctrine. On the other hand if they are going to function under government contractors and function on the taxpayer's dime - then they need to comply with non-discrimination laws or not be eligible for the contract."
> 
> Unfortunately this policy HAS led to some adoption services shutting down that depended on govt support. so it has DEPRIVED people of ne eded services due to CLASHING beliefs that COULD have remained a private issue since BELIEFS are involved. [Govt COULD have adopted a NEUTRAL policy protecting ANY beliefs about LGBT orientation/identity from discrimination, instead of recognizing one position on this at the exception of the other, which I argue is biased.]
> 
> C. There are other cases of fines against bakers, photographers, and even florists
> for not wanting to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs.
> Some of these I agree with, some not.
> If someone just buys flowers or a cake that is one thing,
> but going TO a wedding off site to serve cakes or take photos is up to free choice.
> Another business or vendor/contract staff can be sent, and not force people who don't believe in attending or witnessing or participating in certain activities that are BEHAVIOR -- not internal identity of the customer in the store buying or ordering something.
> 
> In these cases I would make a distinction between:
> 1. providing the goods or services to any customer regardless of beliefs or creeds
> 2. WITHOUT having to attend, witness or participate in the actual gay wedding service
> which is BEHAVIOR and not the internalized identity/orientation that the customers have
> 
> I would also allow such services to be contracted out to staff who don't have those conflicts,
> such as sending a photographer out to an adult party who doesn't mind the BEHAVIOR or THEME of the party
> and not suing the people who don't agree to be there
> 
> In general I promote mediation and consensus as required to resolve conflicts over beliefs,
> if any two parties are going to conduct business together, in order to save legal and public resources related to court actions.
> 
> 
> 
> None of that has anything to do with same-sex marriage. You can't make your case so you're continuously diverting to other topics.
> 
> The topic here is the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, not public accommodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and those are related Faun
> 
> If you don't want to affect other public institutions,
> then "marriage" should be kept in private.
> 
> But if govt endorses certain beliefs about marriage
> then this in turn affects other areas of public laws and institutions.
> 
> All the other examples I cited are related to govt endorsing BELIEFS about LGBT and marriage.
> 1. wedding sites and services affected
> 2. adoption services affected
> in addition to what you and I do agree on which is
> 3. state laws needing to be neutral and void of faith based biases
> that one side or the other objects to as not representing their beliefs equally
> 
> I guess you are saying these are separate cases,
> but I'm saying the SAME arguments and solutions can be used
> to resolve ALL of THESE.  So why have 3-5 areas of disputes by imposing
> one side or the other,
> when we can have a resolution across all these cases by agreeing NOT
> to discriminate against either sides beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they are not related at all. One is about equal protection and due process while the other is about public accommodation laws. Don't fool yourself into believing no one has noticed you can't prove your position on same-sex marriage, so you keep diverting in all sorts of directions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. I already said that BELIEFS about same sex marriage are already protected from each other
> by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and Civil Rights policies against discrimination by creed
> 
> 2. these are not diversions. I am saying the SAME concepts apply to all these other areas.
> 
> So solving one problem solves them all.
> The problem is not recognizing political beliefs as equal.
> 
> You only want to defend your beliefs and rights
> but you don't recognize the same of others.
> 
> Whose fault is that?
> Why are you blaming me for your inability to accommodate others?
> 
> I am trying to accommodate you and your beliefs.
> Your messages are about trying to debunk and EXCLUDE or dismiss my beliefs.
> 
> So who is doing the discriminating here?
> You are arguing why you should exclude
> "unless I prove to you why should something be included".
> 
> I am arguing how to include everyone equally!
> 
> *You are basically assuming other positions are false until proven true,
> while holding your position as true unless proven false.
> 
> I am assuming all beliefs are true, and trying to include them all.*
> 
> Do you see the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing in the First Amendment protecting same-sex marriage. That's where you go off the rails every single time and why you're perplexed over the legality of Obergefell.
Click to expand...


Free exercise of religion includes beliefs for or against same sex marriage.
it should protect both sides from infringement by the other. Faun


----------



## Sbiker

Syriusly said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QU
> I don't generally divide people by race, skin colour, religion or sexual orientation and here I'm just trying to understand, where in US is real border between rights of gays and rights of conservatives, and why..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no rights of gays or rights of conservatives here in the U.S.- we all have the same rights.
> There are no special rights for Christians or Jews, or straights or gays.
> There are just American rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Gays want official marriage, conervatives - no. If there are no special rights for them both, why they could not solve this conflict by simple voting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? You can't tell the difference between rights and opinions?
Click to expand...


Why do you consider it as only "opinion"? It's "opinion" only from your point of view. Why don't you consider a Christian point of view, as well, as yours or gay's? Does the Christian have rights to consider this situation from THEIR point of view?


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Faun that would be simple.
> And so would declaring the Democratic platform
> and beliefs about right to health care and right to marriage a
> POLITICAL RELIGION
> and be done with it.
> 
> We could AGREE to list out the political beliefs
> that each person or group holds sacred,
> agree to respect these as inviolate for those people
> and requiring consent of the governed and consensus
> on laws and reforms on any of these areas,
> and stop the fighting over forcing one g roup's
> beliefs over another's by domination or coecion.
> 
> I WISH it were that simple Faun I do!
> 
> But people like you see your stances as RIGHTS and not BELIEFS.
> and so do the right to life,
> and so do the right to choose
> and so do the right to guns advocates.
> 
> So it goes in circles, each combating the sacred
> cows that the other group draws a line in a sand for
> and refuses to let govt cross that line.
> 
> We all have our beliefs, and until we agree
> to treat them the same, we keep competing and
> repeating the same patterns over and over,
> taking turns trying to run over the other or
> run them out of govt. But that doesn't make
> that person's beliefs or rights 'go away" it just
> makes them come back and try to defend them
> again, back and forth.
> 
> Why don't we admit we have these sacred
> rights and beliefs, and agree not to disparage them???
> 
> Seems simple to me Faun but
> as you can see, it isn't easy to see when
> it's YOUR beliefs that you are defending as rights.
> When other people do that to you or me and take
> something that isn't our beliefs and shove it in our
> faces as law, then we can see that it should be a choice
> and not forced by law. But not when
> the shoe is on the other foot. Both sides are like that!
> 
> 
> 
> It is that simple. No one has to abandon marriage in America because some people oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage is here to stay and it now includes marriage between couples of the same sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Consensus on marriage might be reached if hypocrites like you admit you don't tolerate Christian practices in public as you are demanding people tolerate LGBT beliefs expressions and practices in public policy!
> 
> If you want equal rights and respect Faun that means to respect the same of others but you DONT. You insist that people's beliefs opposed to gay marriage, which cause them to reject "marriage" applied to gay couples, are due to some delusion or other deficiency. Thus Faun you are discriminating against the beliefs of others as inferior yet demanding equality for LGBT beliefs which is contradictory. You think you are not discriminating or excluding others but you keep putting them down as wrong instead of treating and respecting the beliefs as equal as I am trying to do.
> 
> And then you put me down also for trying to find ways to include all beliefs in a consensus on laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply not true, Emily.  Nothing is shoved in your face.  Your religion is not forced to acknowledge SSM, nor are you.   Your religion isn't forced to like or approve of it, and neither or you.  You want to name it something different, which violates the constitution.  If you can't grasp this, call an attorney.  Faun isn't discriminating against anyone, he's STANDING UP FOR THE RIGHTS OF EVERYONE.  YOU are the one advocating discrimination.  He's never once said other valid beliefs are delusions or deficient - he was referring to both your comments, and the others who claim religion trumps the Constitution, and separate but equal. There is no such thing anymore as SSM and Straight marriage.  There is JUST MARRIAGE. Please, try and wrap your mind around it, Emily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear @Sn e ekin and Faun
> NO, that's NOT what I am saying.
> And Faun is also saying that I am misconstruing and misstating also.
> Sorry about this, and let's try again to get this straight
> 
> A. for Faun
> it's NOT that Faun is TRYING to exclude or discriminate against beliefs of those who don't believe in gay marriage.
> But Faun does not get how these laws are doing any such thing!
> So if there is no perceived imposition or "forcing" anyone, how can that be affecting those other beliefs?
> 
> I am saying it IS affecting them just by passing laws where govt is endorsing marriage,
> and there are terms that people don't agree on.
> It does not have to affect them directly, as in the actual marriage laws,
> to affect them; just the fact that it is going through govt as a public institution
> is enough.
> 
> So this is like saying how can legalizing abortion be affecting people who aren't involved in that choice?
> this is for other people, not those who don't want abortion, who can still choose to abstain or prevent from getting involved in any such situation.
> 
> Well, as long as it is going through govt, and laws are public,
> then ALL people who have beliefs about this would rather laws be consistent with their values.
> And anything inconsistent is seen as an imposition of bias, which is especially problematic with anything seen as faith based.
> 
> Now Faun also does not see anything "faith based" or 'religious" about civil marriage laws.
> 
> so Faun I understand you do NOT INTEND to discriminate or impose on anyone else
> because you sincerely see no harm or imposition happening whatsoever!
> 
> that doesn't mean it isn't happening.
> Sneekin pointed out that my using the term "traditional" loosely was offensive and biased
> because it didn't count other things as equally "traditional' which is NOT what I meant.
> But still, if that word means something different to someone else, of course, I would
> have to change it and not expect them to change their thinking about it because that word "doesn't have to mean anything offensive"
> 
> B. for me,
> Again I am NOT saying that the marriage beliefs are being forced onto people in that sense.
> 
> I am saying that if people do not believe or agree on terms of policies
> that are being endorsed by govt,
> then it's THAT bias regardless of content that is causing a problem.
> 
> The fact that a law that doesn't represent all the people, but only those who see things a certain way,
> and leaves out the people who believe differently,
> is being PASSED and ENFORCED through govt without reworking it to INCLUDE the consent
> of the overruled people, then this is causing the imposition.
> 
> Regardless of the content, if there are such differences in beliefs
> that people cannot even SEE what imposition is occurring, while the others DO and are OBJECTING,
> something is REALLY wrong with how that law is being written or applied.
> 
> There is something wrong with the process if people don't even get what
> the other side sees right or wrong with it.
> 
> So it is inadverdently causing an imposition of bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you also support churches doing away with marriages?
Click to expand...


Dear Faun 
???
this is going the opposite direction.
the whole point is to empower people to exercise marriage rights in their own ways that don't require imposing on others.
so the role of churches would help take on that responsibility so that govt does remain secular and civil only.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Syriusly
> for the analogy about pork and Muslims,
> it's more like this:.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you just ignored what I said.
> 
> As I am now going to ignore what you said.
> 
> We do not end government licensing just because a religious group doesn't believe in what the license is for.
> 
> 
> We do not stop driver's licenses just because the Amish think driving a car is wrong
> We do not stop licensing a pig slaughterhouse just because Jews and Muslims think eating pig is wrong.
> We do not close all slaughterhouses just because Hindu's think killing animals is wrong.
> We do not stop licensing bars because Southern Baptists and Mormons think drinking alcohol is wrong.
> See the pattern here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, we aren't "stopping" the licensing Syriusly but
> refining it to be just about the CIVIL contracts, as Faun pointed out is the intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, that's all marriage has been about - it's ALWAYS BEEN a civil contract.  Why can't you just admit that?   The fact that you or anyone else, of any religion wish to add an entire other ceremony on top of the CIVIL MARRIAGE is of no impact to ANYONE ELSE.  It's JUST ABOUT THE CONTRACT.   Feel free to read Texas law, if you think it's anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Syriusly
> I think we must be talking past each other.
> Here Faun and Sneekin are saying the same thing
> that govt is only about the civil contract part of marraige.
> 
> So Syriusly how is this "ending marriage or taking rights away"
> if it's just everyone AGREEING on language and terms that CLARIFY
> govt licenses are only about the civil contracts and nothing to do with terms on the Social relationships?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You never answered my question -- *do you believe Churches should do away with marriages?*
Click to expand...


No, Faun 
I'm saying the same thing I think you are saying
that govt handles the *civil* contracts and people and
churches handle the spiritual and social relations and beliefs about them.

Not trying to do away with marriage but reorganize
to make sure people aren't attaching more social beliefs to the
civil govt laws that really belong to people by religious freedom on their own.


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, we aren't "stopping" the licensing Syriusly but
> refining it to be just about the CIVIL contracts, as Faun pointed out is the intent.
> 
> 
> 
> Emily, that's all marriage has been about - it's ALWAYS BEEN a civil contract.  Why can't you just admit that?   The fact that you or anyone else, of any religion wish to add an entire other ceremony on top of the CIVIL MARRIAGE is of no impact to ANYONE ELSE.  It's JUST ABOUT THE CONTRACT.   Feel free to read Texas law, if you think it's anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Syriusly
> I think we must be talking past each other.
> Here Faun and Sneekin are saying the same thing
> that govt is only about the civil contract part of marraige.
> 
> So Syriusly how is this "ending marriage or taking rights away"
> if it's just everyone AGREEING on language and terms that CLARIFY
> govt licenses are only about the civil contracts and nothing to do with terms on the Social relationships?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can get everyone to agree to anything let me know.
> 
> I don't agree to change the name of my marriage. I don't agree to change our form of civil marriage. I like our marriage laws. I like that same gender couples can marry each other legally just as my wife and I are legally married.
> 
> If you can get everyone to agree with me- well then that works for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Syriusly That's right.
> And others are saying that also.
> That nobody has the right to abuse govt to change
> their definition of marriage either!
> AGREED!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ones who were abusing government were those insisting that the government enforce their hatred
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

who is THEY rightwinger?

Because SOME people may abuse govt
does that give you the right to deprive ALL people of liberty
because of behavior of the wrongdoers?
where is the due process in that to punish only the wrongdoers?


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in Neitherlands, in 2001. Tell me about "no problems" from this marriages fifty years after
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in the Netherlands in 2001. First gay marriage in the United States was in 2004.
> Tell me what problems has this caused in the last 11-15 years.
> 
> But don't worry- if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, no problems, Muslim fastfood - shaurma - is really more tasty than burgers
> 
> Your propaganda in US now trying to mix Islam and Islamism - but really it's very different things, it could become an evil joke, if it will be continued...
> 
> p.s. 11-15 years is too few for world processes... I'm watching TV news - in 80th US used a terrible weapon against USSR - a freedom of info and opinion. USSR absorbs it as idea fully (instead of other states) - and fell. Now, after 30 years you have RT - and all your media screamed about "ideological diversion and so on" because now RT much close to truth than others  ALL thing we invented and advanced - are returned to us after some decades...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food.  Many Muslims don't eat it.  It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions.  It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all.  It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims.  The fact is, the meats used must be Halal.   Not all shawarma is Halal.  Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit.  If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.
> 
> Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage?  Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat?
> 
> 11-15 years?  Try thousands of years.   Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember.   Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.
> 
> Islam v Islamism? How racist of you.  Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East?  Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11.  You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims.  Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie?  Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them?  After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make.  On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- after existing for a thousand years, Rome fell after converting to Christianity.
> 
> I think the lesson is clear......
Click to expand...


If Rome got corrupted and fell because of that, is falling a bad thing or good Syriusly
Did the Christianity help to bring out the need and process to reform?

Historically wasn't the point of the Reformation to liberate people from depending on third party
authority to decide laws for people, which got corrupted by exchange of money.
And to empower the people to read laws and govern themselves by that directly?
Can we learn from that lesson also?
where the reform the church authority went through, what if our govt authority is reformed also
to allow people to govern themselves and not depend on party politicians to act as middlemen which get bought out by corporate interests?


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QU
> I don't generally divide people by race, skin colour, religion or sexual orientation and here I'm just trying to understand, where in US is real border between rights of gays and rights of conservatives, and why..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no rights of gays or rights of conservatives here in the U.S.- we all have the same rights.
> There are no special rights for Christians or Jews, or straights or gays.
> There are just American rights.
Click to expand...


Dear Syriusly then why are Christian beliefs and expressions sought to be REMOVED from public institutions,
while LGBT beliefs expressions and practices are sought to be recognized specifically and included in public policy
for TOLERANCE and inclusion that isn't extended to beliefs of other people that aren't universally shared either!

Aside from the interpretation of the First Amendment as only applying to organized religious beliefs,
is that the only reason?

If there is equal harassment and rejection and hatred of Christian beliefs
as there are against LGBT beliefs,
why this insistence on govt defending one while penalizing people of the other beliefs?


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question
> 
> With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you  handle gay couples traveling between states?
> 
> Try to answer in less than 50 words
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered that already rightwinger
> each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
> civil marriage, civil unions.
> 
> And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
> If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.
> 
> What part of my answer did you not get
> and I will explain it again.
> 
> I answered two different ways
> 1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
> 2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
> that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
> it can be national without going through state or federal govt
> 
> There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
> nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't get it
> 
> First off...allowing same sex marriage by party or religious affiliation means gays can change religion or party in order to get married
> 
> You avoid the key issue. What happens when a married, same sex couple either travels or moves to a state where it is not recognized?
> 
> If a partner becomes seriously ill, does the spouse lose all marital rights?
> What happens to the children of a same sex marriage when they move to a state that bans it?
> If you move to a state that bans it....are you effectively divorced or just a non-person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, please address rightwinger - these sum up what we all have been saying in under 100 words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger and Sneekin
> What happens if a contractor who follows the rules in Houston or Texas
> moves to another state? Well, the other states may have different rules or regulations
> on building codes and licensing master electricians or contractors to work on jobs.
> 
> The process is generally the same, but some of the terms and conditions may be different.
> The main goals of SAFETY will be the same across the states, but not all terms and conditions
> may be exactly alike unless all people across the nation AGREE to those.
> 
> When people switch schools, the credits at one school may be different than the one
> they are transferring from. But the MAIN standards agreed upon for accreditation will be met.
> It doesn't have to be perfectly the same for every school in ALL aspects,
> just the main policies that matter.
> 
> That's why if all states stick to a common policy, such as secular civil unions as the neutral standard,
> that part would be uniform across states and possibly the nation.
> But the more you attach personal conditions and social relations into the equation,
> that's going to make it harder if not impossible to come to an agreement.
> 
> What you are asking about "recognizing all marriages as the same" is
> like asking what happens if a Christian who is baptized with sprinkling
> is not recognized by another denomination that believes in full immersion?
> Well that part is private.
> 
> Our national constitutional laws use GENERAL language like free exercise of
> religion or no discrimination on the basis of CREED, but do NOT micromanage the details.
> 
> So if we keep the private practices that are relative out of the equation,
> the default policy left is just the civil contracts and unions that deal with
> legal and financial roles and terms in contracts, not anything to do with interpersonal relations
> that are private and remain the free choice of individuals.
> 
> Sneekin I saw very frustrated sounding messages from you regarding
> the term marriage. Sorry but if not all people agree to use that for civil marriage,
> that's not my fault.  That's how some people think.
> 
> So if you are going to ask people to be sensitive about using terms like
> creation instead of universe, because creation insinuates a creator while universe does not,
> that's just how some people prefer to use more neutral terms
> and not terms that are associated with things you don't mean.
> 
> People's perceptions ARE TIED TO LANGUAGE.
> 
> You objected to the term "traditional" which I did not mean any offense by,
> but it implied some negative things to you. That's not what I meant at ALL,
> but as long as that word invokes different MEANINGS on your side of the fence,
> then using that word is NOT effective and is NOT communicating the same thing to you that I mean.
> 
> So if I am going to communicate and reach an agreement with you,
> yes,the words we use matter. They have to mean the same things on both
> sides or people end up talking past each other.
> 
> It's almost like two different dialects or languages
> when people don't mean the same things by the same words.
> 
> I notice this with religion and politics, that the issues of words
> conveying different meanings causes a lot of offense when people don't realize it.
> 
> Sorry this is so frustrating to you, but believe me
> the frustration is mutual.  Most of my other friends who are conservatives
> have plumb given up on liberals, cannot understand or communicate,
> and have even decided liberalism must be a "mental disorder"
> because they just can't make sense of the mentality.
> 
> So it's at least mutual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, I'm through arguing with you.  I really don't care what you or your conservative friends think about what civil marriage is called.  The name of it legally is marriage, it's a civil contract between two people, end of discussion.
> 
> Next - workers moving from state to state is not the same as marriage.   If you live in Wisconsin, you cannot marry your first cousin.  If you live in Illinois, you can.   So, Wisconsin residents had to go to Illinois.  The current governor tried to block it by creating legislation, but their Supreme Court informed him he cannot undo a marriage done in another state.
> 
> I'm not asking anyone to be sensitive about creation versus science.  I'm trying to get you to understand that legally, creationism isn't SCIENCE.   Not on the SAT or ACT.   Got it?   Public schools MUST teach science.  I really don't care what you or your private school teaches, because, as an employer, I simply would refuse to hire someone so blatantly incompetent (if they never learned science, reading, writing and math).
> 
> Even your contractor example is wrong.   It's why we have licensing laws.   Just because you can build a house, cut hair, or be a lawyer in Texas, doesn't mean you can do it in any other state - it requires in many cases, additional schooling, and definitely testing/exams/etc.  I don't know of any contractor that's so ignorant as to think he could move from state to state and immediately start working without proper credentials.  So again, very bad example, and completely off topic from marriage (it does transfer from state to state, all of them).  Do you understand?  If you don't, put one line down - that you are through with the discussion with me.   You repeat yourself, you get discredited, you use the same arguments again, you get proven wrong again, ad infinitum.  Then you obfuscate, drift off to completely unrelated topics (ie, contractors), and accuse us of saying things that we didn't say (but in fact, you have throughout this thread).
> 
> You don't get to rename it, neither do your friends. It's settled law.   No one cares what you think, because YOU VOTED YOUR REPRESENTATIVES INTO OFFICE.  THEY APPROVED THE SCOTUS JUDGES.   So, to simplify it for you, you voted on it and agreed it was ok.   deal with it.
Click to expand...


Hi Sneekin I just referred a group of moderate left to read your msgs on this post, who were looking for more intelligent discourse instead of slamming back and forth on the boards.  Please do not give up posting!!!
I have to catch up at two jobs, both with major deadlines I've been missing due to illness.
so that's why my responses are so spotty.

[With the contractors licenses, no, the master test has to be taken for each state.
It does not transfer; just because you pass the test in Texas,
doesn't mean you have a license to do the work in other states. I have a friend who
has traveled and passed tests in 20 states. there are some uniform codes across the board.
I have no problem if systems can be made uniform, but this has to represent all people and not be legislated from the top down where people argue it isn't representing them equally.]

I think I generally agree with the content of the rights and freedom and protections
that you and Faun are arguing should be for all people,
independent of any beliefs about LGBT.

What we disagree on is how these laws and rights are interpreted and implemented,
but we agree that nobody should be infringed upon because of beliefs by some other person or group. We just don't agree how to get there, and you and Faun think that what is set up is already there, but I'm saying people don't agree with that and changes are still needed.

I will get back to all this later.
Not trying to ignore, but just over my head when I have work to do, at two jobs I am
trying to hold onto, and there are 10 x as many msgs from each of you that I can't get to.

I don't know if you have seen my other msgs explaining that
the legal abuses in two districts in Houston where I was helping nonprofit
volunteers, to keep their community programs going that govt abuses evicted
and all but shut down, cost me over 60,000 in credit card debts from bailing out
these nonprofits that I believe were defending the rights of these communities to assemble
and to petition for correction of these abuses, had they not been censored for lack of
resources, legal defense, and equal protections of their rights and due process that was overridden by abuses.

so that's why I ended up working two jobs since 2008.
Since 2016 when one job ended and I tried to replace it, the extra
driving has caused my health to collapse over and over again.

So that's what I'm dealing with, and still trying to set up a community based process of
restitution for damages that is VOLUNTARY since the given system is too
expensive and only rewards covering up the wrongs but not correcting them.

I've been using this board to reach out and find people to organize around
solutions we can actually pitch to govt and parties. So I hope you will continue
here because your input and consultation on policies and process is exactly what we need!

Thank you!


----------



## rightwinger

Sneekin said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin Faun rightwinger Syriusly
> Thank you SO MUCH for all your intelligent responses
> articulating exactly what is going on with this law and process.
> 
> I have be en out sick, and just cheating and replying by cell phone.
> but when I have time I will go back, thank or info all your points
> that are informative and appreciated, and outline all your points.
> This is EXACTLY what should have been addressed in reforming laws.
> BEFORE DOMA was written and passed, it should have already resolved all these things.
> 
> This would be a full time job to revise laws including ACA which at this point
> has at least two separate versions. BOTH can be offered as equal tracks
> and let TAXPAYERS decide which to enroll and pay into.
> 
> With marriage and civil unions, I think we could have a consensus at each state level
> and possibly nationally instead of separating.
> 
> If only some fringe groups opt out due to religious beliefs, I think that is possible
> also. I certainly do not believe in forcing anyone's marriage through the state who
> wants to keep theirs private.  But if people insist on having THEIR marriage through
> the state, why shouldn't they be able to have that and not force everyone to do it that way?
> 
> I think this is similar to the issue over GUN regulations,
> whether right to bear arms is an unrestricted right, or
> how much does govt get involved in the regulations?
> 
> Because right to bear arms is written as an Amendment into the Constitution
> as one of its founding principles, the right to marriage would also have to
> be written as an Amendment to have the same weight.
> 
> So THAT'S why it seems so imbalanced to others looking at this
> from the other perspective:
> 1. why do liberals insist on REMOVING a right or trying to regulate
> it away if right to bear arms is WRITTEN into the Bill of Rights.
> Why INSIST on the definition of "people" as "militia only"
> 2. Then COMPLAIN when people define marriage as "one man one woman only"
> if it isn't govt's job to dictate that either!
> There is no Amendment to the Constitution that state the right to marry
> as a right that cannot be disparaged by the other rights by enumeration.
> The right of states and persons is Amendment 10 so that can be used
> to defend the BELIEFS in right to marriage, but the same standard
> should also apply to BELIEFS in right to bear arms.
> 
> Faun does NOT get how one issue has anything to do with others.
> 
> But it is the whole CONTEXT of how we approach laws and govt
> that is affecting how we interpret and WRITE laws.
> 
> The left and right don't even see the Second Amendment the same way
> and that's a WRITTEN law.
> 
> Why not get THAT straight, and then maybe we can write an Amendment
> to deal with right to marriage right to health care and other political beliefs.
> 
> If we haven't solved the issue of why people interpret the ability of govt
> to regulate arms, when there IS a written Amendment on that, then
> similar conflicts are happening with the ability of govt to regulate marriage.
> 
> there is something DIFFERENT in the basic core beliefs about govt
> and the relation between people and authority of law that is causing
> these "cross communications" preventing conflicts from getting resolved.
> 
> Lastly, the progressives have been pushing for a Peace
> department that focuses on diplomatic solutions instead of war.
> I have proposed to expand the Justice dept to the Dept of Justice and Peace
> to work on MEDIATION and conflict resolution as a public service.
> 
> Since nobody wants other people to regulate or take away
> either their right to marriage or right to bear arms, and we
> don't interpret laws or govt the same way, I say this calls
> for MEDIATION to work this out.
> 
> So if anything you have convinced me we need mediation
> and the govt ought to incorporate that assistance in the process
> of judicial rulings, legislative reforms, and crafting executive orders
> where any objections or conflicts can be resolved to prevent from
> passing and rejecting, passing and rejecting, ruling and appealing
> over and over because there were flaws or issues left unaddressed.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> You will note, this is not a 2nd amendment conversation, Emily.  But as the SCOTUS (Scalia, even) points out, no right is absolute.  Your 2nd amendment right does not allow you to have nuclear weapons, rocket launchers, most bombs, heavy artillery, etc.  No liberal is trying to take your rights away.  While you want the mentally ill to be weaponized (quite the outbreak of shootings in Texas from the mentally ill crowd), we want them to go through a background check to see if they psychologically are able to carry without harming themselves or others.  We don't need another Texas mom shooting her small children.
> 
> You propose to change the DOJ to something else?  You do realize that the DOJ is a cabinet position, established  in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution.  Do you know the requirements, even, to add to or remove from Cabinet positions established by the constitution?
> 
> You claim people are trying to take away their right to marry.  The only ones that do are right wing conservative nut jobs.   *If there are others, PLEASE LIST THEM.
> *
> Emily, you do realize that the ACA was originally written in the mid 1990's by the conservative think tank (Heritage group), because Hillary Clinton, as first lady, was developing a health care system on it's own.   Her's didn't get implemented, and it was shelved until Romney dusted it off, tweaked and implemented it. It was constitutional.  Obama took the republican plan, gave it to the mixed Congress, and had them develop it out nationwide.  It was done.  It passed.  It went to the SCOTUS.  It was deemed constitutional, mandates and all.  Why you think you can now just make changes to a law at your own whim, without going through lawmakers is pretty laughable.  Taxpayers already can decide - they can pay cash for insurance, they can go through the exchanges, or, depending on their job, opt to keep their work insurance -so you are wrong on this point as well.
> 
> We still aren't going to have civil unions AND marriages, with SSM going under one name, and marriage other another.  Nor, marriage by a JP/Judge/non-religious being called a civil union, and church being called marriage.   That's not the legal definition, as set forth in law. Again, *Marriage is a civil contract between 2 people.  *Your church, you, and I and everyone here do not have the power to change that.  You keep claiming "the people" or "the states" can define marriage as between one man and one woman. You can't - we have that silly *Fourteenth Amendment,* that gets in your way.  *It established due process and equal rights for ALL, not SOME.* Understand?  To answer your question a 10th or 20th time, NO, a state does NOT have the right to change it.
> 
> We all recognize (apparently excluding you) that both the 2nd and 14th amendments are both Laws.  You claim liberals don't, but that's not true.  We tell you the same thing the SCOTUS said.  Both are rights, and rights are not absolute.  If you are a felon, or (in most states) mentally ill and locked away, NO GUNS FOR YOU.   That's the second amendment.  The 14th amendment says 2 people can get married.  It's not absolute.  You can't marry your father, son, or sister.  Got it?
> 
> While I believe in the right to bear arms, I know it's not absolute, and I know it's open for interpretation.  If you don't comprehend the Militia argument, it's time for you to go back to Junior High, when most people are first exposed to the concept.
> 
> The Government does have the rights to regulate arms.   Call your local FBI office, and tell them you have 300 pounds of C4 in your garage, and see how fast you are arrested.  Tell them you can have it because of your second amendment rights.
> 
> Department of Peace?  From  2001?  Bit of a stretch, and completely off topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you two just get a room?
> 
> Both of your posts are so freak'n long
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So leave these posts, if it's too challenging for you.  I'm simply answering every question she asks, or refuting literaelly every statement she makes.  I back it up with fact or cases when possible.   I see you just whine and complain it's too hard.  Why don't you get a room - by yourself?
Click to expand...


For crying out loud....just get to the point

Both of you are like verbal diarrhea.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.
> 
> Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.
> 
> Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Tennyson
> 
> If Muslims petition to change the wording because "Shariah Law" is overly broad
> and unintentionally bans voluntary practice of prayer and charity by Muslims in private,
> but the state does not accommodate this as a religious conflict or bias,
> then the federal govt could be petitioned if it doesn't get resolved on a state level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> There is no constitutional concept of a state or individual petitioning the federal government over the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense Tennyson how can prohibition be repealed if there wasn't a process?
> if amendments can amend the Constitution, certainly they can clarify other amendments,
> such as clarifying that free exercise of religion applies to ALL beliefs and creeds
> not just members of organized religions.
Click to expand...

Emily, as we learned in school, the 18th amendment instituted prohibition.   The ONLY way it could be repealed was by passing the 21st amendment (Repeal of Prohibition).

Can you for ONCE give an example of free exercise of religion that's not applied properly?  Native American Tribes can use "magic Mushrooms".  SCOTUS ruled that two native Americans could be prosecuted for using peyote, which violated Oregon law. Just like FLDS can be prosecuted for Actual Plural marriage (Utah prosecuted in the past, even when only one marriage was a civil marriage, and others were just religious).  Nevada, on the other hand, would not prosecute.  

What do you think needs clarified?  Don't you grasp some of these are intentionally broad?  There won't ever be fine grain to your point, where Fred can marry Bob only on Wednesdays in a lean-to on public property by a man with top hat and cane, and must call it gayboy marriage.   Note the topic.  It's not prohibition.  It's not the first amendment.   It's the 14th.  Do you think we are going to rewrite that amendment, or "clarify" it?  Just how so?  

You quite apparently aren't familiar with the process of amending the constitution.  You can't just go through and tweak a word here and there.   The 14th amendment, for example, covers abortion, marriage, Civil Rights of all Americans, equal rights and protections of former slaves, etc.  The first amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. Do you really think a majority of people in the majority of the states are going to agree to your proposals (since you won't name them)?  Do you realize that we the people could certainly challenge the _procedural_ validity of the Amendment, and thus attempt to sever the Amendment from the Constitution, on the off chance it passed?   Do you know how long it can take?  One of the first amendments proposed (prohibits any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of Congress from taking effect until the start of the next set of terms of office for Representatives) - was proposed to Congress on September 25, 1789.  It became our latest amendment,  and ratified on May 5, 1992, completing a record-setting ratification period of 202 years, 7 months, and 10 days.The 26th amendment, lowering the voting age, was discussed since WWII, but actually was ratified in March of 1971. The 25th Amendment (succession of the President), supersedes the ambiguous wording of Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution took over 2 years to pass.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm, I'll go with Thomas Jefferson who wrote in the Declaration of Independence that  *"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."*  See that "pursuit of happiness" bit?  Yeah, right there.  That covers gay marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear westwall but also the Constitution includes not depriving liberty of persons without due process of laws to prove that a violation occurred first.
> So if both sides feel the other is depriving them of representation, then both sides still have to answer to each other
> before ASSUMING that it's the other side that is seeking to infringe or impose.
> 
> Neither side agrees to the arguments of the other.
> 
> This isn't settled or proven yet, and at this point it seems at least mutual.
> So if both sides keep pushing for a policy that the other side objects to,
> they are equally guilty of discriminating against the creed and representation of the others.
Click to expand...

Already settled, and your statements are completely *NOT TRUE.  *Otherwise, all one would ever have to do is frivolously claim they were deprived of representation......

Your statement is false - there is no marriage policy that your religion objects to.  No one (but you and your fellow radical conservative fundamentalists) are pushing to 1) make changes that the other side objects to, and only you and YOUR group are guilty of discriminating by creed (we don't discriminate by representation).   You *ALWAYS *have the right to representation when needed).  

Gays are *NOT *asking for any policy changes. Gays are *not *discriminating.   They *in no way are guilty of discrimination*.  *YOU, *at the city/county/state level, passed equal protection for various groups.  Some include sexual preference as one of the many protected groups.  For some reason, that bothers you (living along a river, in a bi-state area, and not that many miles from 3 other states, we have these rules at either state or city/county level in most areas.   So - yes, in Illinois, gays are allowed equal access to *THEIR CHOICE* of non-religious venue (ie, an Inn for service and/or reception). *THEIR CHOICE *of who makes their cake.   *THEIR CHOICE* of photographer.  *THEIR CHOICE *who makes their invitations.  None of these fall under 1st amendment (religious freedom).  None of this will be clarified by an amendment to the first amendment, because to do so would violate the 14th amendment....... Looking forward to hear your proposed amendment.


----------



## Sneekin

rightwinger said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin Faun rightwinger Syriusly
> Thank you SO MUCH for all your intelligent responses
> articulating exactly what is going on with this law and process.
> 
> I have be en out sick, and just cheating and replying by cell phone.
> but when I have time I will go back, thank or info all your points
> that are informative and appreciated, and outline all your points.
> This is EXACTLY what should have been addressed in reforming laws.
> BEFORE DOMA was written and passed, it should have already resolved all these things.
> 
> This would be a full time job to revise laws including ACA which at this point
> has at least two separate versions. BOTH can be offered as equal tracks
> and let TAXPAYERS decide which to enroll and pay into.
> 
> With marriage and civil unions, I think we could have a consensus at each state level
> and possibly nationally instead of separating.
> 
> If only some fringe groups opt out due to religious beliefs, I think that is possible
> also. I certainly do not believe in forcing anyone's marriage through the state who
> wants to keep theirs private.  But if people insist on having THEIR marriage through
> the state, why shouldn't they be able to have that and not force everyone to do it that way?
> 
> I think this is similar to the issue over GUN regulations,
> whether right to bear arms is an unrestricted right, or
> how much does govt get involved in the regulations?
> 
> Because right to bear arms is written as an Amendment into the Constitution
> as one of its founding principles, the right to marriage would also have to
> be written as an Amendment to have the same weight.
> 
> So THAT'S why it seems so imbalanced to others looking at this
> from the other perspective:
> 1. why do liberals insist on REMOVING a right or trying to regulate
> it away if right to bear arms is WRITTEN into the Bill of Rights.
> Why INSIST on the definition of "people" as "militia only"
> 2. Then COMPLAIN when people define marriage as "one man one woman only"
> if it isn't govt's job to dictate that either!
> There is no Amendment to the Constitution that state the right to marry
> as a right that cannot be disparaged by the other rights by enumeration.
> The right of states and persons is Amendment 10 so that can be used
> to defend the BELIEFS in right to marriage, but the same standard
> should also apply to BELIEFS in right to bear arms.
> 
> Faun does NOT get how one issue has anything to do with others.
> 
> But it is the whole CONTEXT of how we approach laws and govt
> that is affecting how we interpret and WRITE laws.
> 
> The left and right don't even see the Second Amendment the same way
> and that's a WRITTEN law.
> 
> Why not get THAT straight, and then maybe we can write an Amendment
> to deal with right to marriage right to health care and other political beliefs.
> 
> If we haven't solved the issue of why people interpret the ability of govt
> to regulate arms, when there IS a written Amendment on that, then
> similar conflicts are happening with the ability of govt to regulate marriage.
> 
> there is something DIFFERENT in the basic core beliefs about govt
> and the relation between people and authority of law that is causing
> these "cross communications" preventing conflicts from getting resolved.
> 
> Lastly, the progressives have been pushing for a Peace
> department that focuses on diplomatic solutions instead of war.
> I have proposed to expand the Justice dept to the Dept of Justice and Peace
> to work on MEDIATION and conflict resolution as a public service.
> 
> Since nobody wants other people to regulate or take away
> either their right to marriage or right to bear arms, and we
> don't interpret laws or govt the same way, I say this calls
> for MEDIATION to work this out.
> 
> So if anything you have convinced me we need mediation
> and the govt ought to incorporate that assistance in the process
> of judicial rulings, legislative reforms, and crafting executive orders
> where any objections or conflicts can be resolved to prevent from
> passing and rejecting, passing and rejecting, ruling and appealing
> over and over because there were flaws or issues left unaddressed.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> You will note, this is not a 2nd amendment conversation, Emily.  But as the SCOTUS (Scalia, even) points out, no right is absolute.  Your 2nd amendment right does not allow you to have nuclear weapons, rocket launchers, most bombs, heavy artillery, etc.  No liberal is trying to take your rights away.  While you want the mentally ill to be weaponized (quite the outbreak of shootings in Texas from the mentally ill crowd), we want them to go through a background check to see if they psychologically are able to carry without harming themselves or others.  We don't need another Texas mom shooting her small children.
> 
> You propose to change the DOJ to something else?  You do realize that the DOJ is a cabinet position, established  in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution.  Do you know the requirements, even, to add to or remove from Cabinet positions established by the constitution?
> 
> You claim people are trying to take away their right to marry.  The only ones that do are right wing conservative nut jobs.   *If there are others, PLEASE LIST THEM.
> *
> Emily, you do realize that the ACA was originally written in the mid 1990's by the conservative think tank (Heritage group), because Hillary Clinton, as first lady, was developing a health care system on it's own.   Her's didn't get implemented, and it was shelved until Romney dusted it off, tweaked and implemented it. It was constitutional.  Obama took the republican plan, gave it to the mixed Congress, and had them develop it out nationwide.  It was done.  It passed.  It went to the SCOTUS.  It was deemed constitutional, mandates and all.  Why you think you can now just make changes to a law at your own whim, without going through lawmakers is pretty laughable.  Taxpayers already can decide - they can pay cash for insurance, they can go through the exchanges, or, depending on their job, opt to keep their work insurance -so you are wrong on this point as well.
> 
> We still aren't going to have civil unions AND marriages, with SSM going under one name, and marriage other another.  Nor, marriage by a JP/Judge/non-religious being called a civil union, and church being called marriage.   That's not the legal definition, as set forth in law. Again, *Marriage is a civil contract between 2 people.  *Your church, you, and I and everyone here do not have the power to change that.  You keep claiming "the people" or "the states" can define marriage as between one man and one woman. You can't - we have that silly *Fourteenth Amendment,* that gets in your way.  *It established due process and equal rights for ALL, not SOME.* Understand?  To answer your question a 10th or 20th time, NO, a state does NOT have the right to change it.
> 
> We all recognize (apparently excluding you) that both the 2nd and 14th amendments are both Laws.  You claim liberals don't, but that's not true.  We tell you the same thing the SCOTUS said.  Both are rights, and rights are not absolute.  If you are a felon, or (in most states) mentally ill and locked away, NO GUNS FOR YOU.   That's the second amendment.  The 14th amendment says 2 people can get married.  It's not absolute.  You can't marry your father, son, or sister.  Got it?
> 
> While I believe in the right to bear arms, I know it's not absolute, and I know it's open for interpretation.  If you don't comprehend the Militia argument, it's time for you to go back to Junior High, when most people are first exposed to the concept.
> 
> The Government does have the rights to regulate arms.   Call your local FBI office, and tell them you have 300 pounds of C4 in your garage, and see how fast you are arrested.  Tell them you can have it because of your second amendment rights.
> 
> Department of Peace?  From  2001?  Bit of a stretch, and completely off topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you two just get a room?
> 
> Both of your posts are so freak'n long
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So leave these posts, if it's too challenging for you.  I'm simply answering every question she asks, or refuting literaelly every statement she makes.  I back it up with fact or cases when possible.   I see you just whine and complain it's too hard.  Why don't you get a room - by yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For crying out loud....just get to the point
> 
> Both of you are like verbal diarrhea.
Click to expand...

I hope this is short enough for you.  *DEAL WITH IT* and *SKIP OVER IT IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ IT*.  It does get the points across to those asking questions.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I answered that already rightwinger
> each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
> civil marriage, civil unions.
> 
> And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
> If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.
> 
> What part of my answer did you not get
> and I will explain it again.
> 
> I answered two different ways
> 1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
> 2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
> that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
> it can be national without going through state or federal govt
> 
> There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
> nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it
> 
> First off...allowing same sex marriage by party or religious affiliation means gays can change religion or party in order to get married
> 
> You avoid the key issue. What happens when a married, same sex couple either travels or moves to a state where it is not recognized?
> 
> If a partner becomes seriously ill, does the spouse lose all marital rights?
> What happens to the children of a same sex marriage when they move to a state that bans it?
> If you move to a state that bans it....are you effectively divorced or just a non-person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, please address rightwinger - these sum up what we all have been saying in under 100 words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger and Sneekin
> What happens if a contractor who follows the rules in Houston or Texas
> moves to another state? Well, the other states may have different rules or regulations
> on building codes and licensing master electricians or contractors to work on jobs.
> 
> The process is generally the same, but some of the terms and conditions may be different.
> The main goals of SAFETY will be the same across the states, but not all terms and conditions
> may be exactly alike unless all people across the nation AGREE to those.
> 
> When people switch schools, the credits at one school may be different than the one
> they are transferring from. But the MAIN standards agreed upon for accreditation will be met.
> It doesn't have to be perfectly the same for every school in ALL aspects,
> just the main policies that matter.
> 
> That's why if all states stick to a common policy, such as secular civil unions as the neutral standard,
> that part would be uniform across states and possibly the nation.
> But the more you attach personal conditions and social relations into the equation,
> that's going to make it harder if not impossible to come to an agreement.
> 
> What you are asking about "recognizing all marriages as the same" is
> like asking what happens if a Christian who is baptized with sprinkling
> is not recognized by another denomination that believes in full immersion?
> Well that part is private.
> 
> Our national constitutional laws use GENERAL language like free exercise of
> religion or no discrimination on the basis of CREED, but do NOT micromanage the details.
> 
> So if we keep the private practices that are relative out of the equation,
> the default policy left is just the civil contracts and unions that deal with
> legal and financial roles and terms in contracts, not anything to do with interpersonal relations
> that are private and remain the free choice of individuals.
> 
> Sneekin I saw very frustrated sounding messages from you regarding
> the term marriage. Sorry but if not all people agree to use that for civil marriage,
> that's not my fault.  That's how some people think.
> 
> So if you are going to ask people to be sensitive about using terms like
> creation instead of universe, because creation insinuates a creator while universe does not,
> that's just how some people prefer to use more neutral terms
> and not terms that are associated with things you don't mean.
> 
> People's perceptions ARE TIED TO LANGUAGE.
> 
> You objected to the term "traditional" which I did not mean any offense by,
> but it implied some negative things to you. That's not what I meant at ALL,
> but as long as that word invokes different MEANINGS on your side of the fence,
> then using that word is NOT effective and is NOT communicating the same thing to you that I mean.
> 
> So if I am going to communicate and reach an agreement with you,
> yes,the words we use matter. They have to mean the same things on both
> sides or people end up talking past each other.
> 
> It's almost like two different dialects or languages
> when people don't mean the same things by the same words.
> 
> I notice this with religion and politics, that the issues of words
> conveying different meanings causes a lot of offense when people don't realize it.
> 
> Sorry this is so frustrating to you, but believe me
> the frustration is mutual.  Most of my other friends who are conservatives
> have plumb given up on liberals, cannot understand or communicate,
> and have even decided liberalism must be a "mental disorder"
> because they just can't make sense of the mentality.
> 
> So it's at least mutual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, I'm through arguing with you.  I really don't care what you or your conservative friends think about what civil marriage is called.  The name of it legally is marriage, it's a civil contract between two people, end of discussion.
> 
> Next - workers moving from state to state is not the same as marriage.   If you live in Wisconsin, you cannot marry your first cousin.  If you live in Illinois, you can.   So, Wisconsin residents had to go to Illinois.  The current governor tried to block it by creating legislation, but their Supreme Court informed him he cannot undo a marriage done in another state.
> 
> I'm not asking anyone to be sensitive about creation versus science.  I'm trying to get you to understand that legally, creationism isn't SCIENCE.   Not on the SAT or ACT.   Got it?   Public schools MUST teach science.  I really don't care what you or your private school teaches, because, as an employer, I simply would refuse to hire someone so blatantly incompetent (if they never learned science, reading, writing and math).
> 
> Even your contractor example is wrong.   It's why we have licensing laws.   Just because you can build a house, cut hair, or be a lawyer in Texas, doesn't mean you can do it in any other state - it requires in many cases, additional schooling, and definitely testing/exams/etc.  I don't know of any contractor that's so ignorant as to think he could move from state to state and immediately start working without proper credentials.  So again, very bad example, and completely off topic from marriage (it does transfer from state to state, all of them).  Do you understand?  If you don't, put one line down - that you are through with the discussion with me.   You repeat yourself, you get discredited, you use the same arguments again, you get proven wrong again, ad infinitum.  Then you obfuscate, drift off to completely unrelated topics (ie, contractors), and accuse us of saying things that we didn't say (but in fact, you have throughout this thread).
> 
> You don't get to rename it, neither do your friends. It's settled law.   No one cares what you think, because YOU VOTED YOUR REPRESENTATIVES INTO OFFICE.  THEY APPROVED THE SCOTUS JUDGES.   So, to simplify it for you, you voted on it and agreed it was ok.   deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Sneekin I just referred a group of moderate left to read your msgs on this post, who were looking for more intelligent discourse instead of slamming back and forth on the boards.  Please do not give up posting!!!
> I have to catch up at two jobs, both with major deadlines I've been missing due to illness.
> so that's why my responses are so spotty.
> 
> [With the contractors licenses, no, the master test has to be taken for each state.
> It does not transfer; just because you pass the test in Texas,
> doesn't mean you have a license to do the work in other states. I have a friend who
> has traveled and passed tests in 20 states. there are some uniform codes across the board.
> I have no problem if systems can be made uniform, but this has to represent all people and not be legislated from the top down where people argue it isn't representing them equally.]
> 
> I think I generally agree with the content of the rights and freedom and protections
> that you and Faun are arguing should be for all people,
> independent of any beliefs about LGBT.
> 
> What we disagree on is how these laws and rights are interpreted and implemented,
> but we agree that nobody should be infringed upon because of beliefs by some other person or group. We just don't agree how to get there, and you and Faun think that what is set up is already there, but I'm saying people don't agree with that and changes are still needed.
> 
> I will get back to all this later.
> Not trying to ignore, but just over my head when I have work to do, at two jobs I am
> trying to hold onto, and there are 10 x as many msgs from each of you that I can't get to.
> 
> I don't know if you have seen my other msgs explaining that
> the legal abuses in two districts in Houston where I was helping nonprofit
> volunteers, to keep their community programs going that govt abuses evicted
> and all but shut down, cost me over 60,000 in credit card debts from bailing out
> these nonprofits that I believe were defending the rights of these communities to assemble
> and to petition for correction of these abuses, had they not been censored for lack of
> resources, legal defense, and equal protections of their rights and due process that was overridden by abuses.
> 
> so that's why I ended up working two jobs since 2008.
> Since 2016 when one job ended and I tried to replace it, the extra
> driving has caused my health to collapse over and over again.
> 
> So that's what I'm dealing with, and still trying to set up a community based process of
> restitution for damages that is VOLUNTARY since the given system is too
> expensive and only rewards covering up the wrongs but not correcting them.
> 
> I've been using this board to reach out and find people to organize around
> solutions we can actually pitch to govt and parties. So I hope you will continue
> here because your input and consultation on policies and process is exactly what we need!
> 
> Thank you!
Click to expand...

Emily - I did say licenses don't transfer between states for contractors - but marriages (ie, licensed civil marriages) are recognized between states).

Again, I ask you - what's not already set up?  It really can't be any simpler than marriage is a contract between two people who meet the state criteria for marriage.   

In regards to marriage, I challenge you to add anything else that needs added.  It confers all rights afforded to ALL married couples, gay or straight. So there is no need to differentiate.  I realize Texas (not you) think they are a special situation, but they aren't.  In some cities, the whole wedding cake issue comes up.  In others, it's illegal.   If they don't act on it, then they don't need to complain when the feds do it for them.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Tennyson the passage of the Constitution was contingent on the agreement that a Bill of Rights would be added
> to define the individual rights not protected in the body of the Constitution that only defined federal powers and duties.
> 
> so you cannot have the Constitution without the Bill of Rights
> or it is like having the OT of the Bible without the NT!
> 
> In fact, the same way the Bible is summarized in 2-3 great commandments
> 1. love of God with all our heart mind and soul
> 2. love of neighbor as ourselves
> 3. love of one another as Christ Jesus loves us (ie with forgiveness and correction
> that is Restorative Justice, not judgment and punishment or retributive justice)
> 
> I would say the First Amendment summarizes the whole of the law
> that all other laws are based on
> 1. free exercise of religion as free will, equal executive power of each person
> 2. free speech and freedom of religion as equal judicial freedom of each person
> 3. free press and right to assemble as equal legislative or power of attorney of each person to authorize contracts
> and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances
> combines these as democratic due process of laws to resolve conflicts and establish agreed law and order.
> 
> All other laws come from these basic natural laws
> that are inherent in human nature as combining
> * Mind
> * Body
> * Spirit
> 
> where laws or contracts/agreements connect
> * INDIVIDUAL to
> * COLLECTIVE levels, based on the
> * RELATIONSHIP between the two.
> 
> both religious and political/civil laws attempt to define the terms of that RELATIONSHIP
> so you will see this same pattern of THREE levels
> in any system of laws, religion, philosophy or govt.
Click to expand...

So....hate to tell you, but if I'm Jewish, my bible (My book of sacred writings) is just the Old Testament.  No Christianity for me.  If I'm Muslim - then it's the Qu'ran - which again doesn't have the New Testament, but most of the old testament.  

The first amendment doesn't summarize the whole of law - if that were the case, we'd still have slavery, ban interracial marriages, no divorces, the list just goes on and on.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
> 1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
> 2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority
> 
> The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.
> 
> Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief.  Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.
> 
> Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .
> 
> 
> 
> Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
> 
> Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People on both sides are being forced to change terms of the contract without agreeing to the changes and how they are worded or applied.
> Unless the process recognizes consensus, it is pressuring one side to defend itself against the other, which isn't fair to eiether side.
> Faun
Click to expand...

There is no new term. Marriage is still marriage.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
> This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
> 1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
> 2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority
> 
> The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.
> 
> Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief.  Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.
> 
> Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .
> 
> 
> 
> Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
> 
> Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People on both sides are being forced to change terms of the contract without agreeing to the changes and how they are worded or applied.
> Unless the process recognizes consensus, it is pressuring one side to defend itself against the other, which isn't fair to eiether side.
> Faun
Click to expand...

Contracts are invalidated if you detrimentally change the language.  However, contracts can be unilateral (one party makes the decisions) or bilateral (must arrive at a consensus). In a case where illegal language is contained (for example, Texas stated marriage was only between a man and a woman), the courts struck (repeatedly) the language "only between a man and a woman".  From a civil contract point of view, that does NOT pressure any one side to defend itself.  You (Texas) doesn't get to agree to changes when the changes make the contract legal and binding, instead of ILLEGAL and INVALID.  No consensus would be required - or would be legal.   When Loving v Virginia struck down the prohibition of interracial marriage, no one in the state of VA got to vote, discuss, negotiate, come to a consensus.  The verbiage was struck/rewritten to become LEGAL.   The only "fair way" is what is legal.  It's not what we think, it's what the law is.  You can't put have a legal and binding contract with illegal terms and conditions.  That's why you can't marry your cat, dog, or computer, and why there is no negotiating (putting aside the fact that all 3 can't give consent, nor meet ANY of the legal conditions).


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.
> 
> Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. Civil unions can be for everyone and avoid the issue of marriage beliefs not everyone shares. You are free to exercise, teach and practice your beliefs about marriage, but not to impose them through govt on people of other beliefs about marriage.
> 
> To be fair to all people of all beliefs, civil unions are universal and secular.
> 
> 2. If you want to impose further, that is like people who want prayer in schools to include Christian practice of invoking God through everyone joining in Christ Jesus name. I happen to understand GOD represents universal concepts that cover and include all people, but people do not agree on religious terms. It has to remain free choice where beliefs are involved.
> 
> Same with beliefs about marriage, not all people agree on religious terms, so out of respect for religious freedom it makes sense to stick with civil unions for the government to recognize as secular contracts and leave beliefs about marriage out of govt.
> 
> Again, if you believe otherwise, so do many Christians believe in integrating their beliefs through govt they believe are universal truth as well that includes all people.
> 
> 3. If you all agree to open the doors of govt to endorse and incorporate all manner of beliefs into laws and public institutions, then that's fair and you are including all people.
> 
> But it's discrimination to tell Christians that references to Crosses, prayers to God through Christ, and teaching creation through God all have to be Removed from public institutions while insisting that beliefs about gay marriage and homosexuality as natural must be included for tolerance even when it violates beliefs of others that these are not natural.
> 
> It's discriminating by creed, so it violates other laws.
> 
> Faun would you agree to a resolution allowing all Christian beliefs and practices to be endorsed and implemented in public policies and institutions, including Christian healing prayer and right to life for unborn and teaching creation in schools, in exchange for allowing beliefs in gate marriage?
> 
> I'm sure an agreement can be worked out if all beliefs are included equally as you are asking.
> 
> Are you willing to incorporate and include all beliefs equally as yours? Are only the beliefs you happen to agree with? Thanks Faun
> 
> Even if we cannot agree how to accommodate all beliefs equally, at least we tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The courts already ruled on civil unions versus marriage.  Marriage is a civil contract between 2 persons.   civil unions are being eliminated in some states already.  You are using the concept of separate but equal, which, in and of itself is also grossly illegal.   Do you also agree we need different doors, restaurants, drinking fountains for minorities?  Because that's what you say when you demand  SSM must be called civil unions.  That's separate but equal, illegal, and already ruled upon by the SCOTUS YEARS AGO, Emily!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> If you say marriage is different from prayer, how can you say it is like public accommodations?
> 
> And orientation is not like race and racial segregation.
> 
> 1. Race is determined even before birth by the genetics of the two parents even before conception because their DNA is set. Orientation is spiritual either from birth by conditions in the womb, or environment such as homosexuality resulting from sexual or other abuse, or spiritual karma. Peope have changed their orientation similar to changing ones identity of faith, which can't be said of race which is fixed genetically.
> 
> 2. Why are you taking it as insulting to treat LGBT beliefs as other beliefs or creeds that are someone s free choice and right to exercise freely without discrimination?
> 
> What is wrong with separate but equal political parties or religions?
> Is it offensive to have Catholics practice closed communion and eucharist while Lutherans have open ones anyone can participate in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  Orientation is like race, color, creed, national origin, etc (segregation can occur for any of those, including orientation).  Orientation is believed to occur NON-SPIRITUALLY prior to birth.  It doesn't occur from sexual abuse, because close to 50 percent of the population (male and female) would be gay, based on abuse).  People don't change their orientation, that's been disproven as well.   Being gay is not the act of sex.   You can be straight or gay, and never have sex.  so wrong....   Changing one's faith is changing your philosophy, not the same as you changing who you love.
> 2. LGBT is not a free choice.  Why do you claim it is?  You can't just change it, that's been proven literally thousands if not millions of times.  ex-gays become people that are still gay, not having sex, or sneaking around having same sex behind the back of their opposite sex partner.  Seen it happen too many times.
> 3.  What's wrong with "colored only" drinking fountains, entrances, restaurants, etc?  Did you really ask?   Different religious beliefs and political parties do not meet the criteria for separate but equal.  Add that to your list of questions to ask an attorney.
> Who are you asking about Catholic v Lutheran offensiveness?   It has nothing to do with separate but equal, either.   Really not cool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> one area we disagree on
> I find that with orientation with SOME it is not a choice and cannot change
> but with others it is behavior or conditions only that can be changed.
> If I had to guess, I'd say the majority cannot change and it's just the
> minority that can; but as with LGBT and transgender being small
> percentages, that doesn't justify excluding those either! Equal inclusion
> means all, not just listening to the majority of LGBT and excluding the minority!
> 
> Like you said, if people are suppressing their natural orientation,
> then the external behavior on top CAN be changed. So that applies
> to homosexual behavior if the underlying default nature is heterosexual.
> 
> I do not agree with imposing either the belief that
> * all cases are natural and not a choice
> * all cases are unnatural and a choice of behavior
> 
> By the time we even agree to accept that it's not all one way or the other,
> that same process will require the same openness and inclusion
> needed to work through the issues to reach consensus or separation on policies.
> 
> Thanks for your help to sort through all the points.
> I hope to outline these and present position statements
> to party and religious leaders to work out these issues without
> judging people for their differences in views and experiences.
> 
> All of them are valid from their viewpoints, and should be
> included if we are going to represent all people in the outcomes.
Click to expand...

You are still missing the point.  Just because you repress a behavior, doesn't mean you are changing the fact that you still have the behavior, just not acting on it.  It doesn't change the PERSON you love from a man to a woman, either.    While a gay man can marry a straight woman, it doesn't mean he's suddenly straight.   He's just a repressed homosexual (like several republican lawmakers to the north of Texas).  

The underlying default nature of a gay man is homosexual.  The underlying default nature of a straight man is heterosexual.   Changing behavior is not changing the way brains are hard wired.  It really makes no difference what you think you are going to impose or not,  as that is not even up for discussion.  If all heterosexual marriages were banned, and only gay marriages were legal, then many straight men would suddenly change behavior.  Doesn't make them gay in real life.......just for getting tax benefits.  Being gay is not behavior.  It's the same love that you have for your husband - the gay man has for his husband.  It's not behavior, any more than your husband is just acting like he loves women.  It's not a choice - because I'm sure if you ask your husband at what age he chose to be straight (not realized it, but made an actual choice to be straight), he'll tell you you're crazy, and that he was always straight.  Just like the majority of gays either knew they were gay (some as young as 3 and 4 years old) or knew they were different from other boys, they had different feelings for them.  Being gay is not behavior, to really simplify, it's a feeling......hard wired feeling that doesn't change.


----------



## Sneekin

Sbiker said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in the Netherlands in 2001. First gay marriage in the United States was in 2004.
> Tell me what problems has this caused in the last 11-15 years.
> 
> But don't worry- if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, no problems, Muslim fastfood - shaurma - is really more tasty than burgers
> 
> Your propaganda in US now trying to mix Islam and Islamism - but really it's very different things, it could become an evil joke, if it will be continued...
> 
> p.s. 11-15 years is too few for world processes... I'm watching TV news - in 80th US used a terrible weapon against USSR - a freedom of info and opinion. USSR absorbs it as idea fully (instead of other states) - and fell. Now, after 30 years you have RT - and all your media screamed about "ideological diversion and so on" because now RT much close to truth than others  ALL thing we invented and advanced - are returned to us after some decades...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food.  Many Muslims don't eat it.  It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions.  It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all.  It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims.  The fact is, the meats used must be Halal.   Not all shawarma is Halal.  Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit.  If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.
> 
> Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage?  Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat?
> 
> 11-15 years?  Try thousands of years.   Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember.   Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.
> 
> Islam v Islamism? How racist of you.  Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East?  Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11.  You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims.  Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie?  Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them?  After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make.  On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- after existing for a thousand years, Rome fell after converting to Christianity.
> 
> I think the lesson is clear......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After converting to Christianity, Constantinople lived for another thousand years
> 
> And Rome fell, continuing to practice homosexualism and other sexual perversions...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I think the lesson is clear......*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Rome became the head of the first Christian Church.......do you have a point, there?  You might just be confused, as Rome is still there, and the CAPITAL of Italy.   Did it push the button "I've fallen and I can't get up"?  Better check your DSM - homosexuality isn't a sexual perversion - in fact, every heterosexual couple has performed the same sexual acts.....you must have led a sheltered life. Try reading a book on psychology and educate yourself.    

Constantinople was founded in 330 and renamed Istanbul.  It's still standing.  It's still alive.  
Rome was founded in 753 BC and is still alive and standing.   

What lesson is clear?   You are living in the wrong century?  Gays can marry, have children, and make 10 times the money you make and be a lot happier than you, because they don't harbor your hatred.  Or are you the typical homophobic, who is really nothing more than a repressed gay man?  It seems so, as you are always talking about your perversions.


----------



## Sneekin

Sbiker said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> First gay marriage was in the Netherlands in 2001. First gay marriage in the United States was in 2004.
> Tell me what problems has this caused in the last 11-15 years.
> 
> But don't worry- if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, no problems, Muslim fastfood - shaurma - is really more tasty than burgers
> 
> Your propaganda in US now trying to mix Islam and Islamism - but really it's very different things, it could become an evil joke, if it will be continued...
> 
> p.s. 11-15 years is too few for world processes... I'm watching TV news - in 80th US used a terrible weapon against USSR - a freedom of info and opinion. USSR absorbs it as idea fully (instead of other states) - and fell. Now, after 30 years you have RT - and all your media screamed about "ideological diversion and so on" because now RT much close to truth than others  ALL thing we invented and advanced - are returned to us after some decades...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food.  Many Muslims don't eat it.  It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions.  It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all.  It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims.  The fact is, the meats used must be Halal.   Not all shawarma is Halal.  Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit.  If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.
> 
> Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage?  Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat?
> 
> 11-15 years?  Try thousands of years.   Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember.   Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.
> 
> Islam v Islamism? How racist of you.  Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East?  Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11.  You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims.  Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie?  Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them?  After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make.  On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )
> 
> 
> 
> How racist of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Me? Are you really saying it after your own words about "marrying a large piece of dark meat"? Wonderful... At least, explain me a logic, how "Islam vs Islamism" related to racism... ))
> 
> Your logical arguments ended - so, you started psaking against me... Ok, now I see, there are no reasonable arguments for gay marriages, only a big piece of propaganda and irrational will to reach this target by all means...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see history isn't your fine point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .. saying you, continuing to translate VERY strange "historical" info...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The emperor was only in power until age 22.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHICH emperor? For example, August became an emperor in the age of 36... What did you had to say?
> And... just read it - Ben Carson: Gay Marriage Killed The Roman Empire - Joe.My.God. )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me how the children I grew up with, who had same sex parents, had any impact on 4 generations following
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How it can be, if same-sex marriages legal at the US territory only since 2004 year? )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psaking?  That's not a word in any language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Wanna link?  Blog: Psaking it to State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can have *opinions*. You are claiming them as *fact*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop and point, where I claiming it  I see, in your dreams I attacking all and everyone, for the meat eating, for the wrong religion, for the race... In reality - you attacking me, using periodically distorted info and being angry, when I'm trying to point on it, asking simple question. You saying, I don't have any education. Perfect, but if you don't able answer on my simple questions, referring on indefinite "22 age emperors" and claiming that "shawarma was invented in Turkey, so no one else can eat it" - do YOU really educated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you are quick to make generalities about all Muslims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're saying it, after YOU generalized all Muslim world as traditional marriage forcers (and I just offered to divide all this Muslim world at least on muslims and islamists). Wonderful!  Now I see, why you don't want "to recognize" the word "psaking"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.
> , all Gays, other religious, ethnic, sexual or social groups.  The very definition of bigotry. The English noun _bigot_ is a term used to describe a prejudiced or closed-minded person, especially one who is intolerant or hostile towards different social groups (e.g. racial or religious groups), and especially one whose own beliefs are perceived as unreasonable or excessively narrow-minded, superstitious, or hypocritical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, only in your wet dreams...
> 
> I don't generally divide people by race, skin colour, religion or sexual orientation and here I'm just trying to understand, where in US is real border between rights of gays and rights of conservatives, and why..
Click to expand...

1.  Look up his name.  At least two of the Roman Emperors were in same-sex unions; and in fact, thirteen out of the first fourteen Roman Emperors held to be bisexual or exclusively homosexual.

2,   Ben Carson also said men that go to jail turn gay.  We all know that's not true, either.

3.  Not sure what world you live in, fool, but you don't have to be civilly married to have children.  These ladies wrote their own vows and were married in a religious ceremony.   That's how.   I never said they had a same sex civil marriage IAW the laws of any state.  They had a religious wedding - you do know the difference, don't you?

4.  Really? Wanna link?  Blog: Psaking it to State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki  Proves me right - you don't reference a blog, and it's simply a bastardization of a woman's name from some state.  Still doesn't make it a word.   Look it up in ANY dictionary of ANY language. You really aren't too swift, are you....

5.  I'm sorry if english isn't your first language, but your speech is bordering on unintelligible.  I never said anything even close to what you claim I said about shawarma.  It is YOU that is full of anger and hate.  I've given you examples, and you refuse to admit your errors.  I literally spelled out how you are wrong about shawarma being a muslim food.   I pointed out that you are wrong about jews and being able to eat pigs raised in cages.  The list goes on and on, however much you want to make a fool of yourself.   that's not meant to insult you, it's a statement of fact.  Angry at you?  You aren't worth being angry at.  I feel sorry for your lack of education and how gullible you seem to be.  

6.  You don't grasp Islamists and Islam.  You are quoting from a right wing extremist website, and believe all  the BS posted.  I'm not saying there are not radical Muslims, just like I'm saying there ARE radical Christians.  Muslims are Sunni and Shiite, not Islamists and Muslims.  

7.  I didn't say they were traditional marriage enforcers, I actually stated that there were gay Imams and they were performing gay Muslim weddings, quite the opposite of the lies you wrote.

8.  I never said ANYTHING about FORCING Traditional Marriage on anyone.  What I said was - Civil Marriage is a civil contract between two people IAW the laws of the state they get married in.  They can be male/male, male/female, or female/female.  that's quite the opposite of your definition of traditional Marriage.

9.  There is no border.  You said:

_*"I don't generally divide people by race, skin colour, religion or sexual orientation and here I'm just trying to understand, where in US is real border between rights of gays and rights of conservatives, and why..:"*_

Rights are the SAME between gays, conservatives, straights, liberals. Marriage is between two people, regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, or sexual preference.  Why would you think there would need to be a border?  Even when it comes to religious freedoms, it's still based on the law.  If sexual preference is covered under public accommodations, then it is illegal to discriminate against gays - a business must make that cake, rent that hall, take that picture, make that invitation, cater the foods, etc.  It has nothing to do with same sex marriage, or rights.  Breaking a law is illegal.   Discrimination is illegal.  Not discriminating is a requirement to have a business license.  It has NOTHING to do with religious freedoms, or rights of gays versus conservatives.  It's as simple as following the law.   The first amendment only comes into play if 2 people approach a church and they wish to be married, and the pastor refuses because it violates one of the tenets of the religion. A church can refuse to marry people of different religions, races, etc. Hopefully this answers all your questions and you understand everything you claimed I said was refuted, as well.


----------



## Sneekin

Sbiker said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food.  Many Muslims don't eat it.  It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions.  It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all.  It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims.  The fact is, the meats used must be Halal.   Not all shawarma is Halal.  Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit.  If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.
> 
> Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage?  Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat?
> 
> 11-15 years?  Try thousands of years.   Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember.   Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.
> 
> Islam v Islamism? How racist of you.  Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East?  Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11.  You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims.  Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie?  Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them?  After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make.  On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- after existing for a thousand years, Rome fell after converting to Christianity.
> 
> I think the lesson is clear......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After converting to Christianity, Constantinople lived for another thousand years
> 
> And Rome fell, continuing to practice homosexualism and other sexual perversions...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I think the lesson is clear......*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that Rome fell after it converted to Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. I admit, Rome fell after continuing ot practice sexual perversion. And if you speaking about Roman Empire
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that the* Roman Empire *existed for 2,000 years while practicing sexual perversions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so, I said "After converting to Christianity, Constantinople lived for another thousand years". Constantinople was a capital of Roman Empire for a centuries, when Rome fell. Have you got this fact during your education?
Click to expand...

You do realize that Rome never fell and Constantinople (Istanbul) is also still around, and no one in either city practiced sexual perversions. Well, nothing more perverted than what you and your spouse have practiced as well.  I think the lesson is clear - you don't know what you are talking about.  And overly interested in sexual pervsions, as well as overly interested in gay sex.  If you are claiming Rome fell, it was only after the introduction to Christianity - which, using your logic, shoots down your own statements.  Constantinople fell?  You mean when it fell under the ottomans?   And apparently you are unaware that Rome was the Western Roman Empire, and Constantinople (Istanbul) was the Eastern Roman Empire

Some historians have blamed the collapse on hundreds of different factors ranging from military failures and crippling taxation to natural disasters and even climate change. 

Amazing how a "good christian" like yourself fails to understand that Christianity has also been identified as responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire.......


----------



## Sneekin

Sbiker said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me how the children I grew up with, who had same sex parents, had any impact on 4 generations following
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How it can be, if same-sex marriages legal at the US territory only since 2004 year? )
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that only married couples  have children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. But you have just confirmed, gays no need official marriage to organize their life how they want
Click to expand...

Not what I said at all.  You asked how gay parents could have children before gay marriage was allowed.  I told you how.  Could you quit lying about what I said?

No one needs a license to raise children - however, as Syriusly pointed out to you, there are benefits derived from marriage.  Seeing how I gave you an example of 4 generations where children were not affected by gay parents/grand/great grandparents, I guess I'm missing your point.  There are 1138 rights granted by being married.  Why are you claiming gays don't deserve those same rights as straights?


----------



## Sneekin

Sbiker said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QU
> I don't generally divide people by race, skin colour, religion or sexual orientation and here I'm just trying to understand, where in US is real border between rights of gays and rights of conservatives, and why..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no rights of gays or rights of conservatives here in the U.S.- we all have the same rights.
> There are no special rights for Christians or Jews, or straights or gays.
> There are just American rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Gays want official marriage, conervatives - no. If there are no special rights for them both, why they could not solve this conflict by simple voting?
Click to expand...

Gays have the same rights as conservatives. PERIOD.  There are no differences in rights when either a gay couple or straight couple gets married.  In the United States, we don't vote on civil rights.   Would you find it acceptable if we told you that you could only have red hair, green eyes, could only marry a man, could only have one chld, you must attend the Church of Satan down the Street, etc?  We can't vote on any of those rights - because they ARE RIGHTS.  There is no gay marriage and conservative marriage.  There is just marriage in the eyes of the law. Understand now?


----------



## Sneekin

Sbiker said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me how the children I grew up with, who had same sex parents, had any impact on 4 generations following
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How it can be, if same-sex marriages legal at the US territory only since 2004 year? )
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that only married couples  have children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. But you have just confirmed, gays no need official marriage to organize their life how they want
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more than straights have a need for official marriage to organize their life how they want.
> 
> Again- my wife and I have been married for over 20 years. We didn't need to get married- we wanted to get legally married.
> 
> Just like the gay couple that gets married.
> 
> Of course marriage is a benefit- a legal protection for children. Which is why children whose parents legally marry have more legal protections- and why preventing gay parents from marrying harms their children.
> 
> Why would you want that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want that  I think only from position of children. If, as you saying, children feel comfortable in same-sex family and they only need to be legally married to be more happy - so, let them do it as fast as we can.
> 
> But I have serious doubts, living in homosexual families is really good for children. Much statistics, I've seen, usually said:
> 1. Homosexualist are in risk group of venereal diseases, including aids. Most of this diseases are dangerous for children.
> 2. Children in homosexual families are at high risk of sexual abuse and sexual violence.
> 3. What about psychology and gender orientation of growing children?
> 
> So, is it nesessary to open legal way to increase of unhappy children, to legalize SSM?
Click to expand...

We already do allow gay people to get married "as fast as they can".   Doctors, professionals, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, etc all agree - not harmful.  
1.  Heterosexuals are also in the risk group of veneral diseases, including AIDS.  Black female heterosexuals are the fastest growing group, according to the NIH.  
2.  Children in gay families are at less risk of sexual abuse and violence.  That too is well documented.
3.  Sex (male/female) is different than gender. However, neither of these change because of the sexual orientation of their parents.  It's not a choice, and it's not a disease - you can't catch gay.  Do you think if your father and I raised you (saying we were a Same Sex Couple), that it would make you gay?  That's completely false as well.  

Read documentation not by Ben Carson, who might be a brilliant surgeon, but knows nothing about gender, sexual identify, orientation, etc, and he has proven it more than once.   Try reading medical journals and text books if you want to know, not some fly by night website that tells you what you want to hear.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of that has anything to do with same-sex marriage. You can't make your case so you're continuously diverting to other topics.
> 
> The topic here is the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, not public accommodation laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and those are related Faun
> 
> If you don't want to affect other public institutions,
> then "marriage" should be kept in private.
> 
> But if govt endorses certain beliefs about marriage
> then this in turn affects other areas of public laws and institutions.
> 
> All the other examples I cited are related to govt endorsing BELIEFS about LGBT and marriage.
> 1. wedding sites and services affected
> 2. adoption services affected
> in addition to what you and I do agree on which is
> 3. state laws needing to be neutral and void of faith based biases
> that one side or the other objects to as not representing their beliefs equally
> 
> I guess you are saying these are separate cases,
> but I'm saying the SAME arguments and solutions can be used
> to resolve ALL of THESE.  So why have 3-5 areas of disputes by imposing
> one side or the other,
> when we can have a resolution across all these cases by agreeing NOT
> to discriminate against either sides beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they are not related at all. One is about equal protection and due process while the other is about public accommodation laws. Don't fool yourself into believing no one has noticed you can't prove your position on same-sex marriage, so you keep diverting in all sorts of directions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. I already said that BELIEFS about same sex marriage are already protected from each other
> by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and Civil Rights policies against discrimination by creed
> 
> 2. these are not diversions. I am saying the SAME concepts apply to all these other areas.
> 
> So solving one problem solves them all.
> The problem is not recognizing political beliefs as equal.
> 
> You only want to defend your beliefs and rights
> but you don't recognize the same of others.
> 
> Whose fault is that?
> Why are you blaming me for your inability to accommodate others?
> 
> I am trying to accommodate you and your beliefs.
> Your messages are about trying to debunk and EXCLUDE or dismiss my beliefs.
> 
> So who is doing the discriminating here?
> You are arguing why you should exclude
> "unless I prove to you why should something be included".
> 
> I am arguing how to include everyone equally!
> 
> *You are basically assuming other positions are false until proven true,
> while holding your position as true unless proven false.
> 
> I am assuming all beliefs are true, and trying to include them all.*
> 
> Do you see the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing in the First Amendment protecting same-sex marriage. That's where you go off the rails every single time and why you're perplexed over the legality of Obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free exercise of religion includes beliefs for or against same sex marriage.
> it should protect both sides from infringement by the other. Faun
Click to expand...

And it does.  If I'm pro gay marriage and you are anti- gay marriage - neither one of us can force our opinion on each other's religion.  I can't make your pastor marry a gay couple, and and you can't tell my pastor that he can't marry a gay couple.  

If two people can get married, based on the 14th amendment, please tell me who is being discriminated against?


----------



## Sneekin

Sbiker said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QU
> I don't generally divide people by race, skin colour, religion or sexual orientation and here I'm just trying to understand, where in US is real border between rights of gays and rights of conservatives, and why..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no rights of gays or rights of conservatives here in the U.S.- we all have the same rights.
> There are no special rights for Christians or Jews, or straights or gays.
> There are just American rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Gays want official marriage, conervatives - no. If there are no special rights for them both, why they could not solve this conflict by simple voting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? You can't tell the difference between rights and opinions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you consider it as only "opinion"? It's "opinion" only from your point of view. Why don't you consider a Christian point of view, as well, as yours or gay's? Does the Christian have rights to consider this situation from THEIR point of view?
Click to expand...

No - the law is the law - you are stating opinions, I am quoting the law.  It's not just my point of view.  I don't have to consider a christian point of view, or a gay point of view.  Christians and gays have the same laws they must abide by.   That's the LAW.  You are speaking of their opinions (some, not all Christians prohibit gay marriage).  That's their freedom under the 1st amendment.   People that attend can share that opinion, it's their right under the law.   What you cannot do is impose your religious beliefs onto me.


----------



## Sbiker

Sneekin said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, no problems, Muslim fastfood - shaurma - is really more tasty than burgers
> 
> Your propaganda in US now trying to mix Islam and Islamism - but really it's very different things, it could become an evil joke, if it will be continued...
> 
> p.s. 11-15 years is too few for world processes... I'm watching TV news - in 80th US used a terrible weapon against USSR - a freedom of info and opinion. USSR absorbs it as idea fully (instead of other states) - and fell. Now, after 30 years you have RT - and all your media screamed about "ideological diversion and so on" because now RT much close to truth than others  ALL thing we invented and advanced - are returned to us after some decades...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food.  Many Muslims don't eat it.  It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions.  It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all.  It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims.  The fact is, the meats used must be Halal.   Not all shawarma is Halal.  Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit.  If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.
> 
> Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage?  Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat?
> 
> 11-15 years?  Try thousands of years.   Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember.   Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.
> 
> Islam v Islamism? How racist of you.  Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East?  Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11.  You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims.  Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie?  Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them?  After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make.  On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- after existing for a thousand years, Rome fell after converting to Christianity.
> 
> I think the lesson is clear......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After converting to Christianity, Constantinople lived for another thousand years
> 
> And Rome fell, continuing to practice homosexualism and other sexual perversions...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I think the lesson is clear......*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rome became the head of the first Christian Church.......do you have a point, there?
Click to expand...


You're wrong, just use Google  First Christian state - an Armenia. And Roman Empire took Christianity as official religion during Constantine - and his capital was Constantinople  Rome is not a head of first Christian Church - it's a head of heretics after Great Schism )) East–West Schism - Wikipedia



> You might just be confused, as Rome is still there, and the CAPITAL of Italy.



But not Roman Empire 



> Or are you the typical homophobic, who is really nothing more than a repressed gay man?  It seems so, as you are always talking about your perversions.



Ha-ha-ha  Knowing this way of discussion.. "If you don't like ..., you're just hidden ..."  Could I call you a "hidden Trump", for example? )


----------



## Sbiker

Sneekin said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QU
> I don't generally divide people by race, skin colour, religion or sexual orientation and here I'm just trying to understand, where in US is real border between rights of gays and rights of conservatives, and why..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no rights of gays or rights of conservatives here in the U.S.- we all have the same rights.
> There are no special rights for Christians or Jews, or straights or gays.
> There are just American rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Gays want official marriage, conervatives - no. If there are no special rights for them both, why they could not solve this conflict by simple voting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? You can't tell the difference between rights and opinions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you consider it as only "opinion"? It's "opinion" only from your point of view. Why don't you consider a Christian point of view, as well, as yours or gay's? Does the Christian have rights to consider this situation from THEIR point of view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No - the law is the law - you are stating opinions, I am quoting the law.  It's not just my point of view.  I don't have to consider a christian point of view, or a gay point of view.  Christians and gays have the same laws they must abide by.   That's the LAW.  You are speaking of their opinions (some, not all Christians prohibit gay marriage).  That's their freedom under the 1st amendment.   People that attend can share that opinion, it's their right under the law.   What you cannot do is impose your religious beliefs onto me.
Click to expand...


"The law is an ass where - turned, there and left"


----------



## Faun

Sbiker said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is complete and utter nonsense. We don't have two sets of laws; one for Democrats and one for Republicans.  Either laws are Constitutional or they're not. They're not Constitutional for one party but unconstitutional for another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun if the Democratic platform seeks to BAN reparative therapy but DEFEND the free choice of abortion and gender change procedures for minors; while the Republican platform seeks to DEFEND the free choice of reparative therapy and BAN abortion and gender surgery for minors,
> then we ARE dealing with two polar opposite political BELIEFS.
> 
> collectively these can be considered Political Religions:
> one in promoting social and general welfare through govt as its major focus and rule
> AND
> one in promoted LIMITED federal govt where national defense is its unique role (and most other social functions can or should be done outside so it doesn't bog down govt in bureaucratic waste interfering with govt duties)
> 
> So YES Faun it WOULD or SHOULD BE UNCONSTITITIONAL for one group to IMPOSE or ESTABLISH its BELIEFS as a national religion for ALL the public to be COMPELLED to pay taxes under and comply with!
> 
> But guess what, that's what Obama did in enforcing ACA mandates and declaring
> the belief in "health care as right" as the "law of the land"
> offending people who BELIEVE in putting the Constitution first as the law of the land,
> and requiring state ratified AMENDMENTS before granting any such authority to federal govt.
> 
> (The federal exchanges and mandated insurance in essence constitute a FAITH BASED system that people either BELIEVE in or DON'T. these aren't proven or disproven, so both positions for or against this system are FAITH BASED. and yet our govt REQUIRES participation and funding, and this isn't a choice, even though it is AGAINST people's beliefs and faith in limited govt and free market health care!)
> 
> so yes, we ARE dealing with political beliefs and religions if you consider the whole set as one system,
> and we ARE dealing with political leaders and lobbies seeking to IMPOSE THESE AS LAW
> whether "right to life"
> or "right to health care"
> FOR THE WHOLE NATION
> 
> (AND YES I DO BELIEVE THAT SHOULD BE BARRED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are free to believe anything you like; but fortunately for the rest of us, your beliefs, being counter to how laws are actually enforced, bear no resemblance to reality. There is only one law for everyone. We don't enforce laws differently based on personal beliefs but on constitutionality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> by what you posed Faun I would agree
> if that if the Republicans don't agree to a law because they say it's unconstitutional because it violates
> their beliefs, then it IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL and that law should NOT be enforced but changed.
> if the Democrats don't agree to a law because they argue it's unconstitutional because it violates
> their beliefs, same thing, it should be struck down or changed until both sides AGREE it is constitutional!
> 
> the problem Faun is we have DEMOCRATS insisting ACA and health care laws are constitutional
> because THEY BELIEVE govt should be the central default for managing health care "as a right"
> while REPUBLICANS insist it ISN'T constitutional and needs to be revised.
> 
> So I agree with you, since there is only one law, then if people don't agree because of their beliefs,
> that law CANNOT be enforced as "law for all people"
> 
> We SHOULD use that standard of satisfying ALL parties and people's beliefs
> before claiming to establish a law that touches on those beliefs.
> 
> Then we WOULDN'T have one group saying it's the law
> and the other saying it violates law. We've got that going on now
> because we don't finish the process of resolving conflicts to AGREE on one law!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holyfuckingshit!
> 
> No, Emily, laws are not unconstitutional because either party believes they are. Even worse for your nonsense, laws are not deemed constitutional because both parties agree to that.
> 
> What country do you live in that you believe that nonsense.
> 
> At the state and federal level, both parties pass laws. Sometimes in agreement, sometimes not. Constitutionality of laws passed is not even in question. ALL laws are considered constitutional when passed and remain so until challenged within the judicial branch of our government. If a law is determined to be unconstitutional, that judgement is rendered by the presiding judge(s), not the political parties, as you asininely believe.
> 
> I believe Sneekin claims to be an attorney. He can correct me if I'm mistaken.
> 
> This post of yours fully explains why you're so wrong in your arguments and why you have failed miserably to convince anyone to accept your position -- you have no fucking clue what you're spouting. Like Sbiker's idiocy about why some Jews don't eat pork, I don't even know where you come up with this shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a second  I'm not afraid of be an idiot, but where did I discussed WHY some Jews don't eat pork?  Maybe almost of your "facts" to prove your position are "frying" too?
Click to expand...

Aren't you the one who said...

_"I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable... "_​


----------



## Sneekin

Sbiker said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food.  Many Muslims don't eat it.  It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions.  It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all.  It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims.  The fact is, the meats used must be Halal.   Not all shawarma is Halal.  Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit.  If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.
> 
> Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage?  Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat?
> 
> 11-15 years?  Try thousands of years.   Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember.   Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.
> 
> Islam v Islamism? How racist of you.  Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East?  Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11.  You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims.  Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie?  Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them?  After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make.  On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- after existing for a thousand years, Rome fell after converting to Christianity.
> 
> I think the lesson is clear......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After converting to Christianity, Constantinople lived for another thousand years
> 
> And Rome fell, continuing to practice homosexualism and other sexual perversions...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I think the lesson is clear......*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rome became the head of the first Christian Church.......do you have a point, there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong, just use Google  First Christian state - an Armenia. And Roman Empire took Christianity as official religion during Constantine - and his capital was Constantinople  Rome is not a head of first Christian Church - it's a head of heretics after Great Schism )) East–West Schism - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might just be confused, as Rome is still there, and the CAPITAL of Italy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But not Roman Empire
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you the typical homophobic, who is really nothing more than a repressed gay man?  It seems so, as you are always talking about your perversions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha-ha-ha  Knowing this way of discussion.. "If you don't like ..., you're just hidden ..."  Could I call you a "hidden Trump", for example? )
Click to expand...

You are using "google" as a source?  Let me see - Rome is not the head of the Christian State - Vatican City is a dream.  The Pope doesn't exist.  Wow - into the wacky tobacky I see. Google is a search engine, foolish person.   You have to quote reputable sources.  And wikipedia are articles anyone can change.   

The Roman empire is no more, fool.   However, you changed from Rome to Roman Empire when you were proven to be a liar, so quiet down, child.

Hidden trump?  Could you please use english phrases and the english language, and run it through spell check?  I don't speak garbled broken english.  Worst case, use your native tongue - because based on your writing skills, english is your second or third language.  

Actually, trolling sbiker, it's another documented fact from many psychologists - most homophobes like yourself ARE repressed homosexuals.  How that makes someone a Hidden Trump (English translation, please)?  Now back down to your mommy's basement for you - back to your video games.  And get professional psychiatric help - you obviously need some meds - simple counseling by itself more than likely will not help.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.
> 
> Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.
> 
> Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Tennyson
> 
> If Muslims petition to change the wording because "Shariah Law" is overly broad
> and unintentionally bans voluntary practice of prayer and charity by Muslims in private,
> but the state does not accommodate this as a religious conflict or bias,
> then the federal govt could be petitioned if it doesn't get resolved on a state level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> There is no constitutional concept of a state or individual petitioning the federal government over the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense Tennyson how can prohibition be repealed if there wasn't a process?
> if amendments can amend the Constitution, certainly they can clarify other amendments,
> such as clarifying that free exercise of religion applies to ALL beliefs and creeds
> not just members of organized religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, as we learned in school, the 18th amendment instituted prohibition.   The ONLY way it could be repealed was by passing the 21st amendment (Repeal of Prohibition).
> 
> Can you for ONCE give an example of free exercise of religion that's not applied properly?  Native American Tribes can use "magic Mushrooms".  SCOTUS ruled that two native Americans could be prosecuted for using peyote, which violated Oregon law. Just like FLDS can be prosecuted for Actual Plural marriage (Utah prosecuted in the past, even when only one marriage was a civil marriage, and others were just religious).  Nevada, on the other hand, would not prosecute.
> 
> What do you think needs clarified?  Don't you grasp some of these are intentionally broad?  There won't ever be fine grain to your point, where Fred can marry Bob only on Wednesdays in a lean-to on public property by a man with top hat and cane, and must call it gayboy marriage.   Note the topic.  It's not prohibition.  It's not the first amendment.   It's the 14th.  Do you think we are going to rewrite that amendment, or "clarify" it?  Just how so?
> 
> You quite apparently aren't familiar with the process of amending the constitution.  You can't just go through and tweak a word here and there.   The 14th amendment, for example, covers abortion, marriage, Civil Rights of all Americans, equal rights and protections of former slaves, etc.  The first amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. Do you really think a majority of people in the majority of the states are going to agree to your proposals (since you won't name them)?  Do you realize that we the people could certainly challenge the _procedural_ validity of the Amendment, and thus attempt to sever the Amendment from the Constitution, on the off chance it passed?   Do you know how long it can take?  One of the first amendments proposed (prohibits any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of Congress from taking effect until the start of the next set of terms of office for Representatives) - was proposed to Congress on September 25, 1789.  It became our latest amendment,  and ratified on May 5, 1992, completing a record-setting ratification period of 202 years, 7 months, and 10 days.The 26th amendment, lowering the voting age, was discussed since WWII, but actually was ratified in March of 1971. The 25th Amendment (succession of the President), supersedes the ambiguous wording of Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution took over 2 years to pass.
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin
A. I was responding to your statement that the Amendments could not be "petitioned" to change by individuals or states:
(Sneekin: There is no constitutional concept of a state or individual petitioning the federal government over the Bill of Rights.)
I brought up the Prohibition Amendments which you and I agree was changed correctly using the given process:
(Sneekin: Emily, as we learned in school, the 18th amendment instituted prohibition.   The ONLY way it could be repealed was by passing the 21st amendment (Repeal of Prohibition).
This is what I meant.
The Amendments can be changed by the same process it takes to Amend the Constitution.
Sorry if we were talking past each other, because apparently we do agree there is a set process for doing so.

B. Back to this issue of the First Amendment.
Given the environment we have now, where people cannot even make sense of each other's political beliefs,
I think it is LONG OVERDUE that we have an open conference on the issue of Political Beliefs and the role of parties and govt
in social legislation that not everyone agrees belongs on federal, state or local levels.
I see no reason we cannot separate these tracks and let the public choose to what extent to go with
govt and what to manage privately.

To me, it's just as wrongful and damaging for people who want govt run health care and social programs
to impose that on free market believers, as it is for the free market advocates to force privatization on people who
want to go through govt!

Sneekin this battle has be en going on since the beginning, but the arguments about socialization and
dependence on govt kicked in during key stages, following the Great Depression and using govt to support
recovery, and also later with more Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and now ACA.

We have BEEN in a long process already of trying to hash this out.

And now, we have the INTERNET that can speed up and organize the process by
helping represent groups by party which will streamline the process into maybe a dozen major groups.
So if we go through that system, we can better organize the factions that are within each state
and help states represent their full populations by party as well.

Yes, it has taken a long time to get to this point.

That's more reason to go ahead and plow through this to get to resolution,
rather than fear the process won't get there and thus drag it out.

It's like a couple that would be better friends, partners and parents
if they quit arguing over the same bank account, and agreed to
split into 3, one for each partner, and one that they use for agreed shared expenses.

The relationship would be healthier and more productive if we didn't bog it down
with unnecessary conditions imposed by one side or the other, but agreed to
counseling to sort it all out.

And whatever is to o much trouble or cost to separate, Of Course,
we can keep that in the joint account.

But if people are going to strangle and censor each other for control of that account,
I say no, that's not worth it and not working!

I believe even by OFFERING the opportunity to work through these issues,
and give people a choice, a lot of the political pressure can be removed that
is STRAINING relations and communications. Take the FEAR and FORCE out
of the equation and foster mutual RESPECT and INCLUSION.

And it changes the nature and spirit of the process to be collaborative not hostile.

That will speed things up and focus on solutions we can develop.

Thank you Sneekin you have renewed my faith there are
intelligent articulate people out there adept in the process and knowledge of the laws
that we could work this out as efficiently as possible, and NOT waste time on things that won't work.

I hope you and others like you will come out and help
facilitate a process by which we can address these longstanding issues
for purpose of resolution.  Because it will change how we address conflicts
to a more user-friendly constructive approach, it will be worth the time and effort.

Thank you!!!


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin as for the part I think deserves better clarification

For political beliefs that people hold at a deeper level,
I would argue that those who believe that laws and decisions touching religious and political beliefs
should be based on consensus, should have that right to defend that as the standard,
and not be overrun by others who believe that majority rule can change these without consent of
minority opinions dissenting.

* I have proposed to expand the Justice Dept into the Dept of Justice and Peace
adding the option of conflict resolution and mediation to reach consensus,
in addition to just trial by judge or trial by jury. If any Complaints of bias in laws or agenda
ie "political conflicts of interest" could be reported as obstructing equal representation and democratic due process, then the public could receive assistance with mediation and facilitation to resolve the conflicts so policies can be made or reformed accordingly.

* For ACA mandates, I tried to propose to recognize equal political beliefs on both
sides in petitioning party and govt leaders to separate and offer BOTH choices
of the govt mandated health care insurance and the free market approach without mandates,
as EQUAL options for taxpayers to choose, where their representatives who believe in that
choice would take on responsibility for making the terms and conditions work for those members.

* I have partnered with two Libertarian advocates willing to put together a Grand Jury process
by which citizens can complain of abuses by govt at any level, and then incorporate a grievance
and correction process that is accessible by all citizens, similar to the OSHA process of outlining
basic codes that must be followed, or else complaints and penalties can be issues per violation.
See www.ethics-commission.net for the minimum principles I would use to teach citizens to check their own govt against abuses.

* I tried to write up some proposed way to create an Amendment that DOES put "consent of the governed"
in writing in the Constitution, to cover political beliefs, but without allowing this to be abused to violate consent of others.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT
ON JUDICIAL FREEDOM

Pursuant to Articles I, II, and III and Amendment I, the separation of legislative, judicial, and executive powers of government, and of church and state authority, shall neither be applied nor denied to disparage the equal right of all citizens to protection of the laws.

The consent of the governed, being necessary for the just powers of government to represent the authority of the people, the right to seek mediation and consensus to resolve disputes by consent of the parties, shall not be denied, but shall be invoked by written oath of petitioning parties to abide by consensus decision with dissenting parties affected, where all participating parties agree to resolve all objections so that consensus can be reached.

Pursuant to the above, the judicial freedom to select counsel, mediators, and judges to resolve a dispute, to the satisfaction of all parties, shall neither be exercised nor denied to obstruct justice, deny equal rights, or abridge free and equal access to due process of law.

Pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments, political beliefs and differences in ideology shall be considered equal under law as religious beliefs and subject to the same rules of law and limitations; where Congress shall make no law construed or enforced to impose or deny political beliefs of individuals, nor shall obstruct the democratic process of resolving political conflicts by consensus to protect and represent all interests equally.

---------------------------------------------
RE: TEXAS CONSTITUTION

Article 1 Section 2
"All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation [and the consent of the governed], they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."

Pursuant to this Section, the right of the people to seek self-government or representation by party, and to mediate to resolve disputes with governing authorities and jurisdiction, shall not be denied to parties or persons agreeing to abide equally by the Code of Ethics for Government Service, Constitutional laws and procedures; and to resolve all conflicts and objections to reach a consensus on policies without coercion but fully informed consent.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Tennyson
> 
> If Muslims petition to change the wording because "Shariah Law" is overly broad
> and unintentionally bans voluntary practice of prayer and charity by Muslims in private,
> but the state does not accommodate this as a religious conflict or bias,
> then the federal govt could be petitioned if it doesn't get resolved on a state level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> There is no constitutional concept of a state or individual petitioning the federal government over the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense Tennyson how can prohibition be repealed if there wasn't a process?
> if amendments can amend the Constitution, certainly they can clarify other amendments,
> such as clarifying that free exercise of religion applies to ALL beliefs and creeds
> not just members of organized religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, as we learned in school, the 18th amendment instituted prohibition.   The ONLY way it could be repealed was by passing the 21st amendment (Repeal of Prohibition).
> 
> Can you for ONCE give an example of free exercise of religion that's not applied properly?  Native American Tribes can use "magic Mushrooms".  SCOTUS ruled that two native Americans could be prosecuted for using peyote, which violated Oregon law. Just like FLDS can be prosecuted for Actual Plural marriage (Utah prosecuted in the past, even when only one marriage was a civil marriage, and others were just religious).  Nevada, on the other hand, would not prosecute.
> 
> What do you think needs clarified?  Don't you grasp some of these are intentionally broad?  There won't ever be fine grain to your point, where Fred can marry Bob only on Wednesdays in a lean-to on public property by a man with top hat and cane, and must call it gayboy marriage.   Note the topic.  It's not prohibition.  It's not the first amendment.   It's the 14th.  Do you think we are going to rewrite that amendment, or "clarify" it?  Just how so?
> 
> You quite apparently aren't familiar with the process of amending the constitution.  You can't just go through and tweak a word here and there.   The 14th amendment, for example, covers abortion, marriage, Civil Rights of all Americans, equal rights and protections of former slaves, etc.  The first amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. Do you really think a majority of people in the majority of the states are going to agree to your proposals (since you won't name them)?  Do you realize that we the people could certainly challenge the _procedural_ validity of the Amendment, and thus attempt to sever the Amendment from the Constitution, on the off chance it passed?   Do you know how long it can take?  One of the first amendments proposed (prohibits any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of Congress from taking effect until the start of the next set of terms of office for Representatives) - was proposed to Congress on September 25, 1789.  It became our latest amendment,  and ratified on May 5, 1992, completing a record-setting ratification period of 202 years, 7 months, and 10 days.The 26th amendment, lowering the voting age, was discussed since WWII, but actually was ratified in March of 1971. The 25th Amendment (succession of the President), supersedes the ambiguous wording of Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution took over 2 years to pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> A. I was responding to your statement that the Amendments could not be "petitioned" to change by individuals or states:
> (Sneekin: There is no constitutional concept of a state or individual petitioning the federal government over the Bill of Rights.)
> I brought up the Prohibition Amendments which you and I agree was changed correctly using the given process:
> (Sneekin: Emily, as we learned in school, the 18th amendment instituted prohibition.   The ONLY way it could be repealed was by passing the 21st amendment (Repeal of Prohibition).
> This is what I meant.
> The Amendments can be changed by the same process it takes to Amend the Constitution.
> Sorry if we were talking past each other, because apparently we do agree there is a set process for doing so.
> 
> B. Back to this issue of the First Amendment.
> Given the environment we have now, where people cannot even make sense of each other's political beliefs,
> I think it is LONG OVERDUE that we have an open conference on the issue of Political Beliefs and the role of parties and govt
> in social legislation that not everyone agrees belongs on federal, state or local levels.
> I see no reason we cannot separate these tracks and let the public choose to what extent to go with
> govt and what to manage privately.
> 
> To me, it's just as wrongful and damaging for people who want govt run health care and social programs
> to impose that on free market believers, as it is for the free market advocates to force privatization on people who
> want to go through govt!
> 
> Sneekin this battle has be en going on since the beginning, but the arguments about socialization and
> dependence on govt kicked in during key stages, following the Great Depression and using govt to support
> recovery, and also later with more Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and now ACA.
> 
> We have BEEN in a long process already of trying to hash this out.
> 
> And now, we have the INTERNET that can speed up and organize the process by
> helping represent groups by party which will streamline the process into maybe a dozen major groups.
> So if we go through that system, we can better organize the factions that are within each state
> and help states represent their full populations by party as well.
> 
> Yes, it has taken a long time to get to this point.
> 
> That's more reason to go ahead and plow through this to get to resolution,
> rather than fear the process won't get there and thus drag it out.
> 
> It's like a couple that would be better friends, partners and parents
> if they quit arguing over the same bank account, and agreed to
> split into 3, one for each partner, and one that they use for agreed shared expenses.
> 
> The relationship would be healthier and more productive if we didn't bog it down
> with unnecessary conditions imposed by one side or the other, but agreed to
> counseling to sort it all out.
> 
> And whatever is to o much trouble or cost to separate, Of Course,
> we can keep that in the joint account.
> 
> But if people are going to strangle and censor each other for control of that account,
> I say no, that's not worth it and not working!
> 
> I believe even by OFFERING the opportunity to work through these issues,
> and give people a choice, a lot of the political pressure can be removed that
> is STRAINING relations and communications. Take the FEAR and FORCE out
> of the equation and foster mutual RESPECT and INCLUSION.
> 
> And it changes the nature and spirit of the process to be collaborative not hostile.
> 
> That will speed things up and focus on solutions we can develop.
> 
> Thank you Sneekin you have renewed my faith there are
> intelligent articulate people out there adept in the process and knowledge of the laws
> that we could work this out as efficiently as possible, and NOT waste time on things that won't work.
> 
> I hope you and others like you will come out and help
> facilitate a process by which we can address these longstanding issues
> for purpose of resolution.  Because it will change how we address conflicts
> to a more user-friendly constructive approach, it will be worth the time and effort.
> 
> Thank you!!!
Click to expand...

Emily - 
A)  I never said there was a way to petition

What is this alleged "social" legislation?  Removing parameters such as what 2 people can get married is not social legislation, it's removing a violation of the 14th amendment.  That is no social legislation.

If you are referring to wedding cakes, pictures et al, that is also not social legislation, but (depending on how things shake out in Chicago and then SCOTUS) discrimination based on sex / or discrimination based on sexual preference.   One lawsuit is pending, and while it is pending, 22 states, and multiple counties and cities (including some in Texas) have made discrimination based on sexual preference illegal.  This legislation was voted on either by you, or your representative (depending if it were state, local or county).   In this scenario, it is illegal to refuse to make wedding invitations (Phoenix), wedding cakes (numerous) catering, venue (the "Inn" in Illinois), etc.  Period, end of discussion.  It's not a violation of anyone's first amendment rights, according to the various state supreme courts.  Apparently, no one is stupid enough to take this beyond the state level only to lose again.  The only group allowed to legally discriminate would be a church/synagogue/temple/mosque. 

B.  what you are referring to is altering the first amendment - I'm unaware that the majority of states, and the majority of citizens within the states would be willing to alter the text - and it would be extremely difficult to alter text without violating the civil rights of others - invalidating your changes.

Rights cannot be negotiated away - and when it comes to insurance and certain social programs - passed into law, are non-negotiable by you.   Your legislature can try and overturn Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Section 8, Food Stamps, Health Care.  Expect for demands from you to answer how these programs will be replaced so we don't (once again) have people dying in the street.  Churches have shown time and time again, they can't provide ANY of this.  Some people are mentally or physically challenged - who have no families - are you simply going to let them rot in the streets?  If you make exceptions for them, you're back to having social programs.  If you don't, you have death - which is it?


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin as for the part I think deserves better clarification
> 
> For political beliefs that people hold at a deeper level,
> I would argue that those who believe that laws and decisions touching religious and political beliefs
> should be based on consensus, should have that right to defend that as the standard,
> and not be overrun by others who believe that majority rule can change these without consent of
> minority opinions dissenting.
> 
> * I have proposed to expand the Justice Dept into the Dept of Justice and Peace
> adding the option of conflict resolution and mediation to reach consensus,
> in addition to just trial by judge or trial by jury. If any Complaints of bias in laws or agenda
> ie "political conflicts of interest" could be reported as obstructing equal representation and democratic due process, then the public could receive assistance with mediation and facilitation to resolve the conflicts so policies can be made or reformed accordingly.
> 
> * For ACA mandates, I tried to propose to recognize equal political beliefs on both
> sides in petitioning party and govt leaders to separate and offer BOTH choices
> of the govt mandated health care insurance and the free market approach without mandates,
> as EQUAL options for taxpayers to choose, where their representatives who believe in that
> choice would take on responsibility for making the terms and conditions work for those members.
> 
> * I have partnered with two Libertarian advocates willing to put together a Grand Jury process
> by which citizens can complain of abuses by govt at any level, and then incorporate a grievance
> and correction process that is accessible by all citizens, similar to the OSHA process of outlining
> basic codes that must be followed, or else complaints and penalties can be issues per violation.
> See www.ethics-commission.net for the minimum principles I would use to teach citizens to check their own govt against abuses.
> 
> * I tried to write up some proposed way to create an Amendment that DOES put "consent of the governed"
> in writing in the Constitution, to cover political beliefs, but without allowing this to be abused to violate consent of others.
> 
> PROPOSED AMENDMENT
> ON JUDICIAL FREEDOM
> 
> Pursuant to Articles I, II, and III and Amendment I, the separation of legislative, judicial, and executive powers of government, and of church and state authority, shall neither be applied nor denied to disparage the equal right of all citizens to protection of the laws.
> 
> The consent of the governed, being necessary for the just powers of government to represent the authority of the people, the right to seek mediation and consensus to resolve disputes by consent of the parties, shall not be denied, but shall be invoked by written oath of petitioning parties to abide by consensus decision with dissenting parties affected, where all participating parties agree to resolve all objections so that consensus can be reached.
> 
> Pursuant to the above, the judicial freedom to select counsel, mediators, and judges to resolve a dispute, to the satisfaction of all parties, shall neither be exercised nor denied to obstruct justice, deny equal rights, or abridge free and equal access to due process of law.
> 
> Pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments, political beliefs and differences in ideology shall be considered equal under law as religious beliefs and subject to the same rules of law and limitations; where Congress shall make no law construed or enforced to impose or deny political beliefs of individuals, nor shall obstruct the democratic process of resolving political conflicts by consensus to protect and represent all interests equally.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> RE: TEXAS CONSTITUTION
> 
> Article 1 Section 2
> "All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation [and the consent of the governed], they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."
> 
> Pursuant to this Section, the right of the people to seek self-government or representation by party, and to mediate to resolve disputes with governing authorities and jurisdiction, shall not be denied to parties or persons agreeing to abide equally by the Code of Ethics for Government Service, Constitutional laws and procedures; and to resolve all conflicts and objections to reach a consensus on policies without coercion but fully informed consent.


Your proposed amendment actually violates the first and 14th amendments, if you read carefully.   You've deemed that church and state are equal, but they cannot be.  You can't state churches can invalidate marriages under amendment 1 while validating them under amendment 14.  

We are a nation of laws - we don't mediate everything - we use existing laws as applicable.  

"political beliefs and differences in ideology shall be considered equal under law as religious beliefs and subject to the same rules of law and limitations; where Congress shall make no law construed or enforced to impose or deny political beliefs of individuals, nor shall obstruct the democratic process of resolving political conflicts by consensus to protect and represent all interests equally." - religious beliefs are not subject to the same rules of law, Emily.  And not every conflict CAN be resolved by consensus.   And definitely not represent all interests equally.  If my church prohibits interracial marriage, tell me how that right will be represented equally, when it violates the 14th amendment.......  Religiously, I can deny interracial marriage.   Congress and the courts cannot deny such a thing.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin as for the part I think deserves better clarification
> 
> For political beliefs that people hold at a deeper level,
> I would argue that those who believe that laws and decisions touching religious and political beliefs
> should be based on consensus, should have that right to defend that as the standard,
> and not be overrun by others who believe that majority rule can change these without consent of
> minority opinions dissenting.
> 
> * I have proposed to expand the Justice Dept into the Dept of Justice and Peace
> adding the option of conflict resolution and mediation to reach consensus,
> in addition to just trial by judge or trial by jury. If any Complaints of bias in laws or agenda
> ie "political conflicts of interest" could be reported as obstructing equal representation and democratic due process, then the public could receive assistance with mediation and facilitation to resolve the conflicts so policies can be made or reformed accordingly.
> 
> * For ACA mandates, I tried to propose to recognize equal political beliefs on both
> sides in petitioning party and govt leaders to separate and offer BOTH choices
> of the govt mandated health care insurance and the free market approach without mandates,
> as EQUAL options for taxpayers to choose, where their representatives who believe in that
> choice would take on responsibility for making the terms and conditions work for those members.
> 
> * I have partnered with two Libertarian advocates willing to put together a Grand Jury process
> by which citizens can complain of abuses by govt at any level, and then incorporate a grievance
> and correction process that is accessible by all citizens, similar to the OSHA process of outlining
> basic codes that must be followed, or else complaints and penalties can be issues per violation.
> See www.ethics-commission.net for the minimum principles I would use to teach citizens to check their own govt against abuses.
> 
> * I tried to write up some proposed way to create an Amendment that DOES put "consent of the governed"
> in writing in the Constitution, to cover political beliefs, but without allowing this to be abused to violate consent of others.
> 
> PROPOSED AMENDMENT
> ON JUDICIAL FREEDOM
> 
> Pursuant to Articles I, II, and III and Amendment I, the separation of legislative, judicial, and executive powers of government, and of church and state authority, shall neither be applied nor denied to disparage the equal right of all citizens to protection of the laws.
> 
> The consent of the governed, being necessary for the just powers of government to represent the authority of the people, the right to seek mediation and consensus to resolve disputes by consent of the parties, shall not be denied, but shall be invoked by written oath of petitioning parties to abide by consensus decision with dissenting parties affected, where all participating parties agree to resolve all objections so that consensus can be reached.
> 
> Pursuant to the above, the judicial freedom to select counsel, mediators, and judges to resolve a dispute, to the satisfaction of all parties, shall neither be exercised nor denied to obstruct justice, deny equal rights, or abridge free and equal access to due process of law.
> 
> Pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments, political beliefs and differences in ideology shall be considered equal under law as religious beliefs and subject to the same rules of law and limitations; where Congress shall make no law construed or enforced to impose or deny political beliefs of individuals, nor shall obstruct the democratic process of resolving political conflicts by consensus to protect and represent all interests equally.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> RE: TEXAS CONSTITUTION
> 
> Article 1 Section 2
> "All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation [and the consent of the governed], they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."
> 
> Pursuant to this Section, the right of the people to seek self-government or representation by party, and to mediate to resolve disputes with governing authorities and jurisdiction, shall not be denied to parties or persons agreeing to abide equally by the Code of Ethics for Government Service, Constitutional laws and procedures; and to resolve all conflicts and objections to reach a consensus on policies without coercion but fully informed consent.


The ACA was enacted by congress it does not, and will not require your consensus.  It will either stay or be struck down, by congress.  It's currently been ruled on by the courts as constitutional.   The current ACA offers government mandated and free market healthcare.  Have you bothered reading it?  It's almost 20 years old (written in the 90's).   You don't have to go to the government website to purchase your health care insurance.  You are perfectly free to get it through work, or even go to an insurance broker, and sign up on your own.   The concept of the government option was to reduce costs - which it has.  While costs have gone up (nationwide, combined percentage is under 5 percent increase).  One had over 100 percent increase, another had 147 percent decrease in cost of services.  

There already is a grievance and correction process available to all persons.  Checklists are available (similar to OSHA Lists).  We could proliferate more, but realize since laws vary state by state, and laws change daily, it's going to be a nightmare attempting to keep this list up.


----------



## Sbiker

Faun said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun if the Democratic platform seeks to BAN reparative therapy but DEFEND the free choice of abortion and gender change procedures for minors; while the Republican platform seeks to DEFEND the free choice of reparative therapy and BAN abortion and gender surgery for minors,
> then we ARE dealing with two polar opposite political BELIEFS.
> 
> collectively these can be considered Political Religions:
> one in promoting social and general welfare through govt as its major focus and rule
> AND
> one in promoted LIMITED federal govt where national defense is its unique role (and most other social functions can or should be done outside so it doesn't bog down govt in bureaucratic waste interfering with govt duties)
> 
> So YES Faun it WOULD or SHOULD BE UNCONSTITITIONAL for one group to IMPOSE or ESTABLISH its BELIEFS as a national religion for ALL the public to be COMPELLED to pay taxes under and comply with!
> 
> But guess what, that's what Obama did in enforcing ACA mandates and declaring
> the belief in "health care as right" as the "law of the land"
> offending people who BELIEVE in putting the Constitution first as the law of the land,
> and requiring state ratified AMENDMENTS before granting any such authority to federal govt.
> 
> (The federal exchanges and mandated insurance in essence constitute a FAITH BASED system that people either BELIEVE in or DON'T. these aren't proven or disproven, so both positions for or against this system are FAITH BASED. and yet our govt REQUIRES participation and funding, and this isn't a choice, even though it is AGAINST people's beliefs and faith in limited govt and free market health care!)
> 
> so yes, we ARE dealing with political beliefs and religions if you consider the whole set as one system,
> and we ARE dealing with political leaders and lobbies seeking to IMPOSE THESE AS LAW
> whether "right to life"
> or "right to health care"
> FOR THE WHOLE NATION
> 
> (AND YES I DO BELIEVE THAT SHOULD BE BARRED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!)
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to believe anything you like; but fortunately for the rest of us, your beliefs, being counter to how laws are actually enforced, bear no resemblance to reality. There is only one law for everyone. We don't enforce laws differently based on personal beliefs but on constitutionality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> by what you posed Faun I would agree
> if that if the Republicans don't agree to a law because they say it's unconstitutional because it violates
> their beliefs, then it IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL and that law should NOT be enforced but changed.
> if the Democrats don't agree to a law because they argue it's unconstitutional because it violates
> their beliefs, same thing, it should be struck down or changed until both sides AGREE it is constitutional!
> 
> the problem Faun is we have DEMOCRATS insisting ACA and health care laws are constitutional
> because THEY BELIEVE govt should be the central default for managing health care "as a right"
> while REPUBLICANS insist it ISN'T constitutional and needs to be revised.
> 
> So I agree with you, since there is only one law, then if people don't agree because of their beliefs,
> that law CANNOT be enforced as "law for all people"
> 
> We SHOULD use that standard of satisfying ALL parties and people's beliefs
> before claiming to establish a law that touches on those beliefs.
> 
> Then we WOULDN'T have one group saying it's the law
> and the other saying it violates law. We've got that going on now
> because we don't finish the process of resolving conflicts to AGREE on one law!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holyfuckingshit!
> 
> No, Emily, laws are not unconstitutional because either party believes they are. Even worse for your nonsense, laws are not deemed constitutional because both parties agree to that.
> 
> What country do you live in that you believe that nonsense.
> 
> At the state and federal level, both parties pass laws. Sometimes in agreement, sometimes not. Constitutionality of laws passed is not even in question. ALL laws are considered constitutional when passed and remain so until challenged within the judicial branch of our government. If a law is determined to be unconstitutional, that judgement is rendered by the presiding judge(s), not the political parties, as you asininely believe.
> 
> I believe Sneekin claims to be an attorney. He can correct me if I'm mistaken.
> 
> This post of yours fully explains why you're so wrong in your arguments and why you have failed miserably to convince anyone to accept your position -- you have no fucking clue what you're spouting. Like Sbiker's idiocy about why some Jews don't eat pork, I don't even know where you come up with this shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a second  I'm not afraid of be an idiot, but where did I discussed WHY some Jews don't eat pork?  Maybe almost of your "facts" to prove your position are "frying" too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you the one who said...
> 
> _"I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable... "_​
Click to expand...




One minute...
It's a discussion about "which pork they eating" or "do they eating pork or no".... Where is the question "WHY"? :-\


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin as for the part I think deserves better clarification
> 
> For political beliefs that people hold at a deeper level,
> I would argue that those who believe that laws and decisions touching religious and political beliefs
> should be based on consensus, should have that right to defend that as the standard,
> and not be overrun by others who believe that majority rule can change these without consent of
> minority opinions dissenting.
> 
> * I have proposed to expand the Justice Dept into the Dept of Justice and Peace
> adding the option of conflict resolution and mediation to reach consensus,
> in addition to just trial by judge or trial by jury. If any Complaints of bias in laws or agenda
> ie "political conflicts of interest" could be reported as obstructing equal representation and democratic due process, then the public could receive assistance with mediation and facilitation to resolve the conflicts so policies can be made or reformed accordingly.
> 
> * For ACA mandates, I tried to propose to recognize equal political beliefs on both
> sides in petitioning party and govt leaders to separate and offer BOTH choices
> of the govt mandated health care insurance and the free market approach without mandates,
> as EQUAL options for taxpayers to choose, where their representatives who believe in that
> choice would take on responsibility for making the terms and conditions work for those members.
> 
> * I have partnered with two Libertarian advocates willing to put together a Grand Jury process
> by which citizens can complain of abuses by govt at any level, and then incorporate a grievance
> and correction process that is accessible by all citizens, similar to the OSHA process of outlining
> basic codes that must be followed, or else complaints and penalties can be issues per violation.
> See www.ethics-commission.net for the minimum principles I would use to teach citizens to check their own govt against abuses.
> 
> * I tried to write up some proposed way to create an Amendment that DOES put "consent of the governed"
> in writing in the Constitution, to cover political beliefs, but without allowing this to be abused to violate consent of others.
> 
> PROPOSED AMENDMENT
> ON JUDICIAL FREEDOM
> 
> Pursuant to Articles I, II, and III and Amendment I, the separation of legislative, judicial, and executive powers of government, and of church and state authority, shall neither be applied nor denied to disparage the equal right of all citizens to protection of the laws.
> 
> The consent of the governed, being necessary for the just powers of government to represent the authority of the people, the right to seek mediation and consensus to resolve disputes by consent of the parties, shall not be denied, but shall be invoked by written oath of petitioning parties to abide by consensus decision with dissenting parties affected, where all participating parties agree to resolve all objections so that consensus can be reached.
> 
> Pursuant to the above, the judicial freedom to select counsel, mediators, and judges to resolve a dispute, to the satisfaction of all parties, shall neither be exercised nor denied to obstruct justice, deny equal rights, or abridge free and equal access to due process of law.
> 
> Pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments, political beliefs and differences in ideology shall be considered equal under law as religious beliefs and subject to the same rules of law and limitations; where Congress shall make no law construed or enforced to impose or deny political beliefs of individuals, nor shall obstruct the democratic process of resolving political conflicts by consensus to protect and represent all interests equally.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> RE: TEXAS CONSTITUTION
> 
> Article 1 Section 2
> "All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation [and the consent of the governed], they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."
> 
> Pursuant to this Section, the right of the people to seek self-government or representation by party, and to mediate to resolve disputes with governing authorities and jurisdiction, shall not be denied to parties or persons agreeing to abide equally by the Code of Ethics for Government Service, Constitutional laws and procedures; and to resolve all conflicts and objections to reach a consensus on policies without coercion but fully informed consent.
> 
> 
> 
> The ACA was enacted by congress it does not, and will not require your consensus.  It will either stay or be struck down, by congress.  It's currently been ruled on by the courts as constitutional.   The current ACA offers government mandated and free market healthcare.  Have you bothered reading it?  It's almost 20 years old (written in the 90's).   You don't have to go to the government website to purchase your health care insurance.  You are perfectly free to get it through work, or even go to an insurance broker, and sign up on your own.   The concept of the government option was to reduce costs - which it has.  While costs have gone up (nationwide, combined percentage is under 5 percent increase).  One had over 100 percent increase, another had 147 percent decrease in cost of services.
> 
> There already is a grievance and correction process available to all persons.  Checklists are available (similar to OSHA Lists).  We could proliferate more, but realize since laws vary state by state, and laws change daily, it's going to be a nightmare attempting to keep this list up.
Click to expand...

Dear Sneekin 
A. First of all I'm not talking about changing the legislation yet, but talking about setting up separate means of supporting the existing programs where they don't impose on people who don't believe in funding or managing that through govt. Fine! Let those limited govt people pay for wars and military and capital punishment, and let social justice people pay our taxes into the social programs we d rather fund instead of wars and punishment systems that produce more mental illness crime and costs. 

B. The choices I believe are Constitutional for paying for health care involve reforming the prison system. Those alternatives aren't set up yet. In the meantime Obama ACA imposes mandates on citizens I argue are unconstitutional for people like me who don't believe govt has that authority and thus our beliefs are violated and we are fined for not complying. 

Sneekin the bill that passed through Congress was pushed as a public health bill or it would have failed as a tax bill. The courts ruled on it as a tax, as it did not get approved under the Commerce clause argument.
So technically it did not pass through Congress and Courts, but was presented in two different ways.

To be fair to both sides that's why I argue to make the mandates optional, so if people like you agree it's constitutional and doesn't violate your beliefs then you can follow it and pay for it (and again I'd recommend adding prison reform per state to open up the resources for exchanges to work sustainably with just the membership who agrees to be under that or is required if they owe penalties or restitution for convicted crimes) .

And let those who haven't committed crimes and don't believe the mandates are constitutional to opt out and into free market or VA solutions to health care they'd rather fund and manage that way.

Now Sneekin I know it would take work to reorganize the funding and mgmt.

I'm not saying these are the final answers, but asking to set up the process for finding what will work!

By the time we even address how to pay for health care by reforming prisons and VA, then the same solutions will resolve conflicts over mgmt of other medical social security marriage benefits etc etc.

You and I disagree on recognizing political beliefs where I say both sides have equal right to representing interests in negotiating without being censured by declaring something constitutional that one group says violates their beliefs or declaring something unconstitutional that another group requires for their equal exercise and representation.

I say we need to include both in order to work out plans


----------



## emilynghiem

BTW Sneekin the way to resolve different beliefs about marriage IS to keep just civil contracts under govt where those are public secular policies for everyone, and keep all the religious rules out of govt and in private for people or churches to follow their own policies and practices.

We already agree that govt should be for civil policies only, so that is the solution.

I'm talking about mediating with all the groups still arguing over terms and enforcement of laws, including public accommodations, so we resolve conflicts and keep it civil.


----------



## Sbiker

Sneekin said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> How it can be, if same-sex marriages legal at the US territory only since 2004 year? )
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that only married couples  have children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. But you have just confirmed, gays no need official marriage to organize their life how they want
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more than straights have a need for official marriage to organize their life how they want.
> 
> Again- my wife and I have been married for over 20 years. We didn't need to get married- we wanted to get legally married.
> 
> Just like the gay couple that gets married.
> 
> Of course marriage is a benefit- a legal protection for children. Which is why children whose parents legally marry have more legal protections- and why preventing gay parents from marrying harms their children.
> 
> Why would you want that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want that  I think only from position of children. If, as you saying, children feel comfortable in same-sex family and they only need to be legally married to be more happy - so, let them do it as fast as we can.
> 
> But I have serious doubts, living in homosexual families is really good for children. Much statistics, I've seen, usually said:
> 1. Homosexualist are in risk group of venereal diseases, including aids. Most of this diseases are dangerous for children.
> 2. Children in homosexual families are at high risk of sexual abuse and sexual violence.
> 3. What about psychology and gender orientation of growing children?
> 
> So, is it nesessary to open legal way to increase of unhappy children, to legalize SSM?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already do allow gay people to get married "as fast as they can".   Doctors, professionals, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, etc all agree - not harmful.
> 1.  Heterosexuals are also in the risk group of veneral diseases, including AIDS.  Black female heterosexuals are the fastest growing group, according to the NIH.
> 2.  Children in gay families are at less risk of sexual abuse and violence.  That too is well documented.
> 3.  Sex (male/female) is different than gender. However, neither of these change because of the sexual orientation of their parents.  It's not a choice, and it's not a disease - you can't catch gay.  Do you think if your father and I raised you (saying we were a Same Sex Couple), that it would make you gay?  That's completely false as well.
> 
> Read documentation not by Ben Carson, who might be a brilliant surgeon, but knows nothing about gender, sexual identify, orientation, etc, and he has proven it more than once.   Try reading medical journals and text books if you want to know, not some fly by night website that tells you what you want to hear.
Click to expand...


Why don't you think, Ben Carson didn't read a medical journals?  He is not a medic?

How many medical journals we can read, and how many ben Carson read, to form adequate understanding of problem?


----------



## Sbiker

Sneekin said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- after existing for a thousand years, Rome fell after converting to Christianity.
> 
> I think the lesson is clear......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After converting to Christianity, Constantinople lived for another thousand years
> 
> And Rome fell, continuing to practice homosexualism and other sexual perversions...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I think the lesson is clear......*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rome became the head of the first Christian Church.......do you have a point, there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong, just use Google  First Christian state - an Armenia. And Roman Empire took Christianity as official religion during Constantine - and his capital was Constantinople  Rome is not a head of first Christian Church - it's a head of heretics after Great Schism )) East–West Schism - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might just be confused, as Rome is still there, and the CAPITAL of Italy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But not Roman Empire
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you the typical homophobic, who is really nothing more than a repressed gay man?  It seems so, as you are always talking about your perversions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha-ha-ha  Knowing this way of discussion.. "If you don't like ..., you're just hidden ..."  Could I call you a "hidden Trump", for example? )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are using "google" as a source?  Let me see - Rome is not the head of the Christian State - Vatican City is a dream.  The Pope doesn't exist.  Wow - into the wacky tobacky I see. Google is a search engine, foolish person.
Click to expand...


Thanks Gods, you got!  Offcourse, Google is a search engine. Where people could find any reputable sources to read. And about a fact of Rome falling - I'd better believe to Augustine Aurelius than you, sorry 



> Hidden trump?  Could you please use english phrases



)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Forget it


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin as for the part I think deserves better clarification
> 
> For political beliefs that people hold at a deeper level,
> I would argue that those who believe that laws and decisions touching religious and political beliefs
> should be based on consensus, should have that right to defend that as the standard,
> and not be overrun by others who believe that majority rule can change these without consent of
> minority opinions dissenting.
> 
> * I have proposed to expand the Justice Dept into the Dept of Justice and Peace
> adding the option of conflict resolution and mediation to reach consensus,
> in addition to just trial by judge or trial by jury. If any Complaints of bias in laws or agenda
> ie "political conflicts of interest" could be reported as obstructing equal representation and democratic due process, then the public could receive assistance with mediation and facilitation to resolve the conflicts so policies can be made or reformed accordingly.
> 
> * For ACA mandates, I tried to propose to recognize equal political beliefs on both
> sides in petitioning party and govt leaders to separate and offer BOTH choices
> of the govt mandated health care insurance and the free market approach without mandates,
> as EQUAL options for taxpayers to choose, where their representatives who believe in that
> choice would take on responsibility for making the terms and conditions work for those members.
> 
> * I have partnered with two Libertarian advocates willing to put together a Grand Jury process
> by which citizens can complain of abuses by govt at any level, and then incorporate a grievance
> and correction process that is accessible by all citizens, similar to the OSHA process of outlining
> basic codes that must be followed, or else complaints and penalties can be issues per violation.
> See www.ethics-commission.net for the minimum principles I would use to teach citizens to check their own govt against abuses.
> 
> * I tried to write up some proposed way to create an Amendment that DOES put "consent of the governed"
> in writing in the Constitution, to cover political beliefs, but without allowing this to be abused to violate consent of others.
> 
> PROPOSED AMENDMENT
> ON JUDICIAL FREEDOM
> 
> Pursuant to Articles I, II, and III and Amendment I, the separation of legislative, judicial, and executive powers of government, and of church and state authority, shall neither be applied nor denied to disparage the equal right of all citizens to protection of the laws.
> 
> The consent of the governed, being necessary for the just powers of government to represent the authority of the people, the right to seek mediation and consensus to resolve disputes by consent of the parties, shall not be denied, but shall be invoked by written oath of petitioning parties to abide by consensus decision with dissenting parties affected, where all participating parties agree to resolve all objections so that consensus can be reached.
> 
> Pursuant to the above, the judicial freedom to select counsel, mediators, and judges to resolve a dispute, to the satisfaction of all parties, shall neither be exercised nor denied to obstruct justice, deny equal rights, or abridge free and equal access to due process of law.
> 
> Pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments, political beliefs and differences in ideology shall be considered equal under law as religious beliefs and subject to the same rules of law and limitations; where Congress shall make no law construed or enforced to impose or deny political beliefs of individuals, nor shall obstruct the democratic process of resolving political conflicts by consensus to protect and represent all interests equally.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> RE: TEXAS CONSTITUTION
> 
> Article 1 Section 2
> "All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation [and the consent of the governed], they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."
> 
> Pursuant to this Section, the right of the people to seek self-government or representation by party, and to mediate to resolve disputes with governing authorities and jurisdiction, shall not be denied to parties or persons agreeing to abide equally by the Code of Ethics for Government Service, Constitutional laws and procedures; and to resolve all conflicts and objections to reach a consensus on policies without coercion but fully informed consent.
> 
> 
> 
> Your proposed amendment actually violates the first and 14th amendments, if you read carefully.   You've deemed that church and state are equal, but they cannot be.  You can't state churches can invalidate marriages under amendment 1 while validating them under amendment 14.
> 
> We are a nation of laws - we don't mediate everything - we use existing laws as applicable.
> 
> "political beliefs and differences in ideology shall be considered equal under law as religious beliefs and subject to the same rules of law and limitations; where Congress shall make no law construed or enforced to impose or deny political beliefs of individuals, nor shall obstruct the democratic process of resolving political conflicts by consensus to protect and represent all interests equally." - religious beliefs are not subject to the same rules of law, Emily.  And not every conflict CAN be resolved by consensus.   And definitely not represent all interests equally.  If my church prohibits interracial marriage, tell me how that right will be represented equally, when it violates the 14th amendment.......  Religiously, I can deny interracial marriage.   Congress and the courts cannot deny such a thing.
Click to expand...


YES Sneekin that's what I'm TRYING to say.
I'm trying to INCLUDE political beliefs in with Religious Beliefs
so these ARE TREATED EQUALLY CAREFULLY AS RELÌGIOUS BELIEFS ARE.


Sneekin I'm saying the BELIEFS about church and state authority
are equal as Religiously held BELIEFS.

So NEITHER can one side push church authority above or against state,
or the other push state authority against church, but in matters of BELIEFS
BOTH sides can represent their own beliefs, defend them against imposition,
but also must keep both out of govt to prevent from infringing on others.

It's an equal two way street, that's what I'm trying to get at.

*to understand Political Beliefs as  FORM OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF*
that should WELL be policed by the First, Fourteenth, Tenth and other amendments and
laws defending citizens from abuses by govt to push religious agenda, political beliefs being a special class of those!


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Tennyson the passage of the Constitution was contingent on the agreement that a Bill of Rights would be added
> to define the individual rights not protected in the body of the Constitution that only defined federal powers and duties.
> 
> so you cannot have the Constitution without the Bill of Rights
> or it is like having the OT of the Bible without the NT!
> 
> In fact, the same way the Bible is summarized in 2-3 great commandments
> 1. love of God with all our heart mind and soul
> 2. love of neighbor as ourselves
> 3. love of one another as Christ Jesus loves us (ie with forgiveness and correction
> that is Restorative Justice, not judgment and punishment or retributive justice)
> 
> I would say the First Amendment summarizes the whole of the law
> that all other laws are based on
> 1. free exercise of religion as free will, equal executive power of each person
> 2. free speech and freedom of religion as equal judicial freedom of each person
> 3. free press and right to assemble as equal legislative or power of attorney of each person to authorize contracts
> and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances
> combines these as democratic due process of laws to resolve conflicts and establish agreed law and order.
> 
> All other laws come from these basic natural laws
> that are inherent in human nature as combining
> * Mind
> * Body
> * Spirit
> 
> where laws or contracts/agreements connect
> * INDIVIDUAL to
> * COLLECTIVE levels, based on the
> * RELATIONSHIP between the two.
> 
> both religious and political/civil laws attempt to define the terms of that RELATIONSHIP
> so you will see this same pattern of THREE levels
> in any system of laws, religion, philosophy or govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So....hate to tell you, but if I'm Jewish, my bible (My book of sacred writings) is just the Old Testament.  No Christianity for me.  If I'm Muslim - then it's the Qu'ran - which again doesn't have the New Testament, but most of the old testament.
> 
> The first amendment doesn't summarize the whole of law - if that were the case, we'd still have slavery, ban interracial marriages, no divorces, the list just goes on and on.
Click to expand...


What I mean Sneekin
A. is if we followed what was already in the First Amendment,
ie free exercise of religion or free will for everyone
[within the bounds of right of all people PEACEABLY to assemble]
there wouldn't BE slavery or oppresion of any sort:
All conflicts would be resolved if we practiced fre e speech
press and right to petition to redress grievances.

B. and no I don't mean this voids the need for other laws
like due process and equal protections, but that the SPIRIT
of the Constitutional laws fulfills and includes those as well.
Under free exercise, all these other laws can be cited as well
as defenses to explain and petition for one's rights beliefs and interests to be accounted for.

so this INCLUDES citing Quran, Jewish or Christian principles, Buddhist teachings, etc.

C. As for the Bible this also INCLUDES Islam/Quran, Jewish laws,
and all forms of natural laws. By Colossians, all authorities are governed
under the same Lord or Law that Jesus represents as Universal JUSTICE for all.

Just because we express laws in different ways does not mean they are excluded.

They are all protected under Free exercise of religion, free choice or free will
which is naturally self-existent as part of human nature.

And the Bible also calls for obedience and submission to civil authority
and human institutions. So that includes respecting Constitutional law
and equal inclusion and protection for people of all faiths under religious freedom.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
> 
> Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People on both sides are being forced to change terms of the contract without agreeing to the changes and how they are worded or applied.
> Unless the process recognizes consensus, it is pressuring one side to defend itself against the other, which isn't fair to eiether side.
> Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Contracts are invalidated if you detrimentally change the language.  However, contracts can be unilateral (one party makes the decisions) or bilateral (must arrive at a consensus). In a case where illegal language is contained (for example, Texas stated marriage was only between a man and a woman), the courts struck (repeatedly) the language "only between a man and a woman".  From a civil contract point of view, that does NOT pressure any one side to defend itself.  You (Texas) doesn't get to agree to changes when the changes make the contract legal and binding, instead of ILLEGAL and INVALID.  No consensus would be required - or would be legal.   When Loving v Virginia struck down the prohibition of interracial marriage, no one in the state of VA got to vote, discuss, negotiate, come to a consensus.  The verbiage was struck/rewritten to become LEGAL.   The only "fair way" is what is legal.  It's not what we think, it's what the law is.  You can't put have a legal and binding contract with illegal terms and conditions.  That's why you can't marry your cat, dog, or computer, and why there is no negotiating (putting aside the fact that all 3 can't give consent, nor meet ANY of the legal conditions).
Click to expand...


Yes and No Sneekin
Yes removing a ban as unconstitutional is one thing.

But what it takes to legalize something under terms that people agree represents them and the public 
is a different process.


----------



## WheelieAddict

Republicans are against freedom. That most of them are against gay marriage makes it a fact.


----------



## emilynghiem

WheelieAddict said:


> Republicans are against freedom. That most of them are against gay marriage makes it a fact.



No WheelieAddict 
Are you going to say that not wanting to legislate God and Christianity through govt
means being antiChristian and antiGod?

Just because conservatives resist govt making decisions that belong to people
doesn't make them AGAINST those things!

the REAL conservatives and Constitutionalists want LIMITED govt
and MAXIMUM power to the people instead of being overregulated.

As for which party is against freedom,
the Democrats are argued as being more "antichoice" 
if they are 
AGAINST the free choice of how to pay for health care,
AGAINST the free choice to bear arms and to interpret the law as
recognizing right of people without requiring membership in a militia,
AGAINST the free choice of reparative therapy and the inclusion of
exgays and other people who believe in changing orientation.


----------



## WheelieAddict

emilynghiem said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are against freedom. That most of them are against gay marriage makes it a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No WheelieAddict
> Are you going to say that not wanting to legislate God and Christianity through govt
> means being antiChristian and antiGod?
> 
> Just because conservatives resist govt making decisions that belong to people
> doesn't make them AGAINST those things!
> 
> the REAL conservatives and Constitutionalists want LIMITED govt
> and MAXIMUM power to the people instead of being overregulated.
> 
> As for which party is against freedom,
> the Democrats are argued as being more "antichoice"
> if they are
> AGAINST the free choice of how to pay for health care,
> AGAINST the free choice to bear arms and to interpret the law as
> recognizing right of people without requiring membership in a militia,
> AGAINST the free choice of reparative therapy and the inclusion of
> exgays and other people who believe in changing orientation.
Click to expand...


I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and those are related Faun
> 
> If you don't want to affect other public institutions,
> then "marriage" should be kept in private.
> 
> But if govt endorses certain beliefs about marriage
> then this in turn affects other areas of public laws and institutions.
> 
> All the other examples I cited are related to govt endorsing BELIEFS about LGBT and marriage.
> 1. wedding sites and services affected
> 2. adoption services affected
> in addition to what you and I do agree on which is
> 3. state laws needing to be neutral and void of faith based biases
> that one side or the other objects to as not representing their beliefs equally
> 
> I guess you are saying these are separate cases,
> but I'm saying the SAME arguments and solutions can be used
> to resolve ALL of THESE.  So why have 3-5 areas of disputes by imposing
> one side or the other,
> when we can have a resolution across all these cases by agreeing NOT
> to discriminate against either sides beliefs?
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not related at all. One is about equal protection and due process while the other is about public accommodation laws. Don't fool yourself into believing no one has noticed you can't prove your position on same-sex marriage, so you keep diverting in all sorts of directions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. I already said that BELIEFS about same sex marriage are already protected from each other
> by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and Civil Rights policies against discrimination by creed
> 
> 2. these are not diversions. I am saying the SAME concepts apply to all these other areas.
> 
> So solving one problem solves them all.
> The problem is not recognizing political beliefs as equal.
> 
> You only want to defend your beliefs and rights
> but you don't recognize the same of others.
> 
> Whose fault is that?
> Why are you blaming me for your inability to accommodate others?
> 
> I am trying to accommodate you and your beliefs.
> Your messages are about trying to debunk and EXCLUDE or dismiss my beliefs.
> 
> So who is doing the discriminating here?
> You are arguing why you should exclude
> "unless I prove to you why should something be included".
> 
> I am arguing how to include everyone equally!
> 
> *You are basically assuming other positions are false until proven true,
> while holding your position as true unless proven false.
> 
> I am assuming all beliefs are true, and trying to include them all.*
> 
> Do you see the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing in the First Amendment protecting same-sex marriage. That's where you go off the rails every single time and why you're perplexed over the legality of Obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free exercise of religion includes beliefs for or against same sex marriage.
> it should protect both sides from infringement by the other. Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it does.  If I'm pro gay marriage and you are anti- gay marriage - neither one of us can force our opinion on each other's religion.  I can't make your pastor marry a gay couple, and and you can't tell my pastor that he can't marry a gay couple.
> 
> If two people can get married, based on the 14th amendment, please tell me who is being discriminated against?
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin
We basically 
AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts

Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
agree with the beliefs. 

There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.

They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!

I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.

So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.

It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
and on what level of govt, etc.


----------



## Faun

Sbiker said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to believe anything you like; but fortunately for the rest of us, your beliefs, being counter to how laws are actually enforced, bear no resemblance to reality. There is only one law for everyone. We don't enforce laws differently based on personal beliefs but on constitutionality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> by what you posed Faun I would agree
> if that if the Republicans don't agree to a law because they say it's unconstitutional because it violates
> their beliefs, then it IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL and that law should NOT be enforced but changed.
> if the Democrats don't agree to a law because they argue it's unconstitutional because it violates
> their beliefs, same thing, it should be struck down or changed until both sides AGREE it is constitutional!
> 
> the problem Faun is we have DEMOCRATS insisting ACA and health care laws are constitutional
> because THEY BELIEVE govt should be the central default for managing health care "as a right"
> while REPUBLICANS insist it ISN'T constitutional and needs to be revised.
> 
> So I agree with you, since there is only one law, then if people don't agree because of their beliefs,
> that law CANNOT be enforced as "law for all people"
> 
> We SHOULD use that standard of satisfying ALL parties and people's beliefs
> before claiming to establish a law that touches on those beliefs.
> 
> Then we WOULDN'T have one group saying it's the law
> and the other saying it violates law. We've got that going on now
> because we don't finish the process of resolving conflicts to AGREE on one law!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holyfuckingshit!
> 
> No, Emily, laws are not unconstitutional because either party believes they are. Even worse for your nonsense, laws are not deemed constitutional because both parties agree to that.
> 
> What country do you live in that you believe that nonsense.
> 
> At the state and federal level, both parties pass laws. Sometimes in agreement, sometimes not. Constitutionality of laws passed is not even in question. ALL laws are considered constitutional when passed and remain so until challenged within the judicial branch of our government. If a law is determined to be unconstitutional, that judgement is rendered by the presiding judge(s), not the political parties, as you asininely believe.
> 
> I believe Sneekin claims to be an attorney. He can correct me if I'm mistaken.
> 
> This post of yours fully explains why you're so wrong in your arguments and why you have failed miserably to convince anyone to accept your position -- you have no fucking clue what you're spouting. Like Sbiker's idiocy about why some Jews don't eat pork, I don't even know where you come up with this shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a second  I'm not afraid of be an idiot, but where did I discussed WHY some Jews don't eat pork?  Maybe almost of your "facts" to prove your position are "frying" too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you the one who said...
> 
> _"I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable... "_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One minute...
> It's a discussion about "which pork they eating" or "do they eating pork or no".... Where is the question "WHY"? :-\
Click to expand...

Idiot.... no one said there was a question why.

So? Did you post this or not...?

_"I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable... "_​


----------



## WheelieAddict

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not related at all. One is about equal protection and due process while the other is about public accommodation laws. Don't fool yourself into believing no one has noticed you can't prove your position on same-sex marriage, so you keep diverting in all sorts of directions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. I already said that BELIEFS about same sex marriage are already protected from each other
> by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and Civil Rights policies against discrimination by creed
> 
> 2. these are not diversions. I am saying the SAME concepts apply to all these other areas.
> 
> So solving one problem solves them all.
> The problem is not recognizing political beliefs as equal.
> 
> You only want to defend your beliefs and rights
> but you don't recognize the same of others.
> 
> Whose fault is that?
> Why are you blaming me for your inability to accommodate others?
> 
> I am trying to accommodate you and your beliefs.
> Your messages are about trying to debunk and EXCLUDE or dismiss my beliefs.
> 
> So who is doing the discriminating here?
> You are arguing why you should exclude
> "unless I prove to you why should something be included".
> 
> I am arguing how to include everyone equally!
> 
> *You are basically assuming other positions are false until proven true,
> while holding your position as true unless proven false.
> 
> I am assuming all beliefs are true, and trying to include them all.*
> 
> Do you see the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing in the First Amendment protecting same-sex marriage. That's where you go off the rails every single time and why you're perplexed over the legality of Obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free exercise of religion includes beliefs for or against same sex marriage.
> it should protect both sides from infringement by the other. Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it does.  If I'm pro gay marriage and you are anti- gay marriage - neither one of us can force our opinion on each other's religion.  I can't make your pastor marry a gay couple, and and you can't tell my pastor that he can't marry a gay couple.
> 
> If two people can get married, based on the 14th amendment, please tell me who is being discriminated against?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> We basically
> AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
> 
> Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
> is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
> agree with the beliefs.
> 
> There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
> including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
> So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
> 
> They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
> 
> I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
> the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
> 
> So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
> 
> It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
> don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
> and on what level of govt, etc.
Click to expand...


I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.

Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not related at all. One is about equal protection and due process while the other is about public accommodation laws. Don't fool yourself into believing no one has noticed you can't prove your position on same-sex marriage, so you keep diverting in all sorts of directions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. I already said that BELIEFS about same sex marriage are already protected from each other
> by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and Civil Rights policies against discrimination by creed
> 
> 2. these are not diversions. I am saying the SAME concepts apply to all these other areas.
> 
> So solving one problem solves them all.
> The problem is not recognizing political beliefs as equal.
> 
> You only want to defend your beliefs and rights
> but you don't recognize the same of others.
> 
> Whose fault is that?
> Why are you blaming me for your inability to accommodate others?
> 
> I am trying to accommodate you and your beliefs.
> Your messages are about trying to debunk and EXCLUDE or dismiss my beliefs.
> 
> So who is doing the discriminating here?
> You are arguing why you should exclude
> "unless I prove to you why should something be included".
> 
> I am arguing how to include everyone equally!
> 
> *You are basically assuming other positions are false until proven true,
> while holding your position as true unless proven false.
> 
> I am assuming all beliefs are true, and trying to include them all.*
> 
> Do you see the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing in the First Amendment protecting same-sex marriage. That's where you go off the rails every single time and why you're perplexed over the legality of Obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free exercise of religion includes beliefs for or against same sex marriage.
> it should protect both sides from infringement by the other. Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it does.  If I'm pro gay marriage and you are anti- gay marriage - neither one of us can force our opinion on each other's religion.  I can't make your pastor marry a gay couple, and and you can't tell my pastor that he can't marry a gay couple.
> 
> If two people can get married, based on the 14th amendment, please tell me who is being discriminated against?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> We basically
> AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
> 
> Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
> is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
> agree with the beliefs.
> 
> There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
> including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
> So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
> 
> They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
> 
> I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
> the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
> 
> So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
> 
> It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
> don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
> and on what level of govt, etc.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if there are folks who want thd government out of marriage since the government is involved in civil marriages. And as long as the government is involved in civil marriages, it must treat everyone equally with no prejudice against anyone's race, creed, religion, or gender.

*I've asked this repeatedly and you still refuse to answer... do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?*


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm, I'll go with Thomas Jefferson who wrote in the Declaration of Independence that  *"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."*  See that "pursuit of happiness" bit?  Yeah, right there.  That covers gay marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear westwall but also the Constitution includes not depriving liberty of persons without due process of laws to prove that a violation occurred first.
> So if both sides feel the other is depriving them of representation, then both sides still have to answer to each other
> before ASSUMING that it's the other side that is seeking to infringe or impose.
> 
> Neither side agrees to the arguments of the other.
> 
> This isn't settled or proven yet, and at this point it seems at least mutual.
> So if both sides keep pushing for a policy that the other side objects to,
> they are equally guilty of discriminating against the creed and representation of the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already settled, and your statements are completely *NOT TRUE.  *Otherwise, all one would ever have to do is frivolously claim they were deprived of representation......
> 
> Your statement is false - there is no marriage policy that your religion objects to.  No one (but you and your fellow radical conservative fundamentalists) are pushing to 1) make changes that the other side objects to, and only you and YOUR group are guilty of discriminating by creed (we don't discriminate by representation).   You *ALWAYS *have the right to representation when needed).
> 
> Gays are *NOT *asking for any policy changes. Gays are *not *discriminating.   They *in no way are guilty of discrimination*.  *YOU, *at the city/county/state level, passed equal protection for various groups.  Some include sexual preference as one of the many protected groups.  For some reason, that bothers you (living along a river, in a bi-state area, and not that many miles from 3 other states, we have these rules at either state or city/county level in most areas.   So - yes, in Illinois, gays are allowed equal access to *THEIR CHOICE* of non-religious venue (ie, an Inn for service and/or reception). *THEIR CHOICE *of who makes their cake.   *THEIR CHOICE* of photographer.  *THEIR CHOICE *who makes their invitations.  None of these fall under 1st amendment (religious freedom).  None of this will be clarified by an amendment to the first amendment, because to do so would violate the 14th amendment....... Looking forward to hear your proposed amendment.
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin

A. What I posted was my first draft a LONG time ago when I first started looking into solutions to legal abuse, by focusing
on defending the right to conflict resolution, mediation and consensus to protect "consent of the governed" that otherwise isn't written into the Constitution.

I use that to "throw the IDEA out there" and try to troubleshoot and fix what it should focus on and how to word it.
From my experience, the process of reaching consensus will redefine the focus when others get involved if it is going to represent everyone.

B. Since the ACA was passed and contested as unconstitutional,
I was trying to focus on separating Political Beliefs by party.
If there is a specific goal, I figured that would help shape the language instead of being vague trying to cover all general cases of conflict.

This is what I came up with trying to word that:
http://acapetition.com/
Petition: Separate ACA by Party

Help! Best place to add to the TX Democrat platform?
Proposed Amendments 28 and 29 on Equality and Right to Health Care
Am I the only one who believes Political Beliefs should be included Equally by law?
*WHEREAS all taxpayers, citizens and persons under Government jurisdiction have equal rights to defend individual beliefs from discrimination by religious or political creed; and
WHEREAS many citizens rely on Political Parties to represent their political beliefs equally as their religious beliefs and personal morals; and
WHEREAS government and public institutions are required to include and serve diverse citizens equally of all views and beliefs, without discrimination by creed otherwise infringing on equal religious freedom, representation, due process and protection of law;

The Democrat Party Principles and Platform shall defend the rights of all citizens to equal representation and inclusion of Political Beliefs without discrimination by Party, including but not limited to:
(a) beliefs for or against gay marriage 
(b) beliefs in health care as a right ("singlepayer") or as a choice ("free market")
(c) beliefs for or against death penalty, abortion, euthanasia or other termination issues
(d) beliefs regarding federalism, anti-federalism, states' rights or Constitutionalism, including Constitutional reforms of the IRS, Federal Reserve, and other agencies 
(e) beliefs in decriminalizing or legalizing drugs, prostitution, gambling or other policies
(f) beliefs for or against restorative justice or retributive justice, restitution, or amnesty in criminal justice or immigration reform
(g) beliefs for or against the preservation of environmental or historic value equal to the liberty to own and develop land and property*

To prevent from enacting or enforcing laws that discriminate on the basis of creed, by imposing or excluding conflicting beliefs and values, the Democrat Party shall support reforms that equally respect, represent and include beliefs of all citizens, either (1) by passing laws by consensus of representatives voting, to ensure all views are included; (2) in cases where conflicts cannot be resolved, by separating systems by Party to create and fund equal access for members of shared beliefs to policies, practices and administration representing their choices without imposition; (3) by expanding Senate Judiciary Duties to mediate conflicts, grievances and complaints of partisan bias, including but not limited to the areas above, before laws are written and passed; and possibly (4) by reforming the position of Vice President to appoint and train key Mediators through the Justice Department to focus on Peace and Justice by conflict resolution, and to oversee a system of representation by Party on key issues of conflicting beliefs, for the purpose of reaching a consensus on laws, or separating systems by Party as needed for equal representation.

C. and now that LGBT policies are being contested as biased,
with the conflict over how much is natural born and not a choice
vs. unnatural choice of BEHAVIOR,
I agree with YOU that scientific research would help settle that
so it is clear how much is science and how much is faith based.

So that is where I would focus on the spiritual healing research
that also affects the conflict resolution and consensus process indirectly.

D. I also had Libertarians friends take up the idea of a conference
to organize support for a stronger more direct Grand Jury system.
So if you are saying there already is a grievance process, how can
we put more teeth into it, more direct and equal access where 
citizens can use it not only for corrections but DETERRENCE to prevent abuses.

All these areas are angles to promote the same concept of
consensus based conflict resolution that recognizes and includes
people's beliefs instead of punishing people by overruling or outvoting them.


----------



## Faun

WheelieAddict said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. I already said that BELIEFS about same sex marriage are already protected from each other
> by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and Civil Rights policies against discrimination by creed
> 
> 2. these are not diversions. I am saying the SAME concepts apply to all these other areas.
> 
> So solving one problem solves them all.
> The problem is not recognizing political beliefs as equal.
> 
> You only want to defend your beliefs and rights
> but you don't recognize the same of others.
> 
> Whose fault is that?
> Why are you blaming me for your inability to accommodate others?
> 
> I am trying to accommodate you and your beliefs.
> Your messages are about trying to debunk and EXCLUDE or dismiss my beliefs.
> 
> So who is doing the discriminating here?
> You are arguing why you should exclude
> "unless I prove to you why should something be included".
> 
> I am arguing how to include everyone equally!
> 
> *You are basically assuming other positions are false until proven true,
> while holding your position as true unless proven false.
> 
> I am assuming all beliefs are true, and trying to include them all.*
> 
> Do you see the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the First Amendment protecting same-sex marriage. That's where you go off the rails every single time and why you're perplexed over the legality of Obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free exercise of religion includes beliefs for or against same sex marriage.
> it should protect both sides from infringement by the other. Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it does.  If I'm pro gay marriage and you are anti- gay marriage - neither one of us can force our opinion on each other's religion.  I can't make your pastor marry a gay couple, and and you can't tell my pastor that he can't marry a gay couple.
> 
> If two people can get married, based on the 14th amendment, please tell me who is being discriminated against?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> We basically
> AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
> 
> Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
> is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
> agree with the beliefs.
> 
> There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
> including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
> So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
> 
> They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
> 
> I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
> the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
> 
> So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
> 
> It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
> don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
> and on what level of govt, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
> 
> Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
Click to expand...

Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 1. I already said that BELIEFS about same sex marriage are already protected from each other
> by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and Civil Rights policies against discrimination by creed
> 
> 2. these are not diversions. I am saying the SAME concepts apply to all these other areas.
> 
> So solving one problem solves them all.
> The problem is not recognizing political beliefs as equal.
> 
> You only want to defend your beliefs and rights
> but you don't recognize the same of others.
> 
> Whose fault is that?
> Why are you blaming me for your inability to accommodate others?
> 
> I am trying to accommodate you and your beliefs.
> Your messages are about trying to debunk and EXCLUDE or dismiss my beliefs.
> 
> So who is doing the discriminating here?
> You are arguing why you should exclude
> "unless I prove to you why should something be included".
> 
> I am arguing how to include everyone equally!
> 
> *You are basically assuming other positions are false until proven true,
> while holding your position as true unless proven false.
> 
> I am assuming all beliefs are true, and trying to include them all.*
> 
> Do you see the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the First Amendment protecting same-sex marriage. That's where you go off the rails every single time and why you're perplexed over the legality of Obergefell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free exercise of religion includes beliefs for or against same sex marriage.
> it should protect both sides from infringement by the other. Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it does.  If I'm pro gay marriage and you are anti- gay marriage - neither one of us can force our opinion on each other's religion.  I can't make your pastor marry a gay couple, and and you can't tell my pastor that he can't marry a gay couple.
> 
> If two people can get married, based on the 14th amendment, please tell me who is being discriminated against?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> We basically
> AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
> 
> Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
> is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
> agree with the beliefs.
> 
> There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
> including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
> So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
> 
> They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
> 
> I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
> the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
> 
> So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
> 
> It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
> don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
> and on what level of govt, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter if there are folks who want thd government out of marriage since the government is involved in civil marriages. And as long as the government is involved in civil marriages, it must treat everyone equally with no prejudice against anyone's race, creed, religion, or gender.
> 
> *I've asked this repeatedly and you still refuse to answer... do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?*
Click to expand...


Dear Faun this is the THIRD TIME I have tried to answer that question!!!
I think this thread is t o o much with to o many people replying to each other so you
cannot find where I answered it TWICE.

I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction.
The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts
so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt.

Did you read my other two msgs saying this,
and it still wasn't clear? I am assuming you couldn't find them because they were shorter replies
since this is a simple NO.


----------



## WheelieAddict

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm, I'll go with Thomas Jefferson who wrote in the Declaration of Independence that  *"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."*  See that "pursuit of happiness" bit?  Yeah, right there.  That covers gay marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear westwall but also the Constitution includes not depriving liberty of persons without due process of laws to prove that a violation occurred first.
> So if both sides feel the other is depriving them of representation, then both sides still have to answer to each other
> before ASSUMING that it's the other side that is seeking to infringe or impose.
> 
> Neither side agrees to the arguments of the other.
> 
> This isn't settled or proven yet, and at this point it seems at least mutual.
> So if both sides keep pushing for a policy that the other side objects to,
> they are equally guilty of discriminating against the creed and representation of the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already settled, and your statements are completely *NOT TRUE.  *Otherwise, all one would ever have to do is frivolously claim they were deprived of representation......
> 
> Your statement is false - there is no marriage policy that your religion objects to.  No one (but you and your fellow radical conservative fundamentalists) are pushing to 1) make changes that the other side objects to, and only you and YOUR group are guilty of discriminating by creed (we don't discriminate by representation).   You *ALWAYS *have the right to representation when needed).
> 
> Gays are *NOT *asking for any policy changes. Gays are *not *discriminating.   They *in no way are guilty of discrimination*.  *YOU, *at the city/county/state level, passed equal protection for various groups.  Some include sexual preference as one of the many protected groups.  For some reason, that bothers you (living along a river, in a bi-state area, and not that many miles from 3 other states, we have these rules at either state or city/county level in most areas.   So - yes, in Illinois, gays are allowed equal access to *THEIR CHOICE* of non-religious venue (ie, an Inn for service and/or reception). *THEIR CHOICE *of who makes their cake.   *THEIR CHOICE* of photographer.  *THEIR CHOICE *who makes their invitations.  None of these fall under 1st amendment (religious freedom).  None of this will be clarified by an amendment to the first amendment, because to do so would violate the 14th amendment....... Looking forward to hear your proposed amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> A. What I posted was my first draft a LONG time ago when I first started looking into solutions to legal abuse, by focusing
> on defending the right to conflict resolution, mediation and consensus to protect "consent of the governed" that otherwise isn't written into the Constitution.
> 
> I use that to "throw the IDEA out there" and try to troubleshoot and fix what it should focus on and how to word it.
> From my experience, the process of reaching consensus will redefine the focus when others get involved if it is going to represent everyone.
> 
> B. Since the ACA was passed and contested as unconstitutional,
> I was trying to focus on separating Political Beliefs by party.
> If there is a specific goal, I figured that would help shape the language instead of being vague trying to cover all general cases of conflict.
> 
> This is what I came up with trying to word that:
> http://acapetition.com/
> Petition: Separate ACA by Party
> 
> Help! Best place to add to the TX Democrat platform?
> Proposed Amendments 28 and 29 on Equality and Right to Health Care
> Am I the only one who believes Political Beliefs should be included Equally by law?
> *WHEREAS all taxpayers, citizens and persons under Government jurisdiction have equal rights to defend individual beliefs from discrimination by religious or political creed; and
> WHEREAS many citizens rely on Political Parties to represent their political beliefs equally as their religious beliefs and personal morals; and
> WHEREAS government and public institutions are required to include and serve diverse citizens equally of all views and beliefs, without discrimination by creed otherwise infringing on equal religious freedom, representation, due process and protection of law;
> 
> The Democrat Party Principles and Platform shall defend the rights of all citizens to equal representation and inclusion of Political Beliefs without discrimination by Party, including but not limited to:
> (a) beliefs for or against gay marriage
> (b) beliefs in health care as a right ("singlepayer") or as a choice ("free market")
> (c) beliefs for or against death penalty, abortion, euthanasia or other termination issues
> (d) beliefs regarding federalism, anti-federalism, states' rights or Constitutionalism, including Constitutional reforms of the IRS, Federal Reserve, and other agencies
> (e) beliefs in decriminalizing or legalizing drugs, prostitution, gambling or other policies
> (f) beliefs for or against restorative justice or retributive justice, restitution, or amnesty in criminal justice or immigration reform
> (g) beliefs for or against the preservation of environmental or historic value equal to the liberty to own and develop land and property*
> 
> To prevent from enacting or enforcing laws that discriminate on the basis of creed, by imposing or excluding conflicting beliefs and values, the Democrat Party shall support reforms that equally respect, represent and include beliefs of all citizens, either (1) by passing laws by consensus of representatives voting, to ensure all views are included; (2) in cases where conflicts cannot be resolved, by separating systems by Party to create and fund equal access for members of shared beliefs to policies, practices and administration representing their choices without imposition; (3) by expanding Senate Judiciary Duties to mediate conflicts, grievances and complaints of partisan bias, including but not limited to the areas above, before laws are written and passed; and possibly (4) by reforming the position of Vice President to appoint and train key Mediators through the Justice Department to focus on Peace and Justice by conflict resolution, and to oversee a system of representation by Party on key issues of conflicting beliefs, for the purpose of reaching a consensus on laws, or separating systems by Party as needed for equal representation.
> 
> C. and now that LGBT policies are being contested as biased,
> with the conflict over how much is natural born and not a choice
> vs. unnatural choice of BEHAVIOR,
> I agree with YOU that scientific research would help settle that
> so it is clear how much is science and how much is faith based.
> 
> So that is where I would focus on the spiritual healing research
> that also affects the conflict resolution and consensus process indirectly.
> 
> D. I also had Libertarians friends take up the idea of a conference
> to organize support for a stronger more direct Grand Jury system.
> So if you are saying there already is a grievance process, how can
> we put more teeth into it, more direct and equal access where
> citizens can use it not only for corrections but DETERRENCE to prevent abuses.
> 
> All these areas are angles to promote the same concept of
> consensus based conflict resolution that recognizes and includes
> people's beliefs instead of punishing people by overruling or outvoting them.
Click to expand...




Faun said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the First Amendment protecting same-sex marriage. That's where you go off the rails every single time and why you're perplexed over the legality of Obergefell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free exercise of religion includes beliefs for or against same sex marriage.
> it should protect both sides from infringement by the other. Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it does.  If I'm pro gay marriage and you are anti- gay marriage - neither one of us can force our opinion on each other's religion.  I can't make your pastor marry a gay couple, and and you can't tell my pastor that he can't marry a gay couple.
> 
> If two people can get married, based on the 14th amendment, please tell me who is being discriminated against?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> We basically
> AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
> 
> Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
> is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
> agree with the beliefs.
> 
> There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
> including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
> So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
> 
> They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
> 
> I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
> the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
> 
> So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
> 
> It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
> don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
> and on what level of govt, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
> 
> Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.
Click to expand...


No substance when it comes down to it. Figures.


----------



## WheelieAddict

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm, I'll go with Thomas Jefferson who wrote in the Declaration of Independence that  *"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."*  See that "pursuit of happiness" bit?  Yeah, right there.  That covers gay marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear westwall but also the Constitution includes not depriving liberty of persons without due process of laws to prove that a violation occurred first.
> So if both sides feel the other is depriving them of representation, then both sides still have to answer to each other
> before ASSUMING that it's the other side that is seeking to infringe or impose.
> 
> Neither side agrees to the arguments of the other.
> 
> This isn't settled or proven yet, and at this point it seems at least mutual.
> So if both sides keep pushing for a policy that the other side objects to,
> they are equally guilty of discriminating against the creed and representation of the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already settled, and your statements are completely *NOT TRUE.  *Otherwise, all one would ever have to do is frivolously claim they were deprived of representation......
> 
> Your statement is false - there is no marriage policy that your religion objects to.  No one (but you and your fellow radical conservative fundamentalists) are pushing to 1) make changes that the other side objects to, and only you and YOUR group are guilty of discriminating by creed (we don't discriminate by representation).   You *ALWAYS *have the right to representation when needed).
> 
> Gays are *NOT *asking for any policy changes. Gays are *not *discriminating.   They *in no way are guilty of discrimination*.  *YOU, *at the city/county/state level, passed equal protection for various groups.  Some include sexual preference as one of the many protected groups.  For some reason, that bothers you (living along a river, in a bi-state area, and not that many miles from 3 other states, we have these rules at either state or city/county level in most areas.   So - yes, in Illinois, gays are allowed equal access to *THEIR CHOICE* of non-religious venue (ie, an Inn for service and/or reception). *THEIR CHOICE *of who makes their cake.   *THEIR CHOICE* of photographer.  *THEIR CHOICE *who makes their invitations.  None of these fall under 1st amendment (religious freedom).  None of this will be clarified by an amendment to the first amendment, because to do so would violate the 14th amendment....... Looking forward to hear your proposed amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> A. What I posted was my first draft a LONG time ago when I first started looking into solutions to legal abuse, by focusing
> on defending the right to conflict resolution, mediation and consensus to protect "consent of the governed" that otherwise isn't written into the Constitution.
> 
> I use that to "throw the IDEA out there" and try to troubleshoot and fix what it should focus on and how to word it.
> From my experience, the process of reaching consensus will redefine the focus when others get involved if it is going to represent everyone.
> 
> B. Since the ACA was passed and contested as unconstitutional,
> I was trying to focus on separating Political Beliefs by party.
> If there is a specific goal, I figured that would help shape the language instead of being vague trying to cover all general cases of conflict.
> 
> This is what I came up with trying to word that:
> ACA Reforms - Constitutional Arguments and Petition to Separate by Party
> Petition: Separate ACA by Party
> 
> Help! Best place to add to the TX Democrat platform?
> Proposed Amendments 28 and 29 on Equality and Right to Health Care
> Am I the only one who believes Political Beliefs should be included Equally by law?
> *WHEREAS all taxpayers, citizens and persons under Government jurisdiction have equal rights to defend individual beliefs from discrimination by religious or political creed; and
> WHEREAS many citizens rely on Political Parties to represent their political beliefs equally as their religious beliefs and personal morals; and
> WHEREAS government and public institutions are required to include and serve diverse citizens equally of all views and beliefs, without discrimination by creed otherwise infringing on equal religious freedom, representation, due process and protection of law;
> 
> The Democrat Party Principles and Platform shall defend the rights of all citizens to equal representation and inclusion of Political Beliefs without discrimination by Party, including but not limited to:
> (a) beliefs for or against gay marriage
> (b) beliefs in health care as a right ("singlepayer") or as a choice ("free market")
> (c) beliefs for or against death penalty, abortion, euthanasia or other termination issues
> (d) beliefs regarding federalism, anti-federalism, states' rights or Constitutionalism, including Constitutional reforms of the IRS, Federal Reserve, and other agencies
> (e) beliefs in decriminalizing or legalizing drugs, prostitution, gambling or other policies
> (f) beliefs for or against restorative justice or retributive justice, restitution, or amnesty in criminal justice or immigration reform
> (g) beliefs for or against the preservation of environmental or historic value equal to the liberty to own and develop land and property*
> 
> To prevent from enacting or enforcing laws that discriminate on the basis of creed, by imposing or excluding conflicting beliefs and values, the Democrat Party shall support reforms that equally respect, represent and include beliefs of all citizens, either (1) by passing laws by consensus of representatives voting, to ensure all views are included; (2) in cases where conflicts cannot be resolved, by separating systems by Party to create and fund equal access for members of shared beliefs to policies, practices and administration representing their choices without imposition; (3) by expanding Senate Judiciary Duties to mediate conflicts, grievances and complaints of partisan bias, including but not limited to the areas above, before laws are written and passed; and possibly (4) by reforming the position of Vice President to appoint and train key Mediators through the Justice Department to focus on Peace and Justice by conflict resolution, and to oversee a system of representation by Party on key issues of conflicting beliefs, for the purpose of reaching a consensus on laws, or separating systems by Party as needed for equal representation.
> 
> C. and now that LGBT policies are being contested as biased,
> with the conflict over how much is natural born and not a choice
> vs. unnatural choice of BEHAVIOR,
> I agree with YOU that scientific research would help settle that
> so it is clear how much is science and how much is faith based.
> 
> So that is where I would focus on the spiritual healing research
> that also affects the conflict resolution and consensus process indirectly.
> 
> D. I also had Libertarians friends take up the idea of a conference
> to organize support for a stronger more direct Grand Jury system.
> So if you are saying there already is a grievance process, how can
> we put more teeth into it, more direct and equal access where
> citizens can use it not only for corrections but DETERRENCE to prevent abuses.
> 
> All these areas are angles to promote the same concept of
> consensus based conflict resolution that recognizes and includes
> people's beliefs instead of punishing people by overruling or outvoting them.
Click to expand...


I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.

Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.


----------



## WheelieAddict

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the First Amendment protecting same-sex marriage. That's where you go off the rails every single time and why you're perplexed over the legality of Obergefell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free exercise of religion includes beliefs for or against same sex marriage.
> it should protect both sides from infringement by the other. Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it does.  If I'm pro gay marriage and you are anti- gay marriage - neither one of us can force our opinion on each other's religion.  I can't make your pastor marry a gay couple, and and you can't tell my pastor that he can't marry a gay couple.
> 
> If two people can get married, based on the 14th amendment, please tell me who is being discriminated against?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> We basically
> AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
> 
> Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
> is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
> agree with the beliefs.
> 
> There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
> including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
> So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
> 
> They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
> 
> I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
> the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
> 
> So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
> 
> It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
> don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
> and on what level of govt, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter if there are folks who want thd government out of marriage since the government is involved in civil marriages. And as long as the government is involved in civil marriages, it must treat everyone equally with no prejudice against anyone's race, creed, religion, or gender.
> 
> *I've asked this repeatedly and you still refuse to answer... do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun this is the THIRD TIME I have tried to answer that question!!!
> I think this thread is t o o much with to o many people replying to each other so you
> cannot find where I answered it TWICE.
> 
> I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction.
> The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts
> so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt.
> 
> Did you read my other two msgs saying this,
> and it still wasn't clear? I am assuming you couldn't find them because they were shorter replies
> since this is a simple NO.
Click to expand...


I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.

Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.


----------



## WheelieAddict

Faun said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the First Amendment protecting same-sex marriage. That's where you go off the rails every single time and why you're perplexed over the legality of Obergefell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free exercise of religion includes beliefs for or against same sex marriage.
> it should protect both sides from infringement by the other. Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it does.  If I'm pro gay marriage and you are anti- gay marriage - neither one of us can force our opinion on each other's religion.  I can't make your pastor marry a gay couple, and and you can't tell my pastor that he can't marry a gay couple.
> 
> If two people can get married, based on the 14th amendment, please tell me who is being discriminated against?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> We basically
> AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
> 
> Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
> is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
> agree with the beliefs.
> 
> There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
> including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
> So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
> 
> They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
> 
> I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
> the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
> 
> So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
> 
> It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
> don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
> and on what level of govt, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
> 
> Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.
Click to expand...


Lots of words, mostly bullshit.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the First Amendment protecting same-sex marriage. That's where you go off the rails every single time and why you're perplexed over the legality of Obergefell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free exercise of religion includes beliefs for or against same sex marriage.
> it should protect both sides from infringement by the other. Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it does.  If I'm pro gay marriage and you are anti- gay marriage - neither one of us can force our opinion on each other's religion.  I can't make your pastor marry a gay couple, and and you can't tell my pastor that he can't marry a gay couple.
> 
> If two people can get married, based on the 14th amendment, please tell me who is being discriminated against?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> We basically
> AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
> 
> Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
> is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
> agree with the beliefs.
> 
> There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
> including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
> So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
> 
> They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
> 
> I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
> the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
> 
> So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
> 
> It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
> don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
> and on what level of govt, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
> 
> Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.
Click to expand...


No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?

I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.

I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
some ulterior motives or problems I have.

Do you really think I have time to do that?
You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
???? 

Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I 
can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.

Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???


----------



## WheelieAddict

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free exercise of religion includes beliefs for or against same sex marriage.
> it should protect both sides from infringement by the other. Faun
> 
> 
> 
> And it does.  If I'm pro gay marriage and you are anti- gay marriage - neither one of us can force our opinion on each other's religion.  I can't make your pastor marry a gay couple, and and you can't tell my pastor that he can't marry a gay couple.
> 
> If two people can get married, based on the 14th amendment, please tell me who is being discriminated against?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> We basically
> AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
> 
> Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
> is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
> agree with the beliefs.
> 
> There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
> including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
> So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
> 
> They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
> 
> I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
> the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
> 
> So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
> 
> It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
> don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
> and on what level of govt, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
> 
> Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
> Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
> And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
> I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
> 
> I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
> to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
> to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
> 
> I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
> It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
> I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
> some ulterior motives or problems I have.
> 
> Do you really think I have time to do that?
> You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
> ????
> 
> Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
> can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
> 
> Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
Click to expand...


I don't care. Answer.

I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.

Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the First Amendment protecting same-sex marriage. That's where you go off the rails every single time and why you're perplexed over the legality of Obergefell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free exercise of religion includes beliefs for or against same sex marriage.
> it should protect both sides from infringement by the other. Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it does.  If I'm pro gay marriage and you are anti- gay marriage - neither one of us can force our opinion on each other's religion.  I can't make your pastor marry a gay couple, and and you can't tell my pastor that he can't marry a gay couple.
> 
> If two people can get married, based on the 14th amendment, please tell me who is being discriminated against?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> We basically
> AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
> 
> Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
> is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
> agree with the beliefs.
> 
> There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
> including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
> So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
> 
> They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
> 
> I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
> the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
> 
> So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
> 
> It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
> don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
> and on what level of govt, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter if there are folks who want thd government out of marriage since the government is involved in civil marriages. And as long as the government is involved in civil marriages, it must treat everyone equally with no prejudice against anyone's race, creed, religion, or gender.
> 
> *I've asked this repeatedly and you still refuse to answer... do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun this is the THIRD TIME I have tried to answer that question!!!
> I think this thread is t o o much with to o many people replying to each other so you
> cannot find where I answered it TWICE.
> 
> I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction.
> The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts
> so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt.
> 
> Did you read my other two msgs saying this,
> and it still wasn't clear? I am assuming you couldn't find them because they were shorter replies
> since this is a simple NO.
Click to expand...

So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??

That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?

That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?

Thanks for your answer but your answer is *EXACTLY* the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.

A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)

In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.

What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.

The government is not divorcing itself from marriage *precisely because of people like you* who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free exercise of religion includes beliefs for or against same sex marriage.
> it should protect both sides from infringement by the other. Faun
> 
> 
> 
> And it does.  If I'm pro gay marriage and you are anti- gay marriage - neither one of us can force our opinion on each other's religion.  I can't make your pastor marry a gay couple, and and you can't tell my pastor that he can't marry a gay couple.
> 
> If two people can get married, based on the 14th amendment, please tell me who is being discriminated against?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> We basically
> AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
> 
> Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
> is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
> agree with the beliefs.
> 
> There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
> including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
> So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
> 
> They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
> 
> I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
> the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
> 
> So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
> 
> It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
> don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
> and on what level of govt, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
> 
> Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
> Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
> And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
> I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
> 
> I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
> to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
> to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
> 
> I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
> It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
> I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
> some ulterior motives or problems I have.
> 
> Do you really think I have time to do that?
> You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
> ????
> 
> Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
> can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
> 
> Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
Click to expand...

Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.


----------



## WheelieAddict

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it does.  If I'm pro gay marriage and you are anti- gay marriage - neither one of us can force our opinion on each other's religion.  I can't make your pastor marry a gay couple, and and you can't tell my pastor that he can't marry a gay couple.
> 
> If two people can get married, based on the 14th amendment, please tell me who is being discriminated against?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> We basically
> AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
> 
> Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
> is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
> agree with the beliefs.
> 
> There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
> including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
> So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
> 
> They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
> 
> I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
> the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
> 
> So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
> 
> It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
> don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
> and on what level of govt, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
> 
> Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
> Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
> And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
> I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
> 
> I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
> to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
> to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
> 
> I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
> It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
> I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
> some ulterior motives or problems I have.
> 
> Do you really think I have time to do that?
> You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
> ????
> 
> Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
> can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
> 
> Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.
Click to expand...


It's ridiculous. Types paragraphs of stuff and doesn't answer easy direct questions. No one should care what Emily has to say. She is a disappointment to say the least, a bullshitter who shouldn't be taken seriously. Worthy of ignoring.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free exercise of religion includes beliefs for or against same sex marriage.
> it should protect both sides from infringement by the other. Faun
> 
> 
> 
> And it does.  If I'm pro gay marriage and you are anti- gay marriage - neither one of us can force our opinion on each other's religion.  I can't make your pastor marry a gay couple, and and you can't tell my pastor that he can't marry a gay couple.
> 
> If two people can get married, based on the 14th amendment, please tell me who is being discriminated against?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> We basically
> AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
> 
> Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
> is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
> agree with the beliefs.
> 
> There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
> including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
> So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
> 
> They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
> 
> I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
> the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
> 
> So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
> 
> It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
> don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
> and on what level of govt, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter if there are folks who want thd government out of marriage since the government is involved in civil marriages. And as long as the government is involved in civil marriages, it must treat everyone equally with no prejudice against anyone's race, creed, religion, or gender.
> 
> *I've asked this repeatedly and you still refuse to answer... do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun this is the THIRD TIME I have tried to answer that question!!!
> I think this thread is t o o much with to o many people replying to each other so you
> cannot find where I answered it TWICE.
> 
> I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction.
> The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts
> so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt.
> 
> Did you read my other two msgs saying this,
> and it still wasn't clear? I am assuming you couldn't find them because they were shorter replies
> since this is a simple NO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you want churches to marry people but not tge government marrying people??
> 
> That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> Thanks for your answer but your answer is *EXACTLY* the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.
> 
> A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone as the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)
> 
> In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.
> 
> The government is not divorcing itself from marriage *precisely because of people like you* who seek to deny certain folks their rights.
Click to expand...


Dear Faun 
A. we already AGREE that govt should manage the CIVIL contracts.

B. and no I don't agree AT ALL that govt needs to be 
involved in the free practice and beliefs on marriage RITUALS in order to protect it
from other religious practices or beliefs, because that's like saying
Govt needs to regulate Buddhist or Islamic rituals in order
to prevent discrimination by Christians who don't follow that either!!!

You keep accusing me of "trying to deny people their rights"
WHY?
you misunderstand me completely
I am trying to defend YOUR beliefs and rights to exercise how YOU agre e to
EQUALLY
as the rights and beliefs of OTHERS who want the same thing
but don't agree with YOUR WAY!!!

* I'm trying to PROTECT YOU AND THE OTHERS EQUALLY
FROM INFRINGING ON EACH OTHER*

Why don't you get that???
Just because I defend your rights and beliefs
equally as theirs, that's a threat to you?
Why?

I said that's why the standard is consensus so you don't have to fear
anyone violating your consent, because that would violate consensus.

Do you not get what consensus means?
And you still think it means someone else can violate your consent?
No, that is NOT what I MEAN by consensus.

I mean you and others both have to respect each other's
consent in order to respect and protect beliefs equally on both sides.

Sorry this isn't clear.

Just because i defend rights to practice ISLAM doesn;t mean
A. I practice or believe in that practice myself
B. or doesn't mean I believe in ABUSING Islam to violate or deny rights of others.

I am merely defending beliefs of people equally
and reporting to you the HONEST TRUTH
that your way of EXCLUDING and INSULTING other people
based on assumptions you keep making that are false and unfair
are SKEWING THE PROCESS and causing bias and misrepresentation.

Just because other people reject equal rights for gay marriage
doesn't give you the right to wrongfully accuse and misjudge me for what others do!

I'm trying to resolve this, not create or impose more!

Sorry you don't even get that my position is different.
You keep assuming I believe in imposing the other view
when I am asking to prevent EITHER view from imposing on the other!


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it does.  If I'm pro gay marriage and you are anti- gay marriage - neither one of us can force our opinion on each other's religion.  I can't make your pastor marry a gay couple, and and you can't tell my pastor that he can't marry a gay couple.
> 
> If two people can get married, based on the 14th amendment, please tell me who is being discriminated against?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> We basically
> AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
> 
> Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
> is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
> agree with the beliefs.
> 
> There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
> including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
> So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
> 
> They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
> 
> I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
> the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
> 
> So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
> 
> It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
> don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
> and on what level of govt, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
> 
> Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
> Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
> And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
> I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
> 
> I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
> to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
> to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
> 
> I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
> It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
> I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
> some ulterior motives or problems I have.
> 
> Do you really think I have time to do that?
> You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
> ????
> 
> Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
> can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
> 
> Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.
Click to expand...


1. there is only one of me, and there are 4-5 of you.
Do you think I have time to answer 10 posts by Sneekin, you and rightwinger?

2. did you get my PM that I have two jobs, that i am behind on.
Does that register in your head that I don't have time in betwe en my two jobs
to even eat and sleep in a healthy manner?

Faun have you ever worked two jobs at the same time?
Do you have any idea how strenous it is?

I can't even call my own mother back for we eks to catch up.
I can't se e my nephews in California, I can barely se e my own boyfriend
once a we ek if I am lucky.

Why would I spend more time online answering questions
from you than I spend time with my boyfriend or talking with my family?

Are you that insulted that I don't have time to 
answer all your messages when I can't even call my own mother back on time?

ARE YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN MOTHER???


----------



## WheelieAddict

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it does.  If I'm pro gay marriage and you are anti- gay marriage - neither one of us can force our opinion on each other's religion.  I can't make your pastor marry a gay couple, and and you can't tell my pastor that he can't marry a gay couple.
> 
> If two people can get married, based on the 14th amendment, please tell me who is being discriminated against?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> We basically
> AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
> 
> Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
> is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
> agree with the beliefs.
> 
> There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
> including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
> So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
> 
> They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
> 
> I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
> the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
> 
> So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
> 
> It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
> don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
> and on what level of govt, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter if there are folks who want thd government out of marriage since the government is involved in civil marriages. And as long as the government is involved in civil marriages, it must treat everyone equally with no prejudice against anyone's race, creed, religion, or gender.
> 
> *I've asked this repeatedly and you still refuse to answer... do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun this is the THIRD TIME I have tried to answer that question!!!
> I think this thread is t o o much with to o many people replying to each other so you
> cannot find where I answered it TWICE.
> 
> I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction.
> The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts
> so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt.
> 
> Did you read my other two msgs saying this,
> and it still wasn't clear? I am assuming you couldn't find them because they were shorter replies
> since this is a simple NO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you want churches to marry people but not tge government marrying people??
> 
> That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> Thanks for your answer but your answer is *EXACTLY* the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.
> 
> A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone as the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)
> 
> In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.
> 
> The government is not divorcing itself from marriage *precisely because of people like you* who seek to deny certain folks their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> A. we already AGREE that govt should manage the CIVIL contracts.
> 
> B. and no I don't agree AT ALL that govt needs to be
> involved in the free practice and beliefs on marriage RITUALS in order to protect it
> from other religious practices or beliefs, because that's like saying
> Govt needs to regulate Buddhist or Islamic rituals in order
> to prevent discrimination by Christians who don't follow that either!!!
> 
> You keep accusing me of "trying to deny people their rights"
> WHY?
> you misunderstand me completely
> I am trying to defend YOUR beliefs and rights to exercise how YOU agre e to
> EQUALLY
> as the rights and beliefs of OTHERS who want the same thing
> but don't agree with YOUR WAY!!!
> 
> * I'm trying to PROTECT YOU AND THE OTHERS EQUALLY
> FROM INFRINGING ON EACH OTHER*
> 
> Why don't you get that???
> Just because I defend your rights and beliefs
> equally as theirs, that's a threat to you?
> Why?
> 
> I said that's why the standard is consensus so you don't have to fear
> anyone violating your consent, because that would violate consensus.
> 
> Do you not get what consensus means?
> And you still think it means someone else can violate your consent?
> No, that is NOT what I MEAN by consensus.
> 
> I mean you and others both have to respect each other's
> consent in order to respect and protect beliefs equally on both sides.
> 
> Sorry this isn't clear.
> 
> Just because i defend rights to practice ISLAM doesn;t mean
> A. I practice or believe in that practice myself
> B. or doesn't mean I believe in ABUSING Islam to violate or deny rights of others.
> 
> I am merely defending beliefs of people equally
> and reporting to you the HONEST TRUTH
> that your way of EXCLUDING and INSULTING other people
> based on assumptions you keep making that are false and unfair
> are SKEWING THE PROCESS and causing bias and misrepresentation.
> 
> Just because other people reject equal rights for gay marriage
> doesn't give you the right to wrongfully accuse and misjudge me for what others do!
> 
> I'm trying to resolve this, not create or impose more!
> 
> Sorry you don't even get that my position is different.
> You keep assuming I believe in imposing the other view
> when I am asking to prevent EITHER view from imposing on the other!
Click to expand...


I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.

Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it does.  If I'm pro gay marriage and you are anti- gay marriage - neither one of us can force our opinion on each other's religion.  I can't make your pastor marry a gay couple, and and you can't tell my pastor that he can't marry a gay couple.
> 
> If two people can get married, based on the 14th amendment, please tell me who is being discriminated against?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> We basically
> AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
> 
> Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
> is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
> agree with the beliefs.
> 
> There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
> including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
> So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
> 
> They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
> 
> I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
> the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
> 
> So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
> 
> It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
> don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
> and on what level of govt, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter if there are folks who want thd government out of marriage since the government is involved in civil marriages. And as long as the government is involved in civil marriages, it must treat everyone equally with no prejudice against anyone's race, creed, religion, or gender.
> 
> *I've asked this repeatedly and you still refuse to answer... do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun this is the THIRD TIME I have tried to answer that question!!!
> I think this thread is t o o much with to o many people replying to each other so you
> cannot find where I answered it TWICE.
> 
> I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction.
> The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts
> so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt.
> 
> Did you read my other two msgs saying this,
> and it still wasn't clear? I am assuming you couldn't find them because they were shorter replies
> since this is a simple NO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you want churches to marry people but not tge government marrying people??
> 
> That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> Thanks for your answer but your answer is *EXACTLY* the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.
> 
> A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone as the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)
> 
> In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.
> 
> The government is not divorcing itself from marriage *precisely because of people like you* who seek to deny certain folks their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> A. we already AGREE that govt should manage the CIVIL contracts.
> 
> B. and no I don't agree AT ALL that govt needs to be
> involved in the free practice and beliefs on marriage RITUALS in order to protect it
> from other religious practices or beliefs, because that's like saying
> Govt needs to regulate Buddhist or Islamic rituals in order
> to prevent discrimination by Christians who don't follow that either!!!
> 
> You keep accusing me of "trying to deny people their rights"
> WHY?
> you misunderstand me completely
> I am trying to defend YOUR beliefs and rights to exercise how YOU agre e to
> EQUALLY
> as the rights and beliefs of OTHERS who want the same thing
> but don't agree with YOUR WAY!!!
> 
> * I'm trying to PROTECT YOU AND THE OTHERS EQUALLY
> FROM INFRINGING ON EACH OTHER*
> 
> Why don't you get that???
> Just because I defend your rights and beliefs
> equally as theirs, that's a threat to you?
> Why?
> 
> I said that's why the standard is consensus so you don't have to fear
> anyone violating your consent, because that would violate consensus.
> 
> Do you not get what consensus means?
> And you still think it means someone else can violate your consent?
> No, that is NOT what I MEAN by consensus.
> 
> I mean you and others both have to respect each other's
> consent in order to respect and protect beliefs equally on both sides.
> 
> Sorry this isn't clear.
> 
> Just because i defend rights to practice ISLAM doesn;t mean
> A. I practice or believe in that practice myself
> B. or doesn't mean I believe in ABUSING Islam to violate or deny rights of others.
> 
> I am merely defending beliefs of people equally
> and reporting to you the HONEST TRUTH
> that your way of EXCLUDING and INSULTING other people
> based on assumptions you keep making that are false and unfair
> are SKEWING THE PROCESS and causing bias and misrepresentation.
> 
> Just because other people reject equal rights for gay marriage
> doesn't give you the right to wrongfully accuse and misjudge me for what others do!
> 
> I'm trying to resolve this, not create or impose more!
> 
> Sorry you don't even get that my position is different.
> You keep assuming I believe in imposing the other view
> when I am asking to prevent EITHER view from imposing on the other!
Click to expand...

Emily, gays and atheists don't want civil contracts. They want marriage.

Marriage is a right and you have no place telling them they can't get married unless they get married in a church or marry someone who is not the person they love.

Marriage is here to stay and the government is going to continue issuing marriage licenses to protect the rights of religious  folks who want others to lose the rights they enjoy.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> We basically
> AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
> 
> Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
> is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
> agree with the beliefs.
> 
> There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
> including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
> So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
> 
> They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
> 
> I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
> the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
> 
> So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
> 
> It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
> don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
> and on what level of govt, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
> 
> Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
> Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
> And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
> I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
> 
> I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
> to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
> to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
> 
> I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
> It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
> I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
> some ulterior motives or problems I have.
> 
> Do you really think I have time to do that?
> You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
> ????
> 
> Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
> can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
> 
> Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. there is only one of me, and there are 4-5 of you.
> Do you think I have time to answer 10 posts by Sneekin, you and rightwinger?
> 
> 2. did you get my PM that I have two jobs, that i am behind on.
> Does that register in your head that I don't have time in betwe en my two jobs
> to even eat and sleep in a healthy manner?
> 
> Faun have you ever worked two jobs at the same time?
> Do you have any idea how strenous it is?
> 
> I can't even call my own mother back for we eks to catch up.
> I can't se e my nephews in California, I can barely se e my own boyfriend
> once a we ek if I am lucky.
> 
> Why would I spend more time online answering questions
> from you than I spend time with my boyfriend or talking with my family?
> 
> Are you that insulted that I don't have time to
> answer all your messages when I can't even call my own mother back on time?
> 
> ARE YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN MOTHER???
Click to expand...

Emily,  YOU are making the choice to post here. If it's too taxiing on you, I.  suggest you post less and spend more time with your mother and on your two jobs.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it does.  If I'm pro gay marriage and you are anti- gay marriage - neither one of us can force our opinion on each other's religion.  I can't make your pastor marry a gay couple, and and you can't tell my pastor that he can't marry a gay couple.
> 
> If two people can get married, based on the 14th amendment, please tell me who is being discriminated against?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> We basically
> AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
> 
> Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
> is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
> agree with the beliefs.
> 
> There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
> including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
> So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
> 
> They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
> 
> I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
> the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
> 
> So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
> 
> It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
> don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
> and on what level of govt, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
> 
> Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
> Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
> And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
> I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
> 
> I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
> to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
> to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
> 
> I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
> It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
> I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
> some ulterior motives or problems I have.
> 
> Do you really think I have time to do that?
> You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
> ????
> 
> Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
> can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
> 
> Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.
Click to expand...


Dear Faun 

There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.

Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to 
catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
with no time to eat or sleep in between.

^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
and were behind on both for about a month each and only
have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?

If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
to get you to acknowledge this?

B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others 
have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.

Are you really going to 
1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?

WHY would you do that?
Do you not believe me?
Or  you don't care to consider there are other reasons?

????
Can you explain what you are really thinking
and why you are projecting that onto me?


----------



## WheelieAddict

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
> 
> Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
> Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
> And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
> I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
> 
> I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
> to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
> to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
> 
> I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
> It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
> I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
> some ulterior motives or problems I have.
> 
> Do you really think I have time to do that?
> You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
> ????
> 
> Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
> can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
> 
> Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. there is only one of me, and there are 4-5 of you.
> Do you think I have time to answer 10 posts by Sneekin, you and rightwinger?
> 
> 2. did you get my PM that I have two jobs, that i am behind on.
> Does that register in your head that I don't have time in betwe en my two jobs
> to even eat and sleep in a healthy manner?
> 
> Faun have you ever worked two jobs at the same time?
> Do you have any idea how strenous it is?
> 
> I can't even call my own mother back for we eks to catch up.
> I can't se e my nephews in California, I can barely se e my own boyfriend
> once a we ek if I am lucky.
> 
> Why would I spend more time online answering questions
> from you than I spend time with my boyfriend or talking with my family?
> 
> Are you that insulted that I don't have time to
> answer all your messages when I can't even call my own mother back on time?
> 
> ARE YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN MOTHER???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily,  YOU are making the choice to post here. If it's too taxiing on you, I.  suggest you post less and spend more time with your mother and on your two jobs.
Click to expand...


Seriously it's fucking pathetic. I work my ass off that's why I'm not here everyday. I don't use that as a crutch when I don't want to answer a question.


----------



## WheelieAddict

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> We basically
> AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
> 
> Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
> is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
> agree with the beliefs.
> 
> There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
> including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
> So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
> 
> They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
> 
> I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
> the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
> 
> So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
> 
> It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
> don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
> and on what level of govt, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
> 
> Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
> Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
> And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
> I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
> 
> I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
> to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
> to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
> 
> I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
> It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
> I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
> some ulterior motives or problems I have.
> 
> Do you really think I have time to do that?
> You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
> ????
> 
> Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
> can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
> 
> Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 
> There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
> about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
> to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
> to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.
> 
> Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
> A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
> catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
> with no time to eat or sleep in between.
> 
> ^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
> and were behind on both for about a month each and only
> have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
> that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?
> 
> If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
> to get you to acknowledge this?
> 
> B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
> have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.
> 
> Are you really going to
> 1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
> 2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?
> 
> WHY would you do that?
> Do you not believe me?
> Or  you don't care to consider there are other reasons?
> 
> ????
> Can you explain what you are really thinking
> and why you are projecting that onto me?
Click to expand...


I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.

Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> We basically
> AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
> 
> Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
> is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
> agree with the beliefs.
> 
> There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
> including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
> So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
> 
> They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
> 
> I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
> the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
> 
> So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
> 
> It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
> don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
> and on what level of govt, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if there are folks who want thd government out of marriage since the government is involved in civil marriages. And as long as the government is involved in civil marriages, it must treat everyone equally with no prejudice against anyone's race, creed, religion, or gender.
> 
> *I've asked this repeatedly and you still refuse to answer... do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun this is the THIRD TIME I have tried to answer that question!!!
> I think this thread is t o o much with to o many people replying to each other so you
> cannot find where I answered it TWICE.
> 
> I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction.
> The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts
> so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt.
> 
> Did you read my other two msgs saying this,
> and it still wasn't clear? I am assuming you couldn't find them because they were shorter replies
> since this is a simple NO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you want churches to marry people but not tge government marrying people??
> 
> That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> Thanks for your answer but your answer is *EXACTLY* the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.
> 
> A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone as the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)
> 
> In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.
> 
> The government is not divorcing itself from marriage *precisely because of people like you* who seek to deny certain folks their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> A. we already AGREE that govt should manage the CIVIL contracts.
> 
> B. and no I don't agree AT ALL that govt needs to be
> involved in the free practice and beliefs on marriage RITUALS in order to protect it
> from other religious practices or beliefs, because that's like saying
> Govt needs to regulate Buddhist or Islamic rituals in order
> to prevent discrimination by Christians who don't follow that either!!!
> 
> You keep accusing me of "trying to deny people their rights"
> WHY?
> you misunderstand me completely
> I am trying to defend YOUR beliefs and rights to exercise how YOU agre e to
> EQUALLY
> as the rights and beliefs of OTHERS who want the same thing
> but don't agree with YOUR WAY!!!
> 
> * I'm trying to PROTECT YOU AND THE OTHERS EQUALLY
> FROM INFRINGING ON EACH OTHER*
> 
> Why don't you get that???
> Just because I defend your rights and beliefs
> equally as theirs, that's a threat to you?
> Why?
> 
> I said that's why the standard is consensus so you don't have to fear
> anyone violating your consent, because that would violate consensus.
> 
> Do you not get what consensus means?
> And you still think it means someone else can violate your consent?
> No, that is NOT what I MEAN by consensus.
> 
> I mean you and others both have to respect each other's
> consent in order to respect and protect beliefs equally on both sides.
> 
> Sorry this isn't clear.
> 
> Just because i defend rights to practice ISLAM doesn;t mean
> A. I practice or believe in that practice myself
> B. or doesn't mean I believe in ABUSING Islam to violate or deny rights of others.
> 
> I am merely defending beliefs of people equally
> and reporting to you the HONEST TRUTH
> that your way of EXCLUDING and INSULTING other people
> based on assumptions you keep making that are false and unfair
> are SKEWING THE PROCESS and causing bias and misrepresentation.
> 
> Just because other people reject equal rights for gay marriage
> doesn't give you the right to wrongfully accuse and misjudge me for what others do!
> 
> I'm trying to resolve this, not create or impose more!
> 
> Sorry you don't even get that my position is different.
> You keep assuming I believe in imposing the other view
> when I am asking to prevent EITHER view from imposing on the other!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, gays and atheists don't want civil contracts. They want marriage.
> 
> Marriage is a right and you have no place telling them they can't get married unless they get married in a church or marry someone who is not the person they love.
> 
> Marriage is here to stay and the government is going to continue issuing marriage licenses to protect the rights of religious  folks who want others to lose the rights they enjoy.
Click to expand...


Dear Faun 
A. I thought we agreed, you insisted that it is only about CIVIL contracts.
B. If you want something other than secular civil laws,
that's fine, but you are dealing with people who want RIGHT TO LIFE which they see as a natural science based law!

I have NO PROBLEM if you treat what people want as equal.
But it goes against my Constitutional principles and ethics
for one side to push for what they want while EXCLUDING the same of the other.

That's my point, equal inclusion protection and representation.

C. So if you want your marriage, and others want their beliefs in right to life protected by govt,
and I want my right to recognize and defend all political beliefs equally,
I'm all for ALL OF US GETTING OUR WAY.

Thank you Faun 
I believe we can do this without compromise.
And that's the only way we are all going to get our way
is to agree not to compromise what other people want to defend either!

_Do NOT insult me again with your inconsiderate false assumptions
about me, and why I can't stop to answer 10 msgs each from 4-5 people
while I struggle day and night to catch up at two jobs I'm behind on.
And I won't ask you to apologize for your mistake in assuming wrongly._


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> We basically
> AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
> 
> Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
> is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
> agree with the beliefs.
> 
> There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
> including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
> So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
> 
> They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
> 
> I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
> the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
> 
> So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
> 
> It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
> don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
> and on what level of govt, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
> 
> Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
> Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
> And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
> I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
> 
> I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
> to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
> to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
> 
> I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
> It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
> I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
> some ulterior motives or problems I have.
> 
> Do you really think I have time to do that?
> You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
> ????
> 
> Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
> can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
> 
> Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 
> There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
> about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
> to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
> to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.
> 
> Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
> A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
> catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
> with no time to eat or sleep in between.
> 
> ^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
> and were behind on both for about a month each and only
> have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
> that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?
> 
> If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
> to get you to acknowledge this?
> 
> B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
> have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.
> 
> Are you really going to
> 1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
> 2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?
> 
> WHY would you do that?
> Do you not believe me?
> Or  you don't care to consider there are other reasons?
> 
> ????
> Can you explain what you are really thinking
> and why you are projecting that onto me?
Click to expand...

Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying fuck that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquies while not answering questions asked of you.

Again... post less and spend more time with your mother. It will hopefully be more rewarding.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
> 
> Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
> Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
> And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
> I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
> 
> I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
> to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
> to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
> 
> I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
> It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
> I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
> some ulterior motives or problems I have.
> 
> Do you really think I have time to do that?
> You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
> ????
> 
> Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
> can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
> 
> Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. there is only one of me, and there are 4-5 of you.
> Do you think I have time to answer 10 posts by Sneekin, you and rightwinger?
> 
> 2. did you get my PM that I have two jobs, that i am behind on.
> Does that register in your head that I don't have time in betwe en my two jobs
> to even eat and sleep in a healthy manner?
> 
> Faun have you ever worked two jobs at the same time?
> Do you have any idea how strenous it is?
> 
> I can't even call my own mother back for we eks to catch up.
> I can't se e my nephews in California, I can barely se e my own boyfriend
> once a we ek if I am lucky.
> 
> Why would I spend more time online answering questions
> from you than I spend time with my boyfriend or talking with my family?
> 
> Are you that insulted that I don't have time to
> answer all your messages when I can't even call my own mother back on time?
> 
> ARE YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN MOTHER???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily,  YOU are making the choice to post here. If it's too taxiing on you, I.  suggest you post less and spend more time with your mother and on your two jobs.
Click to expand...


^ So WHY did you practically INSULT me and PRESSURE me to answer ^
then turn around and say if it's too strenous I should be on here. ????
Faun 

WheelieAddict
I answered Faun's question TWO or THREE times and still
got a false complaint that I never answered the question.
Plus insinuations that I didn't want to answer!

That's why I went off on defending and explaining that
I AM TRYING to answer and resolve these points!

To me it's not a choice. If these issues don't get resolved
where I can use the answers to write up proposals to mediate and set up 
a voluntary system of corrections and restitution for govt abuse,
my whole neighborhood will lose our chance to restore our plans
for a historic campus to teach civic laws and corrections.

I've got to figure out how to make this process work, because
I can't keep working two jobs to pay the cost of
restitution that we need a system for of collecting back
to pay for the damage done and the restoration work.

I've been working two jobs since 2008,
it's taken a huge toll on my health and life,
and now that Democrats have to reorganize the party
maybe it's finally time to hand the plans back over to the
right people to implement correctly, so I can retire from
two jobs, just work one, and finally get my life back!

Thanks for your help to sort this out as much as we could.
We need better mediators to help or we don't get what
the other side is saying or missing. Thanks and Good night!


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
> 
> Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
> Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
> And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
> I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
> 
> I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
> to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
> to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
> 
> I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
> It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
> I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
> some ulterior motives or problems I have.
> 
> Do you really think I have time to do that?
> You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
> ????
> 
> Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
> can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
> 
> Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 
> There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
> about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
> to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
> to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.
> 
> Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
> A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
> catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
> with no time to eat or sleep in between.
> 
> ^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
> and were behind on both for about a month each and only
> have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
> that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?
> 
> If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
> to get you to acknowledge this?
> 
> B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
> have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.
> 
> Are you really going to
> 1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
> 2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?
> 
> WHY would you do that?
> Do you not believe me?
> Or  you don't care to consider there are other reasons?
> 
> ????
> Can you explain what you are really thinking
> and why you are projecting that onto me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying fuck that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquies while not answering questions asked of you.
> 
> Again... post less and spend more time with your mother. It will hopefully be more rewarding.
Click to expand...


Dear Faun 
1. Obviously you do care if it interferes with your ability to get the answers in the format you want.
2. And what if this is the way I talk?
So you are going to discriminate against me because I don't communicate the way you do?

I do the best I can given my way of processing information in an inclusive manner,
and my time restrictions.

If that isn't good enough for you, I'm sorry I don't have time to do better.
It takes more time to edit down to short answers, and is faster to write out what comes to mind 
and wait for your response to see WHICH points to focus on.

By process of elimination, trial and error, the points that are key
come out, but it takes time. Sorry you are not used to a holistic
consensus process, but I'm not a mindreader and will brainstorm
trying to get feedback on different approaches so I can find where
the areas are that are causing the root conflicts.

It's not just the "literal content" Faun but the
CONTEXT by which we process information
that affects our ability to communicate.

We keep misreading and talking past each other
which tells me biases or pressures or assumptions
are creeping in that not both sides have, so it is
skewing how we perceive or interpret things.

so part of the process I work on is troubleshooting
those sources, neutralizing them, so we can get
on the same page. Then the communication is easier after that.

Thanks Faun and sorry if I took it personally
what you said, because I was going out of my
way to get this resolved, and when my best
efforts are not good enough, and still giving
the wrong impression to people like you that I'm not trying
or I'm avoiding, that is just KILLING me because I am trying harder and harder!


----------



## WheelieAddict

Dear Emily,
  You are blaming others for insulting and pressuring you when they have done nothing of the sort. It is apparent to everyone you are simply crying oppression to try and avoid answering rebuttals . 
  You see Emily, when you post paragraphs and paragraphs of statements and then refuse to reply to simple questions to them, and do your best to dance around it,. You become a troll. You have specifically avoided answering me.
   If you are going to make strong statements you need to back them up. Stop crying about people asking for answers and we may start taking you seriously.

I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.

Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.


----------



## Sbiker

Faun said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> by what you posed Faun I would agree
> if that if the Republicans don't agree to a law because they say it's unconstitutional because it violates
> their beliefs, then it IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL and that law should NOT be enforced but changed.
> if the Democrats don't agree to a law because they argue it's unconstitutional because it violates
> their beliefs, same thing, it should be struck down or changed until both sides AGREE it is constitutional!
> 
> the problem Faun is we have DEMOCRATS insisting ACA and health care laws are constitutional
> because THEY BELIEVE govt should be the central default for managing health care "as a right"
> while REPUBLICANS insist it ISN'T constitutional and needs to be revised.
> 
> So I agree with you, since there is only one law, then if people don't agree because of their beliefs,
> that law CANNOT be enforced as "law for all people"
> 
> We SHOULD use that standard of satisfying ALL parties and people's beliefs
> before claiming to establish a law that touches on those beliefs.
> 
> Then we WOULDN'T have one group saying it's the law
> and the other saying it violates law. We've got that going on now
> because we don't finish the process of resolving conflicts to AGREE on one law!
> 
> 
> 
> Holyfuckingshit!
> 
> No, Emily, laws are not unconstitutional because either party believes they are. Even worse for your nonsense, laws are not deemed constitutional because both parties agree to that.
> 
> What country do you live in that you believe that nonsense.
> 
> At the state and federal level, both parties pass laws. Sometimes in agreement, sometimes not. Constitutionality of laws passed is not even in question. ALL laws are considered constitutional when passed and remain so until challenged within the judicial branch of our government. If a law is determined to be unconstitutional, that judgement is rendered by the presiding judge(s), not the political parties, as you asininely believe.
> 
> I believe Sneekin claims to be an attorney. He can correct me if I'm mistaken.
> 
> This post of yours fully explains why you're so wrong in your arguments and why you have failed miserably to convince anyone to accept your position -- you have no fucking clue what you're spouting. Like Sbiker's idiocy about why some Jews don't eat pork, I don't even know where you come up with this shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a second  I'm not afraid of be an idiot, but where did I discussed WHY some Jews don't eat pork?  Maybe almost of your "facts" to prove your position are "frying" too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you the one who said...
> 
> _"I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable... "_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One minute...
> It's a discussion about "which pork they eating" or "do they eating pork or no".... Where is the question "WHY"? :-\
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot.... no one said there was a question why.
> 
> So? Did you post this or not...?
> 
> _"I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable... "_​
Click to expand...


"Like Sbiker's idiocy about *why *some Jews don't eat pork"

If I, idiot, could simply re-read citations in this message - why don't you do it?


----------



## Faun

Sbiker said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holyfuckingshit!
> 
> No, Emily, laws are not unconstitutional because either party believes they are. Even worse for your nonsense, laws are not deemed constitutional because both parties agree to that.
> 
> What country do you live in that you believe that nonsense.
> 
> At the state and federal level, both parties pass laws. Sometimes in agreement, sometimes not. Constitutionality of laws passed is not even in question. ALL laws are considered constitutional when passed and remain so until challenged within the judicial branch of our government. If a law is determined to be unconstitutional, that judgement is rendered by the presiding judge(s), not the political parties, as you asininely believe.
> 
> I believe Sneekin claims to be an attorney. He can correct me if I'm mistaken.
> 
> This post of yours fully explains why you're so wrong in your arguments and why you have failed miserably to convince anyone to accept your position -- you have no fucking clue what you're spouting. Like Sbiker's idiocy about why some Jews don't eat pork, I don't even know where you come up with this shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a second  I'm not afraid of be an idiot, but where did I discussed WHY some Jews don't eat pork?  Maybe almost of your "facts" to prove your position are "frying" too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you the one who said...
> 
> _"I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable... "_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One minute...
> It's a discussion about "which pork they eating" or "do they eating pork or no".... Where is the question "WHY"? :-\
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot.... no one said there was a question why.
> 
> So? Did you post this or not...?
> 
> _"I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable... "_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Like Sbiker's idiocy about *why *some Jews don't eat pork"
> 
> If I, idiot, could simply re-read citations in this message - why don't you do it?
Click to expand...

This is proof that you're an idiot. I didn't deny I used the word, "why." I didn't use it in the form of a question. I'll say it again....

Idiot.... no one said there was a question why.


----------



## Sbiker

Faun said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a second  I'm not afraid of be an idiot, but where did I discussed WHY some Jews don't eat pork?  Maybe almost of your "facts" to prove your position are "frying" too?
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you the one who said...
> 
> _"I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable... "_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One minute...
> It's a discussion about "which pork they eating" or "do they eating pork or no".... Where is the question "WHY"? :-\
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot.... no one said there was a question why.
> 
> So? Did you post this or not...?
> 
> _"I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable... "_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Like Sbiker's idiocy about *why *some Jews don't eat pork"
> 
> If I, idiot, could simply re-read citations in this message - why don't you do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is proof that you're an idiot. I didn't deny I used the word, "why." I didn't use it in the form of a question. I'll say it again....
> 
> Idiot.... no one said there was a question why.
Click to expand...


Ok, how do you name the form "...about why some Jews..."?


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> We basically
> AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
> 
> Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
> is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
> agree with the beliefs.
> 
> There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
> including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
> So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
> 
> They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
> 
> I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
> the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
> 
> So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
> 
> It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
> don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
> and on what level of govt, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
> 
> Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
> Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
> And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
> I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
> 
> I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
> to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
> to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
> 
> I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
> It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
> I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
> some ulterior motives or problems I have.
> 
> Do you really think I have time to do that?
> You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
> ????
> 
> Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
> can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
> 
> Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 
> There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
> about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
> to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
> to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.
> 
> Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
> A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
> catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
> with no time to eat or sleep in between.
> 
> ^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
> and were behind on both for about a month each and only
> have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
> that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?
> 
> If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
> to get you to acknowledge this?
> 
> B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
> have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.
> 
> Are you really going to
> 1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
> 2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?
> 
> WHY would you do that?
> Do you not believe me?
> Or  you don't care to consider there are other reasons?
> 
> ????
> Can you explain what you are really thinking
> and why you are projecting that onto me?
Click to expand...

Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying fuck that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquies


emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> We basically
> AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
> 
> Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
> is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
> agree with the beliefs.
> 
> There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
> including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
> So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
> 
> They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
> 
> I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
> the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
> 
> So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
> 
> It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
> don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
> and on what level of govt, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
> 
> Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
> Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
> And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
> I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
> 
> I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
> to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
> to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
> 
> I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
> It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
> I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
> some ulterior motives or problems I have.
> 
> Do you really think I have time to do that?
> You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
> ????
> 
> Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
> can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
> 
> Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. there is only one of me, and there are 4-5 of you.
> Do you think I have time to answer 10 posts by Sneekin, you and rightwinger?
> 
> 2. did you get my PM that I have two jobs, that i am behind on.
> Does that register in your head that I don't have time in betwe en my two jobs
> to even eat and sleep in a healthy manner?
> 
> Faun have you ever worked two jobs at the same time?
> Do you have any idea how strenous it is?
> 
> I can't even call my own mother back for we eks to catch up.
> I can't se e my nephews in California, I can barely se e my own boyfriend
> once a we ek if I am lucky.
> 
> Why would I spend more time online answering questions
> from you than I spend time with my boyfriend or talking with my family?
> 
> Are you that insulted that I don't have time to
> answer all your messages when I can't even call my own mother back on time?
Click to expand...

Oh, stop whining. I asked you a simple question which could have been answered in 2 seconds with _"yes"_ or _"no."_



emilynghiem said:


> ARE YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN MOTHER???


WTF is wrong with you? I'm the one who suggested you spend less time here and more time with your mother.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> We basically
> AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
> 
> Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
> is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
> agree with the beliefs.
> 
> There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
> including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
> So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
> 
> They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
> 
> I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
> the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
> 
> So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
> 
> It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
> don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
> and on what level of govt, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
> 
> Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
> Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
> And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
> I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
> 
> I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
> to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
> to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
> 
> I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
> It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
> I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
> some ulterior motives or problems I have.
> 
> Do you really think I have time to do that?
> You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
> ????
> 
> Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
> can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
> 
> Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 
> There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
> about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
> to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
> to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.
> 
> Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
> A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
> catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
> with no time to eat or sleep in between.
> 
> ^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
> and were behind on both for about a month each and only
> have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
> that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?
> 
> If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
> to get you to acknowledge this?
> 
> B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
> have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.
> 
> Are you really going to
> 1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
> 2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?
> 
> WHY would you do that?
> Do you not believe me?
> Or  you don't care to consider there are other reasons?
> 
> ????
> Can you explain what you are really thinking
> and why you are projecting that onto me?
Click to expand...

Emily, I'm going to help you with your work/politics/life balance...

You need to self impose a 200 character limit to all of your responses (that's more generous than Twitter). Then maybe there will be hope of you salvaging your relationships with your mother, your boyfriend, your nephew, etc.... That will also free up your time to save both of your jobs.

Good luck!


----------



## emilynghiem

Then


Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
> 
> Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
> Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
> And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
> I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
> 
> I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
> to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
> to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
> 
> I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
> It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
> I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
> some ulterior motives or problems I have.
> 
> Do you really think I have time to do that?
> You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
> ????
> 
> Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
> can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
> 
> Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 
> There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
> about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
> to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
> to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.
> 
> Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
> A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
> catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
> with no time to eat or sleep in between.
> 
> ^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
> and were behind on both for about a month each and only
> have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
> that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?
> 
> If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
> to get you to acknowledge this?
> 
> B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
> have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.
> 
> Are you really going to
> 1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
> 2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?
> 
> WHY would you do that?
> Do you not believe me?
> Or  you don't care to consider there are other reasons?
> 
> ????
> Can you explain what you are really thinking
> and why you are projecting that onto me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying fuck that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquies
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
> 
> Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
> Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
> And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
> I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
> 
> I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
> to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
> to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
> 
> I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
> It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
> I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
> some ulterior motives or problems I have.
> 
> Do you really think I have time to do that?
> You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
> ????
> 
> Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
> can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
> 
> Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. there is only one of me, and there are 4-5 of you.
> Do you think I have time to answer 10 posts by Sneekin, you and rightwinger?
> 
> 2. did you get my PM that I have two jobs, that i am behind on.
> Does that register in your head that I don't have time in betwe en my two jobs
> to even eat and sleep in a healthy manner?
> 
> Faun have you ever worked two jobs at the same time?
> Do you have any idea how strenous it is?
> 
> I can't even call my own mother back for we eks to catch up.
> I can't se e my nephews in California, I can barely se e my own boyfriend
> once a we ek if I am lucky.
> 
> Why would I spend more time online answering questions
> from you than I spend time with my boyfriend or talking with my family?
> 
> Are you that insulted that I don't have time to
> answer all your messages when I can't even call my own mother back on time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, stop whining. I asked you a simple question which could have been answered in 2 seconds with _"yes"_ or _"no."_
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARE YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN MOTHER???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF is wrong with you? I'm the one who suggested you spend less time here and more time with your mother.
Click to expand...

Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.

I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?

Is this just your way of communicating? 

If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!

If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun


----------



## Faun

Sbiker said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holyfuckingshit!
> 
> No, Emily, laws are not unconstitutional because either party believes they are. Even worse for your nonsense, laws are not deemed constitutional because both parties agree to that.
> 
> What country do you live in that you believe that nonsense.
> 
> At the state and federal level, both parties pass laws. Sometimes in agreement, sometimes not. Constitutionality of laws passed is not even in question. ALL laws are considered constitutional when passed and remain so until challenged within the judicial branch of our government. If a law is determined to be unconstitutional, that judgement is rendered by the presiding judge(s), not the political parties, as you asininely believe.
> 
> I believe Sneekin claims to be an attorney. He can correct me if I'm mistaken.
> 
> This post of yours fully explains why you're so wrong in your arguments and why you have failed miserably to convince anyone to accept your position -- you have no fucking clue what you're spouting. Like Sbiker's idiocy about why some Jews don't eat pork, I don't even know where you come up with this shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a second  I'm not afraid of be an idiot, but where did I discussed WHY some Jews don't eat pork?  Maybe almost of your "facts" to prove your position are "frying" too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you the one who said...
> 
> _"I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable... "_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One minute...
> It's a discussion about "which pork they eating" or "do they eating pork or no".... Where is the question "WHY"? :-\
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot.... no one said there was a question why.
> 
> So? Did you post this or not...?
> 
> _"I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable... "_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Like Sbiker's idiocy about *why *some Jews don't eat pork"
> 
> If I, idiot, could simply re-read citations in this message - why don't you do it?
Click to expand...

Idiot, I did not use the word, _"why"_ in a question. I can't explain why you don't understand that except to say you're an idiot (and a troll).

Questions are sentences that end with question marks. If you weren't an idiot, you would have known I did not use the word, _"why,"_ as a question since there was no question mark on my sentence.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
> 
> Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
> Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
> And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
> I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
> 
> I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
> to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
> to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
> 
> I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
> It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
> I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
> some ulterior motives or problems I have.
> 
> Do you really think I have time to do that?
> You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
> ????
> 
> Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
> can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
> 
> Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 
> There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
> about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
> to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
> to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.
> 
> Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
> A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
> catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
> with no time to eat or sleep in between.
> 
> ^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
> and were behind on both for about a month each and only
> have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
> that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?
> 
> If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
> to get you to acknowledge this?
> 
> B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
> have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.
> 
> Are you really going to
> 1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
> 2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?
> 
> WHY would you do that?
> Do you not believe me?
> Or  you don't care to consider there are other reasons?
> 
> ????
> Can you explain what you are really thinking
> and why you are projecting that onto me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, I'm going to help you with your work/politics/life balance...
> 
> You need to self impose a 200 character limit to all of your responses (that's more generous than Twitter). Then maybe there will be hope of you salvaging your relationships with your mother, your boyfriend, your nephew, etc.... That will also free up your time to save both of your jobs.
> 
> Good luck!
Click to expand...

You don't get it Faun
That is my way of communicating that is faster.

It takes longer to edit.

It's easier just to type what I can off the top of my head.

You are like saying instead of taking the time to search the Internet it's faster to "psychically" post a link by copying and pasting without searching. But in order to find that link it takes searching!!!

You want answers magically by mindreading  but that's not how it works.

It takes time for me to read through all the messages and try to find the key points we can clear up. It takes time 

If it were that easy Faun we'd have consensus by now. It's called process of elimination. 

I'm not a magical mind reader, and sorry if that's what you expect of me


----------



## emilynghiem

No


WheelieAddict said:


> Dear Emily,
> You are blaming others for insulting and pressuring you when they have done nothing of the sort. It is apparent to everyone you are simply crying oppression to try and avoid answering rebuttals .
> You see Emily, when you post paragraphs and paragraphs of statements and then refuse to reply to simple questions to them, and do your best to dance around it,. You become a troll. You have specifically avoided answering me.
> If you are going to make strong statements you need to back them up. Stop crying about people asking for answers and we may start taking you seriously.
> 
> I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
> 
> Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.



No WheelieAddict
That is how I naturally talk!
Do you have any idea how insulting you are to accuse me of not answering and being a troll when that is how I think and talk????

What "troll" is trying to work with specific Congress people to set up mediation and restitution from damages from political bullying because govt didn't respect consensus.

I'm serious about this, and Sneekin is also posting longer msgs to delineate what is involved here. 

If you don't believe consensus is possible, or legally necessary for equal protections as I argue, is that why you don't think I'm for real about pursuing this through govt?

How is it my fault of you don't believe this, when I've been working to sort out legal abuse and bullying issues since the 90s?

I've spent over 60k in credit bailing out struggling nonprofit community volunteers from damages caused by legal abuses the govt never checked or corrected.

What "troll" works on real problems in real life with govt?

WheelieAddict we can't even get elected officials to chip in and help solve these problems of govt.  If you're saying I'm a troll, what does that make people in govt? ??


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Then
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
> Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
> And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
> I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
> 
> I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
> to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
> to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
> 
> I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
> It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
> I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
> some ulterior motives or problems I have.
> 
> Do you really think I have time to do that?
> You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
> ????
> 
> Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
> can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
> 
> Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 
> There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
> about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
> to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
> to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.
> 
> Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
> A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
> catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
> with no time to eat or sleep in between.
> 
> ^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
> and were behind on both for about a month each and only
> have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
> that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?
> 
> If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
> to get you to acknowledge this?
> 
> B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
> have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.
> 
> Are you really going to
> 1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
> 2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?
> 
> WHY would you do that?
> Do you not believe me?
> Or  you don't care to consider there are other reasons?
> 
> ????
> Can you explain what you are really thinking
> and why you are projecting that onto me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying fuck that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquies
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
> Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
> And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
> I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
> 
> I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
> to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
> to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
> 
> I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
> It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
> I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
> some ulterior motives or problems I have.
> 
> Do you really think I have time to do that?
> You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
> ????
> 
> Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
> can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
> 
> Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. there is only one of me, and there are 4-5 of you.
> Do you think I have time to answer 10 posts by Sneekin, you and rightwinger?
> 
> 2. did you get my PM that I have two jobs, that i am behind on.
> Does that register in your head that I don't have time in betwe en my two jobs
> to even eat and sleep in a healthy manner?
> 
> Faun have you ever worked two jobs at the same time?
> Do you have any idea how strenous it is?
> 
> I can't even call my own mother back for we eks to catch up.
> I can't se e my nephews in California, I can barely se e my own boyfriend
> once a we ek if I am lucky.
> 
> Why would I spend more time online answering questions
> from you than I spend time with my boyfriend or talking with my family?
> 
> Are you that insulted that I don't have time to
> answer all your messages when I can't even call my own mother back on time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, stop whining. I asked you a simple question which could have been answered in 2 seconds with _"yes"_ or _"no."_
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARE YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN MOTHER???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF is wrong with you? I'm the one who suggested you spend less time here and more time with your mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.
> 
> I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?
> 
> Is this just your way of communicating?
> 
> If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!
> 
> If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun
Click to expand...

Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you _thought_ you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a _"yes"_ or _"no"_ answer and neither were forthcoming from you.

Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....

Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.

That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's *but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.*  

I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...

___________________________​
*Faun: *_do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?_

*emilynghiem: *_I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction. The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt._

... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...

___________________________​
So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??

That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?

That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?

Thanks for your answer but your answer is *EXACTLY* the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.

A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)

In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.

What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.

The government is not divorcing itself from marriage *precisely because of people like you* who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
> Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
> And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
> I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
> 
> I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
> to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
> to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
> 
> I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
> It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
> I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
> some ulterior motives or problems I have.
> 
> Do you really think I have time to do that?
> You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
> ????
> 
> Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
> can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
> 
> Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 
> There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
> about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
> to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
> to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.
> 
> Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
> A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
> catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
> with no time to eat or sleep in between.
> 
> ^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
> and were behind on both for about a month each and only
> have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
> that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?
> 
> If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
> to get you to acknowledge this?
> 
> B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
> have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.
> 
> Are you really going to
> 1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
> 2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?
> 
> WHY would you do that?
> Do you not believe me?
> Or  you don't care to consider there are other reasons?
> 
> ????
> Can you explain what you are really thinking
> and why you are projecting that onto me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, I'm going to help you with your work/politics/life balance...
> 
> You need to self impose a 200 character limit to all of your responses (that's more generous than Twitter). Then maybe there will be hope of you salvaging your relationships with your mother, your boyfriend, your nephew, etc.... That will also free up your time to save both of your jobs.
> 
> Good luck!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't get it Faun
> That is my way of communicating that is faster.
> 
> It takes longer to edit.
> 
> It's easier just to type what I can off the top of my head.
> 
> You are like saying instead of taking the time to search the Internet it's faster to "psychically" post a link by copying and pasting without searching. But in order to find that link it takes searching!!!
> 
> You want answers magically by mindreading  but that's not how it works.
> 
> It takes time for me to read through all the messages and try to find the key points we can clear up. It takes time
> 
> If it were that easy Faun we'd have consensus by now. It's called process of elimination.
> 
> I'm not a magical mind reader, and sorry if that's what you expect of me
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you should consider just taking a break from posting on the Internet altogether anf focus on getting your personal life in order. Aren't your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends and family members, your two jobs; more important than these back & forth exchanges with anonymous strangers?

You really do need to work harder on your priorities, Emily.


----------



## Sneekin

Sbiker said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to believe anything you like; but fortunately for the rest of us, your beliefs, being counter to how laws are actually enforced, bear no resemblance to reality. There is only one law for everyone. We don't enforce laws differently based on personal beliefs but on constitutionality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> by what you posed Faun I would agree
> if that if the Republicans don't agree to a law because they say it's unconstitutional because it violates
> their beliefs, then it IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL and that law should NOT be enforced but changed.
> if the Democrats don't agree to a law because they argue it's unconstitutional because it violates
> their beliefs, same thing, it should be struck down or changed until both sides AGREE it is constitutional!
> 
> the problem Faun is we have DEMOCRATS insisting ACA and health care laws are constitutional
> because THEY BELIEVE govt should be the central default for managing health care "as a right"
> while REPUBLICANS insist it ISN'T constitutional and needs to be revised.
> 
> So I agree with you, since there is only one law, then if people don't agree because of their beliefs,
> that law CANNOT be enforced as "law for all people"
> 
> We SHOULD use that standard of satisfying ALL parties and people's beliefs
> before claiming to establish a law that touches on those beliefs.
> 
> Then we WOULDN'T have one group saying it's the law
> and the other saying it violates law. We've got that going on now
> because we don't finish the process of resolving conflicts to AGREE on one law!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holyfuckingshit!
> 
> No, Emily, laws are not unconstitutional because either party believes they are. Even worse for your nonsense, laws are not deemed constitutional because both parties agree to that.
> 
> What country do you live in that you believe that nonsense.
> 
> At the state and federal level, both parties pass laws. Sometimes in agreement, sometimes not. Constitutionality of laws passed is not even in question. ALL laws are considered constitutional when passed and remain so until challenged within the judicial branch of our government. If a law is determined to be unconstitutional, that judgement is rendered by the presiding judge(s), not the political parties, as you asininely believe.
> 
> I believe Sneekin claims to be an attorney. He can correct me if I'm mistaken.
> 
> This post of yours fully explains why you're so wrong in your arguments and why you have failed miserably to convince anyone to accept your position -- you have no fucking clue what you're spouting. Like Sbiker's idiocy about why some Jews don't eat pork, I don't even know where you come up with this shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a second  I'm not afraid of be an idiot, but where did I discussed WHY some Jews don't eat pork?  Maybe almost of your "facts" to prove your position are "frying" too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you the one who said...
> 
> _"I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable... "_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One minute...
> It's a discussion about "which pork they eating" or "do they eating pork or no".... Where is the question "WHY"? :-\
Click to expand...

The question is whether or not gay marriage is a constitutional right. It has nothing to do with eating pork or why.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin as for the part I think deserves better clarification
> 
> For political beliefs that people hold at a deeper level,
> I would argue that those who believe that laws and decisions touching religious and political beliefs
> should be based on consensus, should have that right to defend that as the standard,
> and not be overrun by others who believe that majority rule can change these without consent of
> minority opinions dissenting.
> 
> * I have proposed to expand the Justice Dept into the Dept of Justice and Peace
> adding the option of conflict resolution and mediation to reach consensus,
> in addition to just trial by judge or trial by jury. If any Complaints of bias in laws or agenda
> ie "political conflicts of interest" could be reported as obstructing equal representation and democratic due process, then the public could receive assistance with mediation and facilitation to resolve the conflicts so policies can be made or reformed accordingly.
> 
> * For ACA mandates, I tried to propose to recognize equal political beliefs on both
> sides in petitioning party and govt leaders to separate and offer BOTH choices
> of the govt mandated health care insurance and the free market approach without mandates,
> as EQUAL options for taxpayers to choose, where their representatives who believe in that
> choice would take on responsibility for making the terms and conditions work for those members.
> 
> * I have partnered with two Libertarian advocates willing to put together a Grand Jury process
> by which citizens can complain of abuses by govt at any level, and then incorporate a grievance
> and correction process that is accessible by all citizens, similar to the OSHA process of outlining
> basic codes that must be followed, or else complaints and penalties can be issues per violation.
> See www.ethics-commission.net for the minimum principles I would use to teach citizens to check their own govt against abuses.
> 
> * I tried to write up some proposed way to create an Amendment that DOES put "consent of the governed"
> in writing in the Constitution, to cover political beliefs, but without allowing this to be abused to violate consent of others.
> 
> PROPOSED AMENDMENT
> ON JUDICIAL FREEDOM
> 
> Pursuant to Articles I, II, and III and Amendment I, the separation of legislative, judicial, and executive powers of government, and of church and state authority, shall neither be applied nor denied to disparage the equal right of all citizens to protection of the laws.
> 
> The consent of the governed, being necessary for the just powers of government to represent the authority of the people, the right to seek mediation and consensus to resolve disputes by consent of the parties, shall not be denied, but shall be invoked by written oath of petitioning parties to abide by consensus decision with dissenting parties affected, where all participating parties agree to resolve all objections so that consensus can be reached.
> 
> Pursuant to the above, the judicial freedom to select counsel, mediators, and judges to resolve a dispute, to the satisfaction of all parties, shall neither be exercised nor denied to obstruct justice, deny equal rights, or abridge free and equal access to due process of law.
> 
> Pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments, political beliefs and differences in ideology shall be considered equal under law as religious beliefs and subject to the same rules of law and limitations; where Congress shall make no law construed or enforced to impose or deny political beliefs of individuals, nor shall obstruct the democratic process of resolving political conflicts by consensus to protect and represent all interests equally.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> RE: TEXAS CONSTITUTION
> 
> Article 1 Section 2
> "All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation [and the consent of the governed], they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."
> 
> Pursuant to this Section, the right of the people to seek self-government or representation by party, and to mediate to resolve disputes with governing authorities and jurisdiction, shall not be denied to parties or persons agreeing to abide equally by the Code of Ethics for Government Service, Constitutional laws and procedures; and to resolve all conflicts and objections to reach a consensus on policies without coercion but fully informed consent.
> 
> 
> 
> The ACA was enacted by congress it does not, and will not require your consensus.  It will either stay or be struck down, by congress.  It's currently been ruled on by the courts as constitutional.   The current ACA offers government mandated and free market healthcare.  Have you bothered reading it?  It's almost 20 years old (written in the 90's).   You don't have to go to the government website to purchase your health care insurance.  You are perfectly free to get it through work, or even go to an insurance broker, and sign up on your own.   The concept of the government option was to reduce costs - which it has.  While costs have gone up (nationwide, combined percentage is under 5 percent increase).  One had over 100 percent increase, another had 147 percent decrease in cost of services.
> 
> There already is a grievance and correction process available to all persons.  Checklists are available (similar to OSHA Lists).  We could proliferate more, but realize since laws vary state by state, and laws change daily, it's going to be a nightmare attempting to keep this list up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> A. First of all I'm not talking about changing the legislation yet, but talking about setting up separate means of supporting the existing programs where they don't impose on people who don't believe in funding or managing that through govt. Fine! Let those limited govt people pay for wars and military and capital punishment, and let social justice people pay our taxes into the social programs we d rather fund instead of wars and punishment systems that produce more mental illness crime and costs.
> 
> B. The choices I believe are Constitutional for paying for health care involve reforming the prison system. Those alternatives aren't set up yet. In the meantime Obama ACA imposes mandates on citizens I argue are unconstitutional for people like me who don't believe govt has that authority and thus our beliefs are violated and we are fined for not complying.
> 
> Sneekin the bill that passed through Congress was pushed as a public health bill or it would have failed as a tax bill. The courts ruled on it as a tax, as it did not get approved under the Commerce clause argument.
> So technically it did not pass through Congress and Courts, but was presented in two different ways.
> 
> To be fair to both sides that's why I argue to make the mandates optional, so if people like you agree it's constitutional and doesn't violate your beliefs then you can follow it and pay for it (and again I'd recommend adding prison reform per state to open up the resources for exchanges to work sustainably with just the membership who agrees to be under that or is required if they owe penalties or restitution for convicted crimes) .
> 
> And let those who haven't committed crimes and don't believe the mandates are constitutional to opt out and into free market or VA solutions to health care they'd rather fund and manage that way.
> 
> Now Sneekin I know it would take work to reorganize the funding and mgmt.
> 
> I'm not saying these are the final answers, but asking to set up the process for finding what will work!
> 
> By the time we even address how to pay for health care by reforming prisons and VA, then the same solutions will resolve conflicts over mgmt of other medical social security marriage benefits etc etc.
> 
> You and I disagree on recognizing political beliefs where I say both sides have equal right to representing interests in negotiating without being censured by declaring something constitutional that one group says violates their beliefs or declaring something unconstitutional that another group requires for their equal exercise and representation.
> 
> I say we need to include both in order to work out plans
Click to expand...

To keep brief - what you propose is illegal.  Criminals don't deserve health care?   You make the decision that only the SCOTUS is empowered to do?  Mandates ARE constitutional.  As I told you, you don't have to sign up for government health care.  Please try and comprehend this.  You're wasting a lot of dollars to protest against something that doesn't exist.  If you incarcerate a person, courts have ruled - you have to take care of them.  We aren't barbarians, we don't let people bleed out when stabbed, nor die of infections etc.  The VA already has funding - there are several other methods that I mentioned which have already been proposed in the past. Feel free to discuss, but you don't have a personal vote - the representative you elected would vote for any of these changes.  

By definition, mandate is a requirement.  There is no mandate - if you get your own insurance.   You haven't explained how you will pay a 3 million dollar hospital bill based on a salary of a minimum wage job.   (Hint- even now, people start at the ER because they don't get insurance).   The ACA did pass the Congress, and did pass the SCOTUS - otherwise, your very own Senator Cruz would not have shut down the entire federal Government - he tried and failed to overturn the ACA.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> BTW Sneekin the way to resolve different beliefs about marriage IS to keep just civil contracts under govt where those are public secular policies for everyone, and keep all the religious rules out of govt and in private for people or churches to follow their own policies and practices.
> 
> We already agree that govt should be for civil policies only, so that is the solution.
> 
> I'm talking about mediating with all the groups still arguing over terms and enforcement of laws, including public accommodations, so we resolve conflicts and keep it civil.


For Gosh sake, Emily - welcome to 2016 - that's the current state of marriage.  Marriage (civil) contract are under government, where those are public secular policies for everyone (1138 rights granted by marriage).

Religious rules ARE out of government and in private for people IN churches (not OR, it changes intent to make a single person a stand alone religion, which is not how it works) to follow their policies and practices.

Your work is done.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- after existing for a thousand years, Rome fell after converting to Christianity.
> 
> I think the lesson is clear......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After converting to Christianity, Constantinople lived for another thousand years
> 
> And Rome fell, continuing to practice homosexualism and other sexual perversions...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I think the lesson is clear......*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rome became the head of the first Christian Church.......do you have a point, there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong, just use Google  First Christian state - an Armenia. And Roman Empire took Christianity as official religion during Constantine - and his capital was Constantinople  Rome is not a head of first Christian Church - it's a head of heretics after Great Schism )) East–West Schism - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might just be confused, as Rome is still there, and the CAPITAL of Italy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But not Roman Empire
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you the typical homophobic, who is really nothing more than a repressed gay man?  It seems so, as you are always talking about your perversions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha-ha-ha  Knowing this way of discussion.. "If you don't like ..., you're just hidden ..."  Could I call you a "hidden Trump", for example? )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are using "google" as a source?  Let me see - Rome is not the head of the Christian State - Vatican City is a dream.  The Pope doesn't exist.  Wow - into the wacky tobacky I see. Google is a search engine, foolish person.   You have to quote reputable sources.  And wikipedia are articles anyone can change.
> 
> The Roman empire is no more, fool.   However, you changed from Rome to Roman Empire when you were proven to be a liar, so quiet down, child.
> 
> Hidden trump?  Could you please use english phrases and the english language, and run it through spell check?  I don't speak garbled broken english.  Worst case, use your native tongue - because based on your writing skills, english is your second or third language.
> 
> Actually, trolling sbiker, it's another documented fact from many psychologists - most homophobes like yourself ARE repressed homosexuals.  How that makes someone a Hidden Trump (English translation, please)?  Now back down to your mommy's basement for you - back to your video games.  And get professional psychiatric help - you obviously need some meds - simple counseling by itself more than likely will not help.
Click to expand...

Dear Sneekin and Sbiker
1. I think it is clear that Sbiker doesn't consider the Pope and Vatican to be continuation or connection to the Roman Empire, but is going with historical terms that Rome fell when it split into separate groups taking over.
Including history of Ottoman Empire Muslims and Turks and the Catholic Church today also viewed in different ways, some seeing it as central others seeing it as fallen or just another institution among others but not the key to all Christendom.

2. To say that anti gay homophobe types tend to be suppressed LGBT gay or bisexual is like saying that liberals are the immature form of conservatives, and as soon as they have to become responsible for managing the resources to support their  liberal policies then they come out as or become more conservative!

Yes and no. I see it goes both ways.

I have found equal *denial* on the right that LGBT is natural and not a choice for most, as I have found on the left with denying that some people have changed orientation that isn't natural for them, and it isn't done by external imposition of force of manipulation or suppression (which fails and causes worse damage, and is not the same as internal spiritual healing that is natural by freeing the will by voluntary choice).

I don't think people's beliefs will change per se, but it's our ability to include each other's approaches that can change mutually.


That's the first step I am seeking here is to set up an open and inclusive atmosphere, and then we can talk and share more freely without biases and assumptions getting in the way.

Thanks Sneekin for answering seriously.
I really have no choice but to continue working through this at whatever rate or process it takes, because the damage and conflicts from legal abuse and political bullying cost me every day. We need a solution and all your responses are a key to mapping out a path as to hits or misses.

I really want to know how legally to argue that consensus is needed for voluntary restitution and corrections to be pursued. It is one thing to argue this by Christian standards but what about by Constitutional laws and ethics.

How do we get the spirit of the laws, and agreement that we need to defend people from exclusion and bullying, to enforce the letter of the law so we can unite and establish that standard to protect all people from abuses?

That's what I'm trying to do in building a consensus starting with those around me.

Thanks for your help in this.
I'm not a troll, unless you consider me fishing online to find people like you who are equally able and serious, to be a form of trolling? I call it networking. And I am fishing for points of agreement, as well as points where we lose each other and this is causing splits in perception. I want to find terms to describe this in order to delineate a process for mediation 

Yours truly, Emily


----------



## Sneekin

Sbiker said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that only married couples  have children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. But you have just confirmed, gays no need official marriage to organize their life how they want
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more than straights have a need for official marriage to organize their life how they want.
> 
> Again- my wife and I have been married for over 20 years. We didn't need to get married- we wanted to get legally married.
> 
> Just like the gay couple that gets married.
> 
> Of course marriage is a benefit- a legal protection for children. Which is why children whose parents legally marry have more legal protections- and why preventing gay parents from marrying harms their children.
> 
> Why would you want that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want that  I think only from position of children. If, as you saying, children feel comfortable in same-sex family and they only need to be legally married to be more happy - so, let them do it as fast as we can.
> 
> But I have serious doubts, living in homosexual families is really good for children. Much statistics, I've seen, usually said:
> 1. Homosexualist are in risk group of venereal diseases, including aids. Most of this diseases are dangerous for children.
> 2. Children in homosexual families are at high risk of sexual abuse and sexual violence.
> 3. What about psychology and gender orientation of growing children?
> 
> So, is it nesessary to open legal way to increase of unhappy children, to legalize SSM?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already do allow gay people to get married "as fast as they can".   Doctors, professionals, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, etc all agree - not harmful.
> 1.  Heterosexuals are also in the risk group of veneral diseases, including AIDS.  Black female heterosexuals are the fastest growing group, according to the NIH.
> 2.  Children in gay families are at less risk of sexual abuse and violence.  That too is well documented.
> 3.  Sex (male/female) is different than gender. However, neither of these change because of the sexual orientation of their parents.  It's not a choice, and it's not a disease - you can't catch gay.  Do you think if your father and I raised you (saying we were a Same Sex Couple), that it would make you gay?  That's completely false as well.
> 
> Read documentation not by Ben Carson, who might be a brilliant surgeon, but knows nothing about gender, sexual identify, orientation, etc, and he has proven it more than once.   Try reading medical journals and text books if you want to know, not some fly by night website that tells you what you want to hear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you think, Ben Carson didn't read a medical journals?  He is not a medic?
> 
> How many medical journals we can read, and how many ben Carson read, to form adequate understanding of problem?
Click to expand...

I have no clue what you are rambling about.  This information appears in peer reviewed Psychiatric and Psychological journals,  Medical journals are the scientific literature of medicine: articles in journals and texts in books devoted to the *field of medicine*. Many references to the medical literature include the health care literature generally, including that of dentistry, veterinary medicine, pharmacy, and nursing.  Not psychology/psychiatry.  Source APA/AMA.  

Carson is a brain surgeon, which is a medical profession.  He would read medical journals (and write for) to better his job.  APA articles would only be informational only.  He's not a psychiatrist.  He's a medical doctor.  A medic  is an umbrella term for a person involved in medicine. The following fall under this term: a physician, paramedic, medical student, and sometimes a medically-trained individual participating in the role of a medic such as an emergency medical responder.  Calling him a medic is insulting to him.  He had no training in psychiatry, his specialty is neurosurgery.   He's no more qualified (and probably less qualified) than half the people here who have degrees in psychology, or majored or minored in psychology.  Of all the people you talk about, he's the least qualified on the subject. Reading a journal from either the American Psychological/Psychiatric Association doesn't make Ben an expert.  Especially the BS you claim he read, which was all disproven years and years ago.   So, sbiker, just because you go to jail for a month, doesn't mean you'll come out gay, as Ben claims.  Nor does conversion therapy works, even though Ben claims it does.


----------



## Sneekin

Sbiker said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- after existing for a thousand years, Rome fell after converting to Christianity.
> 
> I think the lesson is clear......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After converting to Christianity, Constantinople lived for another thousand years
> 
> And Rome fell, continuing to practice homosexualism and other sexual perversions...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I think the lesson is clear......*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rome became the head of the first Christian Church.......do you have a point, there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong, just use Google  First Christian state - an Armenia. And Roman Empire took Christianity as official religion during Constantine - and his capital was Constantinople  Rome is not a head of first Christian Church - it's a head of heretics after Great Schism )) East–West Schism - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might just be confused, as Rome is still there, and the CAPITAL of Italy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But not Roman Empire
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you the typical homophobic, who is really nothing more than a repressed gay man?  It seems so, as you are always talking about your perversions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha-ha-ha  Knowing this way of discussion.. "If you don't like ..., you're just hidden ..."  Could I call you a "hidden Trump", for example? )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are using "google" as a source?  Let me see - Rome is not the head of the Christian State - Vatican City is a dream.  The Pope doesn't exist.  Wow - into the wacky tobacky I see. Google is a search engine, foolish person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks Gods, you got!  Offcourse, Google is a search engine. Where people could find any reputable sources to read. And about a fact of Rome falling - I'd better believe to Augustine Aurelius than you, sorry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hidden trump?  Could you please use english phrases
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> Forget it
Click to expand...

Yes, thanks for once again proving my point. Google is a search engine.  I asked you for the actual source (wikipedia isn't a source, it's an article which can be changed by ANYONE). In wikipedia, it "might be" in the references at the end of the article.   Just saying google is the source, or wikipedia isn't a valid source.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
> Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
> And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
> I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
> 
> I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
> to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
> to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
> 
> I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
> It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
> I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
> some ulterior motives or problems I have.
> 
> Do you really think I have time to do that?
> You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
> ????
> 
> Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
> can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
> 
> Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
> 
> 
> 
> Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 
> There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
> about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
> to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
> to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.
> 
> Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
> A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
> catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
> with no time to eat or sleep in between.
> 
> ^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
> and were behind on both for about a month each and only
> have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
> that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?
> 
> If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
> to get you to acknowledge this?
> 
> B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
> have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.
> 
> Are you really going to
> 1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
> 2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?
> 
> WHY would you do that?
> Do you not believe me?
> Or  you don't care to consider there are other reasons?
> 
> ????
> Can you explain what you are really thinking
> and why you are projecting that onto me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying fuck that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquies
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
> Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
> And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
> I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
> 
> I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
> to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
> to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
> 
> I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
> It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
> I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
> some ulterior motives or problems I have.
> 
> Do you really think I have time to do that?
> You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
> ????
> 
> Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
> can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
> 
> Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. there is only one of me, and there are 4-5 of you.
> Do you think I have time to answer 10 posts by Sneekin, you and rightwinger?
> 
> 2. did you get my PM that I have two jobs, that i am behind on.
> Does that register in your head that I don't have time in betwe en my two jobs
> to even eat and sleep in a healthy manner?
> 
> Faun have you ever worked two jobs at the same time?
> Do you have any idea how strenous it is?
> 
> I can't even call my own mother back for we eks to catch up.
> I can't se e my nephews in California, I can barely se e my own boyfriend
> once a we ek if I am lucky.
> 
> Why would I spend more time online answering questions
> from you than I spend time with my boyfriend or talking with my family?
> 
> Are you that insulted that I don't have time to
> answer all your messages when I can't even call my own mother back on time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, stop whining. I asked you a simple question which could have been answered in 2 seconds with _"yes"_ or _"no."_
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARE YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN MOTHER???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF is wrong with you? I'm the one who suggested you spend less time here and more time with your mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.
> 
> I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?
> 
> Is this just your way of communicating?
> 
> If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!
> 
> If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you _thought_ you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a _"yes"_ or _"no"_ answer and neither were forthcoming from you.
> 
> Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....
> 
> Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.
> 
> That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's *but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.*
> 
> I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...
> 
> ___________________________​
> *Faun: *_do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?_
> 
> *emilynghiem: *_I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction. The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt._
> 
> ... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...
> 
> ___________________________​
> So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??
> 
> That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> Thanks for your answer but your answer is *EXACTLY* the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.
> 
> A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)
> 
> In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.
> 
> The government is not divorcing itself from marriage *precisely because of people like you* who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

I already said we AGREE that govt should be about the civil contracts part, which you call marriage but other people may not.
Faun so that it covers everyone equally!

 And we disagree about who needs what language to be changed or not. I am open to people separating by party through state alternatives if necessary. My ways I need for me aren't set up either. Lots of people are being denied equal access to what they need, it isn't set up yet. So by the time it is set up why not make it work for everyone.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin as for the part I think deserves better clarification
> 
> For political beliefs that people hold at a deeper level,
> I would argue that those who believe that laws and decisions touching religious and political beliefs
> should be based on consensus, should have that right to defend that as the standard,
> and not be overrun by others who believe that majority rule can change these without consent of
> minority opinions dissenting.
> 
> * I have proposed to expand the Justice Dept into the Dept of Justice and Peace
> adding the option of conflict resolution and mediation to reach consensus,
> in addition to just trial by judge or trial by jury. If any Complaints of bias in laws or agenda
> ie "political conflicts of interest" could be reported as obstructing equal representation and democratic due process, then the public could receive assistance with mediation and facilitation to resolve the conflicts so policies can be made or reformed accordingly.
> 
> * For ACA mandates, I tried to propose to recognize equal political beliefs on both
> sides in petitioning party and govt leaders to separate and offer BOTH choices
> of the govt mandated health care insurance and the free market approach without mandates,
> as EQUAL options for taxpayers to choose, where their representatives who believe in that
> choice would take on responsibility for making the terms and conditions work for those members.
> 
> * I have partnered with two Libertarian advocates willing to put together a Grand Jury process
> by which citizens can complain of abuses by govt at any level, and then incorporate a grievance
> and correction process that is accessible by all citizens, similar to the OSHA process of outlining
> basic codes that must be followed, or else complaints and penalties can be issues per violation.
> See www.ethics-commission.net for the minimum principles I would use to teach citizens to check their own govt against abuses.
> 
> * I tried to write up some proposed way to create an Amendment that DOES put "consent of the governed"
> in writing in the Constitution, to cover political beliefs, but without allowing this to be abused to violate consent of others.
> 
> PROPOSED AMENDMENT
> ON JUDICIAL FREEDOM
> 
> Pursuant to Articles I, II, and III and Amendment I, the separation of legislative, judicial, and executive powers of government, and of church and state authority, shall neither be applied nor denied to disparage the equal right of all citizens to protection of the laws.
> 
> The consent of the governed, being necessary for the just powers of government to represent the authority of the people, the right to seek mediation and consensus to resolve disputes by consent of the parties, shall not be denied, but shall be invoked by written oath of petitioning parties to abide by consensus decision with dissenting parties affected, where all participating parties agree to resolve all objections so that consensus can be reached.
> 
> Pursuant to the above, the judicial freedom to select counsel, mediators, and judges to resolve a dispute, to the satisfaction of all parties, shall neither be exercised nor denied to obstruct justice, deny equal rights, or abridge free and equal access to due process of law.
> 
> Pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments, political beliefs and differences in ideology shall be considered equal under law as religious beliefs and subject to the same rules of law and limitations; where Congress shall make no law construed or enforced to impose or deny political beliefs of individuals, nor shall obstruct the democratic process of resolving political conflicts by consensus to protect and represent all interests equally.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> RE: TEXAS CONSTITUTION
> 
> Article 1 Section 2
> "All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation [and the consent of the governed], they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."
> 
> Pursuant to this Section, the right of the people to seek self-government or representation by party, and to mediate to resolve disputes with governing authorities and jurisdiction, shall not be denied to parties or persons agreeing to abide equally by the Code of Ethics for Government Service, Constitutional laws and procedures; and to resolve all conflicts and objections to reach a consensus on policies without coercion but fully informed consent.
> 
> 
> 
> Your proposed amendment actually violates the first and 14th amendments, if you read carefully.   You've deemed that church and state are equal, but they cannot be.  You can't state churches can invalidate marriages under amendment 1 while validating them under amendment 14.
> 
> We are a nation of laws - we don't mediate everything - we use existing laws as applicable.
> 
> "political beliefs and differences in ideology shall be considered equal under law as religious beliefs and subject to the same rules of law and limitations; where Congress shall make no law construed or enforced to impose or deny political beliefs of individuals, nor shall obstruct the democratic process of resolving political conflicts by consensus to protect and represent all interests equally." - religious beliefs are not subject to the same rules of law, Emily.  And not every conflict CAN be resolved by consensus.   And definitely not represent all interests equally.  If my church prohibits interracial marriage, tell me how that right will be represented equally, when it violates the 14th amendment.......  Religiously, I can deny interracial marriage.   Congress and the courts cannot deny such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES Sneekin that's what I'm TRYING to say.
> I'm trying to INCLUDE political beliefs in with Religious Beliefs
> so these ARE TREATED EQUALLY CAREFULLY AS RELÌGIOUS BELIEFS ARE.
> 
> 
> Sneekin I'm saying the BELIEFS about church and state authority
> are equal as Religiously held BELIEFS.
> 
> So NEITHER can one side push church authority above or against state,
> or the other push state authority against church, but in matters of BELIEFS
> BOTH sides can represent their own beliefs, defend them against imposition,
> but also must keep both out of govt to prevent from infringing on others.
> 
> It's an equal two way street, that's what I'm trying to get at.
> 
> *to understand Political Beliefs as  FORM OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF*
> that should WELL be policed by the First, Fourteenth, Tenth and other amendments and
> laws defending citizens from abuses by govt to push religious agenda, political beliefs being a special class of those!
Click to expand...

Simply put - not how are government was designed to work. Our country was established to separate politics and religion, sorry.  Your religious beliefs will never be treated equally (from a purely legal point) because of the first amendment.  No one can put church above/against state, again, first amendment violation.   State authority trumps your religiously held beliefs.   You can NEVER impose your religious beliefs onto "The People". 

You've yet to give an example of where government infringes on your religion.   No one is forcing your church to marry gay people or straight people.  Up to the Church itself.  It's that pesky first amendment that keeps government out of your religion.  But it's the 14th that requires in 22 (??) states / cities/counties that a public business (caterer, venue (the Inn), photographer, cake baker, invitations, wedding dress makers, etc) MUST do business both with gay couples and straight couples. 

Odd that Zac Posen designed Portia De Rossi's dress and Ellen DeGeneres' suit without complaint,  and had platinum wedding bands designed by Neil Lane (again no complaint), had  an all vegan menu prepared by Ellen’s personal chef, David Silberkleit (again, no complaints), and of course, a cake - it was a red velvet vegan wedding cake created by Sweet Lady Jane (no complaints), with the wedding dance performed by Stevie Wonder (who didn't complain or refuse).  The florist - MARK’S GARDEN didn't complain,  and no complaint by LARA PORZAK PHOTOGRAPHY. So... that completely shoots your FADA/RFRA arguments all to hell.  Even their officiant did not protest.  Nor did anyone attending the wedding.  There no massive demonstrations, etc.  Their wedding didn't impact your wedding, my wedding, Faun's wedding (if he's married) nor anyone else's.  No laws were violated, and this fits into everything you propose to do - is already DONE!.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> After converting to Christianity, Constantinople lived for another thousand years
> 
> And Rome fell, continuing to practice homosexualism and other sexual perversions...
> 
> 
> 
> Rome became the head of the first Christian Church.......do you have a point, there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong, just use Google  First Christian state - an Armenia. And Roman Empire took Christianity as official religion during Constantine - and his capital was Constantinople  Rome is not a head of first Christian Church - it's a head of heretics after Great Schism )) East–West Schism - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might just be confused, as Rome is still there, and the CAPITAL of Italy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But not Roman Empire
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you the typical homophobic, who is really nothing more than a repressed gay man?  It seems so, as you are always talking about your perversions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha-ha-ha  Knowing this way of discussion.. "If you don't like ..., you're just hidden ..."  Could I call you a "hidden Trump", for example? )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are using "google" as a source?  Let me see - Rome is not the head of the Christian State - Vatican City is a dream.  The Pope doesn't exist.  Wow - into the wacky tobacky I see. Google is a search engine, foolish person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks Gods, you got!  Offcourse, Google is a search engine. Where people could find any reputable sources to read. And about a fact of Rome falling - I'd better believe to Augustine Aurelius than you, sorry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hidden trump?  Could you please use english phrases
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> Forget it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, thanks for once again proving my point. Google is a search engine.  I asked you for the actual source (wikipedia isn't a source, it's an article which can be changed by ANYONE). In wikipedia, it "might be" in the references at the end of the article.   Just saying google is the source, or wikipedia isn't a valid source.
Click to expand...


Are you still arguing about the Fall of Rome and the Pope being head of the Catholic church?
Isn't that "common knowledge" to refer to both? 
While acknowledging people do not all agree on how to recognize the Pope in what capacity.
Sbiker and Sneekin

If Sbiker is interpreting history by spiritual lineage and connections or disconnections,
that may not be found documented as you ask.  That's a spiritual belief system and
Sbiker may just have to accept responsibility for believing and framing it that way.

I don't see the Constitutional history and principles in laws the same way as other people.
So that's my interpretation I use because I find it includes more people of different beliefs
by taking that approach.

You won't find my interpretation established by courts "literally" because it remains a free choice
to believe in consensus and higher universal laws.

I would be excluded and so would others if the laws are only applied literally and don't include
the spirit of the laws that apply to more people.

Do we really need to harangue or judge anyone for these differences? 
I thought they came naturally with people, so I try to use whatever language people utilize to express their beliefs.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin as for the part I think deserves better clarification
> 
> For political beliefs that people hold at a deeper level,
> I would argue that those who believe that laws and decisions touching religious and political beliefs
> should be based on consensus, should have that right to defend that as the standard,
> and not be overrun by others who believe that majority rule can change these without consent of
> minority opinions dissenting.
> 
> * I have proposed to expand the Justice Dept into the Dept of Justice and Peace
> adding the option of conflict resolution and mediation to reach consensus,
> in addition to just trial by judge or trial by jury. If any Complaints of bias in laws or agenda
> ie "political conflicts of interest" could be reported as obstructing equal representation and democratic due process, then the public could receive assistance with mediation and facilitation to resolve the conflicts so policies can be made or reformed accordingly.
> 
> * For ACA mandates, I tried to propose to recognize equal political beliefs on both
> sides in petitioning party and govt leaders to separate and offer BOTH choices
> of the govt mandated health care insurance and the free market approach without mandates,
> as EQUAL options for taxpayers to choose, where their representatives who believe in that
> choice would take on responsibility for making the terms and conditions work for those members.
> 
> * I have partnered with two Libertarian advocates willing to put together a Grand Jury process
> by which citizens can complain of abuses by govt at any level, and then incorporate a grievance
> and correction process that is accessible by all citizens, similar to the OSHA process of outlining
> basic codes that must be followed, or else complaints and penalties can be issues per violation.
> See www.ethics-commission.net for the minimum principles I would use to teach citizens to check their own govt against abuses.
> 
> * I tried to write up some proposed way to create an Amendment that DOES put "consent of the governed"
> in writing in the Constitution, to cover political beliefs, but without allowing this to be abused to violate consent of others.
> 
> PROPOSED AMENDMENT
> ON JUDICIAL FREEDOM
> 
> Pursuant to Articles I, II, and III and Amendment I, the separation of legislative, judicial, and executive powers of government, and of church and state authority, shall neither be applied nor denied to disparage the equal right of all citizens to protection of the laws.
> 
> The consent of the governed, being necessary for the just powers of government to represent the authority of the people, the right to seek mediation and consensus to resolve disputes by consent of the parties, shall not be denied, but shall be invoked by written oath of petitioning parties to abide by consensus decision with dissenting parties affected, where all participating parties agree to resolve all objections so that consensus can be reached.
> 
> Pursuant to the above, the judicial freedom to select counsel, mediators, and judges to resolve a dispute, to the satisfaction of all parties, shall neither be exercised nor denied to obstruct justice, deny equal rights, or abridge free and equal access to due process of law.
> 
> Pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments, political beliefs and differences in ideology shall be considered equal under law as religious beliefs and subject to the same rules of law and limitations; where Congress shall make no law construed or enforced to impose or deny political beliefs of individuals, nor shall obstruct the democratic process of resolving political conflicts by consensus to protect and represent all interests equally.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> RE: TEXAS CONSTITUTION
> 
> Article 1 Section 2
> "All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation [and the consent of the governed], they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."
> 
> Pursuant to this Section, the right of the people to seek self-government or representation by party, and to mediate to resolve disputes with governing authorities and jurisdiction, shall not be denied to parties or persons agreeing to abide equally by the Code of Ethics for Government Service, Constitutional laws and procedures; and to resolve all conflicts and objections to reach a consensus on policies without coercion but fully informed consent.
> 
> 
> 
> Your proposed amendment actually violates the first and 14th amendments, if you read carefully.   You've deemed that church and state are equal, but they cannot be.  You can't state churches can invalidate marriages under amendment 1 while validating them under amendment 14.
> 
> We are a nation of laws - we don't mediate everything - we use existing laws as applicable.
> 
> "political beliefs and differences in ideology shall be considered equal under law as religious beliefs and subject to the same rules of law and limitations; where Congress shall make no law construed or enforced to impose or deny political beliefs of individuals, nor shall obstruct the democratic process of resolving political conflicts by consensus to protect and represent all interests equally." - religious beliefs are not subject to the same rules of law, Emily.  And not every conflict CAN be resolved by consensus.   And definitely not represent all interests equally.  If my church prohibits interracial marriage, tell me how that right will be represented equally, when it violates the 14th amendment.......  Religiously, I can deny interracial marriage.   Congress and the courts cannot deny such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES Sneekin that's what I'm TRYING to say.
> I'm trying to INCLUDE political beliefs in with Religious Beliefs
> so these ARE TREATED EQUALLY CAREFULLY AS RELÌGIOUS BELIEFS ARE.
> 
> 
> Sneekin I'm saying the BELIEFS about church and state authority
> are equal as Religiously held BELIEFS.
> 
> So NEITHER can one side push church authority above or against state,
> or the other push state authority against church, but in matters of BELIEFS
> BOTH sides can represent their own beliefs, defend them against imposition,
> but also must keep both out of govt to prevent from infringing on others.
> 
> It's an equal two way street, that's what I'm trying to get at.
> 
> *to understand Political Beliefs as  FORM OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF*
> that should WELL be policed by the First, Fourteenth, Tenth and other amendments and
> laws defending citizens from abuses by govt to push religious agenda, political beliefs being a special class of those!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply put - not how are government was designed to work. Our country was established to separate politics and religion, sorry.  Your religious beliefs will never be treated equally (from a purely legal point) because of the first amendment.  No one can put church above/against state, again, first amendment violation.   State authority trumps your religiously held beliefs.   You can NEVER impose your religious beliefs onto "The People".
> 
> You've yet to give an example of where government infringes on your religion.   No one is forcing your church to marry gay people or straight people.  Up to the Church itself.  It's that pesky first amendment that keeps government out of your religion.  But it's the 14th that requires in 22 (??) states / cities/counties that a public business (caterer, venue (the Inn), photographer, cake baker, invitations, wedding dress makers, etc) MUST do business both with gay couples and straight couples.
> 
> Odd that Zac Posen designed Portia De Rossi's dress and Ellen DeGeneres' suit without complaint,  and had platinum wedding bands designed by Neil Lane (again no complaint), had  an all vegan menu prepared by Ellen’s personal chef, David Silberkleit (again, no complaints), and of course, a cake - it was a red velvet vegan wedding cake created by Sweet Lady Jane (no complaints), with the wedding dance performed by Stevie Wonder (who didn't complain or refuse).  The florist - MARK’S GARDEN didn't complain,  and no complaint by LARA PORZAK PHOTOGRAPHY. So... that completely shoots your FADA/RFRA arguments all to hell.  Even their officiant did not protest.  Nor did anyone attending the wedding.  There no massive demonstrations, etc.  Their wedding didn't impact your wedding, my wedding, Faun's wedding (if he's married) nor anyone else's.  No laws were violated, and this fits into everything you propose to do - is already DONE!.
Click to expand...


Yes Sneekin and I'm saying to take this one step FURTHER.
and recognize Political Beliefs are also crossing the line with religion and govt!!!

They are special category of religious beliefs that inherently involve govt.
so if these religiously held beliefs cannot be divorced from govt without violating them,
that's why we need consensus on how to incorporate them with govt if we cannot separate them, as we do other forms of religious beliefs.

It's like finding out certain life forms are both plants AND animals.
So they are classed specially.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
> Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
> And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
> I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
> 
> I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
> to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
> to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
> 
> I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
> It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
> I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
> some ulterior motives or problems I have.
> 
> Do you really think I have time to do that?
> You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
> ????
> 
> Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
> can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
> 
> Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
> 
> 
> 
> Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 
> There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
> about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
> to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
> to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.
> 
> Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
> A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
> catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
> with no time to eat or sleep in between.
> 
> ^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
> and were behind on both for about a month each and only
> have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
> that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?
> 
> If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
> to get you to acknowledge this?
> 
> B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
> have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.
> 
> Are you really going to
> 1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
> 2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?
> 
> WHY would you do that?
> Do you not believe me?
> Or  you don't care to consider there are other reasons?
> 
> ????
> Can you explain what you are really thinking
> and why you are projecting that onto me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying fuck that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquies
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
> Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
> And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
> I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
> 
> I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
> to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
> to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
> 
> I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
> It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
> I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
> some ulterior motives or problems I have.
> 
> Do you really think I have time to do that?
> You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
> ????
> 
> Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
> can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
> 
> Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. there is only one of me, and there are 4-5 of you.
> Do you think I have time to answer 10 posts by Sneekin, you and rightwinger?
> 
> 2. did you get my PM that I have two jobs, that i am behind on.
> Does that register in your head that I don't have time in betwe en my two jobs
> to even eat and sleep in a healthy manner?
> 
> Faun have you ever worked two jobs at the same time?
> Do you have any idea how strenous it is?
> 
> I can't even call my own mother back for we eks to catch up.
> I can't se e my nephews in California, I can barely se e my own boyfriend
> once a we ek if I am lucky.
> 
> Why would I spend more time online answering questions
> from you than I spend time with my boyfriend or talking with my family?
> 
> Are you that insulted that I don't have time to
> answer all your messages when I can't even call my own mother back on time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, stop whining. I asked you a simple question which could have been answered in 2 seconds with _"yes"_ or _"no."_
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARE YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN MOTHER???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF is wrong with you? I'm the one who suggested you spend less time here and more time with your mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.
> 
> I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?
> 
> Is this just your way of communicating?
> 
> If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!
> 
> If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you _thought_ you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a _"yes"_ or _"no"_ answer and neither were forthcoming from you.
> 
> Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....
> 
> Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.
> 
> That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's *but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.*
> 
> I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...
> 
> ___________________________​
> *Faun: *_do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?_
> 
> *emilynghiem: *_I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction. The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt._
> 
> ... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...
> 
> ___________________________​
> So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??
> 
> That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> Thanks for your answer but your answer is *EXACTLY* the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.
> 
> A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)
> 
> In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.
> 
> The government is not divorcing itself from marriage *precisely because of people like you* who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.
Click to expand...


RE: In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
NO, I'm saying to AVOID that by either:
A. if govt use marriage then ALL people get that
(and I'm suggesting that to reach agreement on inclusion, to treat LGBT beliefs
and Christian beliefs about spiritual healing prayer equally, neither imposing one while excluding the other)
B. if people cannot agre e on that, but for example ALL agre e to civil contracts,
then ALL people get that.
C. as for your concern that if that were to happen and this leaves out Atheists who don't have
a way to get married, I am saying to set it up -- by agreement BEFORE changing policies*. so if there needs to be separate CHOICE of funding for govt programs
that deals with "social" benefits that not all people agree to the terms of, that can be done while
setting up state alternatives to resolve ACA issues and requirements that are FACING this SAME ISSUE. 

Sorry Faun if you don't like my full answer.
I am trying to address these things in context.
the solutions to one point (such as marriage issues) solve other problems as well (such as health care issues).

* NOTE to Faun: ACA required states alternatives to avoid penalty BEFORE setting these up. Did you complain about ACA being unconstitutional by requiring people to face fines for not choosing alternatives that weren't even allowed to be proposed to states yet much less set up?


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 
> There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
> about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
> to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
> to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.
> 
> Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
> A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
> catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
> with no time to eat or sleep in between.
> 
> ^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
> and were behind on both for about a month each and only
> have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
> that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?
> 
> If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
> to get you to acknowledge this?
> 
> B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
> have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.
> 
> Are you really going to
> 1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
> 2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?
> 
> WHY would you do that?
> Do you not believe me?
> Or  you don't care to consider there are other reasons?
> 
> ????
> Can you explain what you are really thinking
> and why you are projecting that onto me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying fuck that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquies
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. there is only one of me, and there are 4-5 of you.
> Do you think I have time to answer 10 posts by Sneekin, you and rightwinger?
> 
> 2. did you get my PM that I have two jobs, that i am behind on.
> Does that register in your head that I don't have time in betwe en my two jobs
> to even eat and sleep in a healthy manner?
> 
> Faun have you ever worked two jobs at the same time?
> Do you have any idea how strenous it is?
> 
> I can't even call my own mother back for we eks to catch up.
> I can't se e my nephews in California, I can barely se e my own boyfriend
> once a we ek if I am lucky.
> 
> Why would I spend more time online answering questions
> from you than I spend time with my boyfriend or talking with my family?
> 
> Are you that insulted that I don't have time to
> answer all your messages when I can't even call my own mother back on time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, stop whining. I asked you a simple question which could have been answered in 2 seconds with _"yes"_ or _"no."_
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARE YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN MOTHER???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF is wrong with you? I'm the one who suggested you spend less time here and more time with your mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.
> 
> I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?
> 
> Is this just your way of communicating?
> 
> If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!
> 
> If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you _thought_ you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a _"yes"_ or _"no"_ answer and neither were forthcoming from you.
> 
> Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....
> 
> Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.
> 
> That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's *but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.*
> 
> I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...
> 
> ___________________________​
> *Faun: *_do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?_
> 
> *emilynghiem: *_I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction. The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt._
> 
> ... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...
> 
> ___________________________​
> So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??
> 
> That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> Thanks for your answer but your answer is *EXACTLY* the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.
> 
> A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)
> 
> In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.
> 
> The government is not divorcing itself from marriage *precisely because of people like you* who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already said we AGREE that govt should be about the civil contracts part, which you call marriage but other people may not.
> Faun so that it covers everyone equally!
> 
> And we disagree about who needs what language to be changed or not. I am open to people separating by party through state alternatives if necessary. My ways I need for me aren't set up either. Lots of people are being denied equal access to what they need, it isn't set up yet. So by the time it is set up why not make it work for everyone.
Click to expand...

Emily, I'll ask again.  What people are being denied equal access? And what are they being denied equal access to?  What hey need is vague.  Sounds like your are referring to religion, as secular/civil  grants equal access. If you don't think it does, what doesn't grant access.

Not going to have party separations nor state separations on a "high level" for civil marriage.  It always was marriage and will remain that.   The one state that's trying to use domestic partnership for gays is in the process of 1) breaking standing law; and 2) about to pay out millions of dollars in lawsuits.

Civil marriage works with this definition.   A Catholic's definition of marriage doesn't fit a Baptist's definition of marriage, which doesn't fit an Amish definition, which doesn't fit the Santeria definition - which is why they are not and will never be a part of civil marriage.  And those were just Christian religions.  Factor in the multiple branches of Judaism and Islam, Sikh, Buddhism and the thousands of other religions - it would be impossible AND unconstitutional. For those group to get the CIVIL benefits (1138), then they are required to get a civil marriage license and have the celebrant sign the license not as a pastor/bishop/Rabbi/Imam etc, but as a sworn representative of the state, with no more rights than a JP.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin as for the part I think deserves better clarification
> 
> For political beliefs that people hold at a deeper level,
> I would argue that those who believe that laws and decisions touching religious and political beliefs
> should be based on consensus, should have that right to defend that as the standard,
> and not be overrun by others who believe that majority rule can change these without consent of
> minority opinions dissenting.
> 
> * I have proposed to expand the Justice Dept into the Dept of Justice and Peace
> adding the option of conflict resolution and mediation to reach consensus,
> in addition to just trial by judge or trial by jury. If any Complaints of bias in laws or agenda
> ie "political conflicts of interest" could be reported as obstructing equal representation and democratic due process, then the public could receive assistance with mediation and facilitation to resolve the conflicts so policies can be made or reformed accordingly.
> 
> * For ACA mandates, I tried to propose to recognize equal political beliefs on both
> sides in petitioning party and govt leaders to separate and offer BOTH choices
> of the govt mandated health care insurance and the free market approach without mandates,
> as EQUAL options for taxpayers to choose, where their representatives who believe in that
> choice would take on responsibility for making the terms and conditions work for those members.
> 
> * I have partnered with two Libertarian advocates willing to put together a Grand Jury process
> by which citizens can complain of abuses by govt at any level, and then incorporate a grievance
> and correction process that is accessible by all citizens, similar to the OSHA process of outlining
> basic codes that must be followed, or else complaints and penalties can be issues per violation.
> See www.ethics-commission.net for the minimum principles I would use to teach citizens to check their own govt against abuses.
> 
> * I tried to write up some proposed way to create an Amendment that DOES put "consent of the governed"
> in writing in the Constitution, to cover political beliefs, but without allowing this to be abused to violate consent of others.
> 
> PROPOSED AMENDMENT
> ON JUDICIAL FREEDOM
> 
> Pursuant to Articles I, II, and III and Amendment I, the separation of legislative, judicial, and executive powers of government, and of church and state authority, shall neither be applied nor denied to disparage the equal right of all citizens to protection of the laws.
> 
> The consent of the governed, being necessary for the just powers of government to represent the authority of the people, the right to seek mediation and consensus to resolve disputes by consent of the parties, shall not be denied, but shall be invoked by written oath of petitioning parties to abide by consensus decision with dissenting parties affected, where all participating parties agree to resolve all objections so that consensus can be reached.
> 
> Pursuant to the above, the judicial freedom to select counsel, mediators, and judges to resolve a dispute, to the satisfaction of all parties, shall neither be exercised nor denied to obstruct justice, deny equal rights, or abridge free and equal access to due process of law.
> 
> Pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments, political beliefs and differences in ideology shall be considered equal under law as religious beliefs and subject to the same rules of law and limitations; where Congress shall make no law construed or enforced to impose or deny political beliefs of individuals, nor shall obstruct the democratic process of resolving political conflicts by consensus to protect and represent all interests equally.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> RE: TEXAS CONSTITUTION
> 
> Article 1 Section 2
> "All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation [and the consent of the governed], they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."
> 
> Pursuant to this Section, the right of the people to seek self-government or representation by party, and to mediate to resolve disputes with governing authorities and jurisdiction, shall not be denied to parties or persons agreeing to abide equally by the Code of Ethics for Government Service, Constitutional laws and procedures; and to resolve all conflicts and objections to reach a consensus on policies without coercion but fully informed consent.
> 
> 
> 
> Your proposed amendment actually violates the first and 14th amendments, if you read carefully.   You've deemed that church and state are equal, but they cannot be.  You can't state churches can invalidate marriages under amendment 1 while validating them under amendment 14.
> 
> We are a nation of laws - we don't mediate everything - we use existing laws as applicable.
> 
> "political beliefs and differences in ideology shall be considered equal under law as religious beliefs and subject to the same rules of law and limitations; where Congress shall make no law construed or enforced to impose or deny political beliefs of individuals, nor shall obstruct the democratic process of resolving political conflicts by consensus to protect and represent all interests equally." - religious beliefs are not subject to the same rules of law, Emily.  And not every conflict CAN be resolved by consensus.   And definitely not represent all interests equally.  If my church prohibits interracial marriage, tell me how that right will be represented equally, when it violates the 14th amendment.......  Religiously, I can deny interracial marriage.   Congress and the courts cannot deny such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES Sneekin that's what I'm TRYING to say.
> I'm trying to INCLUDE political beliefs in with Religious Beliefs
> so these ARE TREATED EQUALLY CAREFULLY AS RELÌGIOUS BELIEFS ARE.
> 
> 
> Sneekin I'm saying the BELIEFS about church and state authority
> are equal as Religiously held BELIEFS.
> 
> So NEITHER can one side push church authority above or against state,
> or the other push state authority against church, but in matters of BELIEFS
> BOTH sides can represent their own beliefs, defend them against imposition,
> but also must keep both out of govt to prevent from infringing on others.
> 
> It's an equal two way street, that's what I'm trying to get at.
> 
> *to understand Political Beliefs as  FORM OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF*
> that should WELL be policed by the First, Fourteenth, Tenth and other amendments and
> laws defending citizens from abuses by govt to push religious agenda, political beliefs being a special class of those!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply put - not how are government was designed to work. Our country was established to separate politics and religion, sorry.  Your religious beliefs will never be treated equally (from a purely legal point) because of the first amendment.  No one can put church above/against state, again, first amendment violation.   State authority trumps your religiously held beliefs.   You can NEVER impose your religious beliefs onto "The People".
> 
> You've yet to give an example of where government infringes on your religion.   No one is forcing your church to marry gay people or straight people.  Up to the Church itself.  It's that pesky first amendment that keeps government out of your religion.  But it's the 14th that requires in 22 (??) states / cities/counties that a public business (caterer, venue (the Inn), photographer, cake baker, invitations, wedding dress makers, etc) MUST do business both with gay couples and straight couples.
> 
> Odd that Zac Posen designed Portia De Rossi's dress and Ellen DeGeneres' suit without complaint,  and had platinum wedding bands designed by Neil Lane (again no complaint), had  an all vegan menu prepared by Ellen’s personal chef, David Silberkleit (again, no complaints), and of course, a cake - it was a red velvet vegan wedding cake created by Sweet Lady Jane (no complaints), with the wedding dance performed by Stevie Wonder (who didn't complain or refuse).  The florist - MARK’S GARDEN didn't complain,  and no complaint by LARA PORZAK PHOTOGRAPHY. So... that completely shoots your FADA/RFRA arguments all to hell.  Even their officiant did not protest.  Nor did anyone attending the wedding.  There no massive demonstrations, etc.  Their wedding didn't impact your wedding, my wedding, Faun's wedding (if he's married) nor anyone else's.  No laws were violated, and this fits into everything you propose to do - is already DONE!.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Sneekin and I'm saying to take this one step FURTHER.
> and recognize Political Beliefs are also crossing the line with religion and govt!!!
> 
> They are special category of religious beliefs that inherently involve govt.
> so if these religiously held beliefs cannot be divorced from govt without violating them,
> that's why we need consensus on how to incorporate them with govt if we cannot separate them, as we do other forms of religious beliefs.
> 
> It's like finding out certain life forms are both plants AND animals.
> So they are classed specially.
Click to expand...

 Emily - find a new example - In terms of composition, plants have cell walls and animals don’t. Plants make their own food while animals hunt or get their food. Please provide a life form that both does and does not have cell walls.  

You cannot recognize political beliefs as you are calling out.   Laws cover ALL people, not just conservatives, liberals, or independents, nor just black, white, red, brown, etc.

As was pointed out, we don't have consensus when we pass federal laws - unless you are talking a majority of congressmen.  

Please provide what makes up this special category of religious beliefs that are inherently involving government - I would be more than happy to organize my state to implement an immediate ban as it would violate the US Constitution.Religious beliefs are not incorporated with government.   Identify them, please.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 
> There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
> about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
> to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
> to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.
> 
> Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
> A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
> catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
> with no time to eat or sleep in between.
> 
> ^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
> and were behind on both for about a month each and only
> have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
> that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?
> 
> If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
> to get you to acknowledge this?
> 
> B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
> have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.
> 
> Are you really going to
> 1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
> 2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?
> 
> WHY would you do that?
> Do you not believe me?
> Or  you don't care to consider there are other reasons?
> 
> ????
> Can you explain what you are really thinking
> and why you are projecting that onto me?
> 
> 
> 
> Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying fuck that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquies
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. there is only one of me, and there are 4-5 of you.
> Do you think I have time to answer 10 posts by Sneekin, you and rightwinger?
> 
> 2. did you get my PM that I have two jobs, that i am behind on.
> Does that register in your head that I don't have time in betwe en my two jobs
> to even eat and sleep in a healthy manner?
> 
> Faun have you ever worked two jobs at the same time?
> Do you have any idea how strenous it is?
> 
> I can't even call my own mother back for we eks to catch up.
> I can't se e my nephews in California, I can barely se e my own boyfriend
> once a we ek if I am lucky.
> 
> Why would I spend more time online answering questions
> from you than I spend time with my boyfriend or talking with my family?
> 
> Are you that insulted that I don't have time to
> answer all your messages when I can't even call my own mother back on time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, stop whining. I asked you a simple question which could have been answered in 2 seconds with _"yes"_ or _"no."_
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARE YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN MOTHER???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF is wrong with you? I'm the one who suggested you spend less time here and more time with your mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.
> 
> I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?
> 
> Is this just your way of communicating?
> 
> If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!
> 
> If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you _thought_ you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a _"yes"_ or _"no"_ answer and neither were forthcoming from you.
> 
> Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....
> 
> Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.
> 
> That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's *but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.*
> 
> I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...
> 
> ___________________________​
> *Faun: *_do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?_
> 
> *emilynghiem: *_I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction. The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt._
> 
> ... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...
> 
> ___________________________​
> So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??
> 
> That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> Thanks for your answer but your answer is *EXACTLY* the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.
> 
> A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)
> 
> In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.
> 
> The government is not divorcing itself from marriage *precisely because of people like you* who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already said we AGREE that govt should be about the civil contracts part, which you call marriage but other people may not.
> Faun so that it covers everyone equally!
> 
> And we disagree about who needs what language to be changed or not. I am open to people separating by party through state alternatives if necessary. My ways I need for me aren't set up either. Lots of people are being denied equal access to what they need, it isn't set up yet. So by the time it is set up why not make it work for everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, I'll ask again.  What people are being denied equal access? And what are they being denied equal access to?  What hey need is vague.  Sounds like your are referring to religion, as secular/civil  grants equal access. If you don't think it does, what doesn't grant access.
> 
> Not going to have party separations nor state separations on a "high level" for civil marriage.  It always was marriage and will remain that.   The one state that's trying to use domestic partnership for gays is in the process of 1) breaking standing law; and 2) about to pay out millions of dollars in lawsuits.
> 
> Civil marriage works with this definition.   A Catholic's definition of marriage doesn't fit a Baptist's definition of marriage, which doesn't fit an Amish definition, which doesn't fit the Santeria definition - which is why they are not and will never be a part of civil marriage.  And those were just Christian religions.  Factor in the multiple branches of Judaism and Islam, Sikh, Buddhism and the thousands of other religions - it would be impossible AND unconstitutional. For those group to get the CIVIL benefits (1138), then they are required to get a civil marriage license and have the celebrant sign the license not as a pastor/bishop/Rabbi/Imam etc, but as a sworn representative of the state, with no more rights than a JP.
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin
The whole SET UP of going through govt for these rights of marriage/health care etc.
is ALREADY in conflict with beliefs of people to keep these to a minimum and/or out of govt ALTOGETHER
as some extremists believe.

You are like saying "what is so imposing with a Cross on a public building" and nitpicking on what is
causing the actual effect of religious imposition. It's the PRINCIPLE that is already violated.

A. People who believe in limited govt and putting church and God authority first, which is a political belief,
have to set this aside for secular beliefs that don't agree, so that is seen as imposing already!
B. People who need govt or believe in using govt for establishing and exercising right to health care and right to marriage EQUALLY
require going through govt for these programs that others BELIEVE in keeping outside for full freedom control and choice by individuals and civil liberties.
So any attempt to limit or remove them is seen as imposing or excluding!

Because one wants to depend on and maximize govt
while the other wants to limit and not go through govt,
these political beliefs are competing to impose their will on each other and the rest of the nation.

So I propose that since these political beliefs are held sacred
and as inherent to people's innate identity as are religious beliefs,
they should be protected and policed the same way; however,
since these beliefs are different in that they touch govt, the solution is NOT to remove
them since that isn't possible, but to reach a consensus on how to accommodate both.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin as for the part I think deserves better clarification
> 
> For political beliefs that people hold at a deeper level,
> I would argue that those who believe that laws and decisions touching religious and political beliefs
> should be based on consensus, should have that right to defend that as the standard,
> and not be overrun by others who believe that majority rule can change these without consent of
> minority opinions dissenting.
> 
> * I have proposed to expand the Justice Dept into the Dept of Justice and Peace
> adding the option of conflict resolution and mediation to reach consensus,
> in addition to just trial by judge or trial by jury. If any Complaints of bias in laws or agenda
> ie "political conflicts of interest" could be reported as obstructing equal representation and democratic due process, then the public could receive assistance with mediation and facilitation to resolve the conflicts so policies can be made or reformed accordingly.
> 
> * For ACA mandates, I tried to propose to recognize equal political beliefs on both
> sides in petitioning party and govt leaders to separate and offer BOTH choices
> of the govt mandated health care insurance and the free market approach without mandates,
> as EQUAL options for taxpayers to choose, where their representatives who believe in that
> choice would take on responsibility for making the terms and conditions work for those members.
> 
> * I have partnered with two Libertarian advocates willing to put together a Grand Jury process
> by which citizens can complain of abuses by govt at any level, and then incorporate a grievance
> and correction process that is accessible by all citizens, similar to the OSHA process of outlining
> basic codes that must be followed, or else complaints and penalties can be issues per violation.
> See www.ethics-commission.net for the minimum principles I would use to teach citizens to check their own govt against abuses.
> 
> * I tried to write up some proposed way to create an Amendment that DOES put "consent of the governed"
> in writing in the Constitution, to cover political beliefs, but without allowing this to be abused to violate consent of others.
> 
> PROPOSED AMENDMENT
> ON JUDICIAL FREEDOM
> 
> Pursuant to Articles I, II, and III and Amendment I, the separation of legislative, judicial, and executive powers of government, and of church and state authority, shall neither be applied nor denied to disparage the equal right of all citizens to protection of the laws.
> 
> The consent of the governed, being necessary for the just powers of government to represent the authority of the people, the right to seek mediation and consensus to resolve disputes by consent of the parties, shall not be denied, but shall be invoked by written oath of petitioning parties to abide by consensus decision with dissenting parties affected, where all participating parties agree to resolve all objections so that consensus can be reached.
> 
> Pursuant to the above, the judicial freedom to select counsel, mediators, and judges to resolve a dispute, to the satisfaction of all parties, shall neither be exercised nor denied to obstruct justice, deny equal rights, or abridge free and equal access to due process of law.
> 
> Pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments, political beliefs and differences in ideology shall be considered equal under law as religious beliefs and subject to the same rules of law and limitations; where Congress shall make no law construed or enforced to impose or deny political beliefs of individuals, nor shall obstruct the democratic process of resolving political conflicts by consensus to protect and represent all interests equally.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> RE: TEXAS CONSTITUTION
> 
> Article 1 Section 2
> "All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation [and the consent of the governed], they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."
> 
> Pursuant to this Section, the right of the people to seek self-government or representation by party, and to mediate to resolve disputes with governing authorities and jurisdiction, shall not be denied to parties or persons agreeing to abide equally by the Code of Ethics for Government Service, Constitutional laws and procedures; and to resolve all conflicts and objections to reach a consensus on policies without coercion but fully informed consent.
> 
> 
> 
> Your proposed amendment actually violates the first and 14th amendments, if you read carefully.   You've deemed that church and state are equal, but they cannot be.  You can't state churches can invalidate marriages under amendment 1 while validating them under amendment 14.
> 
> We are a nation of laws - we don't mediate everything - we use existing laws as applicable.
> 
> "political beliefs and differences in ideology shall be considered equal under law as religious beliefs and subject to the same rules of law and limitations; where Congress shall make no law construed or enforced to impose or deny political beliefs of individuals, nor shall obstruct the democratic process of resolving political conflicts by consensus to protect and represent all interests equally." - religious beliefs are not subject to the same rules of law, Emily.  And not every conflict CAN be resolved by consensus.   And definitely not represent all interests equally.  If my church prohibits interracial marriage, tell me how that right will be represented equally, when it violates the 14th amendment.......  Religiously, I can deny interracial marriage.   Congress and the courts cannot deny such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES Sneekin that's what I'm TRYING to say.
> I'm trying to INCLUDE political beliefs in with Religious Beliefs
> so these ARE TREATED EQUALLY CAREFULLY AS RELÌGIOUS BELIEFS ARE.
> 
> 
> Sneekin I'm saying the BELIEFS about church and state authority
> are equal as Religiously held BELIEFS.
> 
> So NEITHER can one side push church authority above or against state,
> or the other push state authority against church, but in matters of BELIEFS
> BOTH sides can represent their own beliefs, defend them against imposition,
> but also must keep both out of govt to prevent from infringing on others.
> 
> It's an equal two way street, that's what I'm trying to get at.
> 
> *to understand Political Beliefs as  FORM OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF*
> that should WELL be policed by the First, Fourteenth, Tenth and other amendments and
> laws defending citizens from abuses by govt to push religious agenda, political beliefs being a special class of those!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply put - not how are government was designed to work. Our country was established to separate politics and religion, sorry.  Your religious beliefs will never be treated equally (from a purely legal point) because of the first amendment.  No one can put church above/against state, again, first amendment violation.   State authority trumps your religiously held beliefs.   You can NEVER impose your religious beliefs onto "The People".
> 
> You've yet to give an example of where government infringes on your religion.   No one is forcing your church to marry gay people or straight people.  Up to the Church itself.  It's that pesky first amendment that keeps government out of your religion.  But it's the 14th that requires in 22 (??) states / cities/counties that a public business (caterer, venue (the Inn), photographer, cake baker, invitations, wedding dress makers, etc) MUST do business both with gay couples and straight couples.
> 
> Odd that Zac Posen designed Portia De Rossi's dress and Ellen DeGeneres' suit without complaint,  and had platinum wedding bands designed by Neil Lane (again no complaint), had  an all vegan menu prepared by Ellen’s personal chef, David Silberkleit (again, no complaints), and of course, a cake - it was a red velvet vegan wedding cake created by Sweet Lady Jane (no complaints), with the wedding dance performed by Stevie Wonder (who didn't complain or refuse).  The florist - MARK’S GARDEN didn't complain,  and no complaint by LARA PORZAK PHOTOGRAPHY. So... that completely shoots your FADA/RFRA arguments all to hell.  Even their officiant did not protest.  Nor did anyone attending the wedding.  There no massive demonstrations, etc.  Their wedding didn't impact your wedding, my wedding, Faun's wedding (if he's married) nor anyone else's.  No laws were violated, and this fits into everything you propose to do - is already DONE!.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Sneekin and I'm saying to take this one step FURTHER.
> and recognize Political Beliefs are also crossing the line with religion and govt!!!
> 
> They are special category of religious beliefs that inherently involve govt.
> so if these religiously held beliefs cannot be divorced from govt without violating them,
> that's why we need consensus on how to incorporate them with govt if we cannot separate them, as we do other forms of religious beliefs.
> 
> It's like finding out certain life forms are both plants AND animals.
> So they are classed specially.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily - find a new example - In terms of composition, plants have cell walls and animals don’t. Plants make their own food while animals hunt or get their food. Please provide a life form that both does and does not have cell walls.
> 
> You cannot recognize political beliefs as you are calling out.   Laws cover ALL people, not just conservatives, liberals, or independents, nor just black, white, red, brown, etc.
> 
> As was pointed out, we don't have consensus when we pass federal laws - unless you are talking a majority of congressmen.
> 
> Please provide what makes up this special category of religious beliefs that are inherently involving government - I would be more than happy to organize my state to implement an immediate ban as it would violate the US Constitution.Religious beliefs are not incorporated with government.   Identify them, please.
Click to expand...


Yes, Sneekin and I AM asking for laws and mediation standards
on political beliefs to apply to ALL POLITICAL BELIEFS.
so it's EQUAL. And I'm asking that the public be allowed to directly represent and defend
what they all find to be POLITICAL BELIEFS so all people with these issues are
protected and have equal access and assistance with a process to mediate conflicts
they find is infringing or threatening their rights due to opposing BELIEFS of others!

INCLUSIVE where ALL people can express their beliefs and not be harassed or excluded for them.


----------



## emilynghiem

Ok Sneekin is this a better example:
I believe in defending both prochoice and prolife equally.
That makes me neither all one or all the other, but a third special case of defending both.

I believe this requires laws to be based on consensus between people of the other beliefs.
so both are included represented and protected equally.
Not everyone believes in this or that it is possible,
thus all three are political beliefs by my approach.

I have a unique perspective that all abortion can be prevented 100% by free choice,
as prolife advocates already operate completely by free choice not force of law,
so that we CAN meet the standards of both prolife by eliminating abortion this way,
and of free choice by not banning or punishing abortion in order to achieve the prolife goals.

(If you define prolife as only the belief that abortion should be illegal or banned,
then you exclude me, and you call me prochoice only; but what makes me different
is I DON'T believe prochoice can be imposed without consent of prolife or it's
 a form of discrimination for political expedience.)

One condition by which I would agree to prolife bans on abortion
is if prochoice people AGREE to those laws by consensus.
so consensus is the standard I support to defend beliefs
of both prochoice and prolife, recognizing that prochoice
can accommodate prolife inclusively but not vice versa
unless there is a consensus on law by free choice.

I apply this same standard to beliefs on marriage as well.
So that makes me different, with some traits of both sides,
but without the belief that it is fair to impose one without the consent of the other.

NOTE: I honestly believe that if govt were to incorporate mediation to include
my beliefs, this would also help protect the other two beliefs from infringement
from each other. So that's why I push three times as hard to defend consensus
and conflict resolution as a more Constitutionally inclusive standard; not only would
it allow my beliefs to be exercised more freely, without constant harassment and
threats of censorship, but it would help stop harassment and threats to people of
the other views at the same time.

And the same system would help with all other issues like the marriage
and gun rights issues, that people get so defensive about out of fear
the other party will try to push their beliefs at the expense of others.


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> Ok Sneekin is this a better example:
> I believe in defending both prochoice and prolife equally.
> That makes me neither all one or all the other, but a third special case of defending both.
> 
> I believe this requires laws to be based on consensus between people of the other beliefs.
> so both are included represented and protected equally.
> Not everyone believes in this or that it is possible,
> thus all three are political beliefs by my approach.
> 
> I have a unique perspective that all abortion can be prevented 100% by free choice,
> as prolife advocates already operate completely by free choice not force of law,
> so that we CAN meet the standards of both prolife by eliminating abortion this way,
> and of free choice by not banning or punishing abortion in order to achieve the prolife goals.
> 
> (If you define prolife as only the belief that abortion should be illegal or banned,
> then you exclude me, and you call me prochoice only; but what makes me different
> is I DON'T believe prochoice can be imposed without consent of prolife or it's
> a form of discrimination for political expedience.)
> 
> One condition by which I would agree to prolife bans on abortion
> is if prochoice people AGREE to those laws by consensus.
> so consensus is the standard I support to defend beliefs
> of both prochoice and prolife, recognizing that prochoice
> can accommodate prolife inclusively but not vice versa
> unless there is a consensus on law by free choice.
> 
> I apply this same standard to beliefs on marriage as well.
> So that makes me different, with some traits of both sides,
> but without the belief that it is fair to impose one without the consent of the other.
> 
> NOTE: I honestly believe that if govt were to incorporate mediation to include
> my beliefs, this would also help protect the other two beliefs from infringement
> from each other. So that's why I push three times as hard to defend consensus
> and conflict resolution as a more Constitutionally inclusive standard; not only would
> it allow my beliefs to be exercised more freely, without constant harassment and
> threats of censorship, but it would help stop harassment and threats to people of
> the other views at the same time.
> 
> And the same system would help with all other issues like the marriage
> and gun rights issues, that people get so defensive about out of fear
> the other party will try to push their beliefs at the expense of others.



Makes no sense..

Now...in 50 words or less....PLEASE

How do you pass laws that are both pro-life and pro-choice?


----------



## emilynghiem

Here's another example Sneekin

A. I believe in both the Christian principle that salvation of humanity
is central to faith in Christ Jesus as the unique authority to establish truth collectively
inclusively and universally for all humanity covering collectively knowledge/perception of laws/history
B. I also believe in universal inclusion of ALL people of ALL faiths
including atheists and nontheists who do not identify as Christian.
I believe the secular equivalent of faith in Christ Jesus is called
Restorative Justice
and atheists, nontheists, Buddhists, Muslims can believe and unite
in this spirit and it is the same authority and process as Christ Jesus represents.

So I am both Christian in faith and secular in understanding and expression.

I consider this both A and B,
but others may say I am not completely A or completely B.


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok Sneekin is this a better example:
> I believe in defending both prochoice and prolife equally.
> That makes me neither all one or all the other, but a third special case of defending both.
> 
> I believe this requires laws to be based on consensus between people of the other beliefs.
> so both are included represented and protected equally.
> Not everyone believes in this or that it is possible,
> thus all three are political beliefs by my approach.
> 
> I have a unique perspective that all abortion can be prevented 100% by free choice,
> as prolife advocates already operate completely by free choice not force of law,
> so that we CAN meet the standards of both prolife by eliminating abortion this way,
> and of free choice by not banning or punishing abortion in order to achieve the prolife goals.
> 
> (If you define prolife as only the belief that abortion should be illegal or banned,
> then you exclude me, and you call me prochoice only; but what makes me different
> is I DON'T believe prochoice can be imposed without consent of prolife or it's
> a form of discrimination for political expedience.)
> 
> One condition by which I would agree to prolife bans on abortion
> is if prochoice people AGREE to those laws by consensus.
> so consensus is the standard I support to defend beliefs
> of both prochoice and prolife, recognizing that prochoice
> can accommodate prolife inclusively but not vice versa
> unless there is a consensus on law by free choice.
> 
> I apply this same standard to beliefs on marriage as well.
> So that makes me different, with some traits of both sides,
> but without the belief that it is fair to impose one without the consent of the other.
> 
> NOTE: I honestly believe that if govt were to incorporate mediation to include
> my beliefs, this would also help protect the other two beliefs from infringement
> from each other. So that's why I push three times as hard to defend consensus
> and conflict resolution as a more Constitutionally inclusive standard; not only would
> it allow my beliefs to be exercised more freely, without constant harassment and
> threats of censorship, but it would help stop harassment and threats to people of
> the other views at the same time.
> 
> And the same system would help with all other issues like the marriage
> and gun rights issues, that people get so defensive about out of fear
> the other party will try to push their beliefs at the expense of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Makes no sense..
> 
> Now...in 50 words or less....PLEASE
> 
> How do you pass laws that are both pro-life and pro-choice?
Click to expand...


Here's an example rightwinger

A. What if we agree not to ban abortion but
create a special level of law on state levels for Health and Safety
which communities may choose to OPT INTO freely such as
by school district, civic association for neighborhood communities, or whole cities
if all residents happen to agree on terms.

Then people might agree that Relationship Abuse counts as a health code threat or violation
(and also Drug abuse or addiction without Criminalizing it or penalizing it)
and needs to be addressed by mandatory counseling by BOTH partners if a complaint is reported of abuse.

So it could be agreed upon that an act
resulting in unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted child, unwanted abortion,
etc. counts as Relationship Abuse and is subject to counseling to correct the problem.

so this can be applied to "ban sex that leads to unwanted abortion"
as a form of abuse, if people agreed to terms and definitions and process.

It is not antichoice but saying in cases where abortion is not a wanted choice,
both partners should be protected from that situation where something is being forced.

We are not banning the abortion in ways that affect the woman more than the man,
but banning acts of coercion or abuse that otherwise would result in abortion,a
and holding BOTH partners responsible for not abusing the relationship or sex,
where it causes mental emotional or physical coercion or stress on one or both partners.

B. if that doesn't work I also suggest separating funding
by taxes where prolife people can match dollars going to Planned Parenthood
with the same amount going to the Nurturing Network which isn't affiliated with
anything to do with abortion.

If the left wants right to health care through govt,
why not separate two tracks and let the right have right to life through govt.
Let both tracks fund the programs they believe in,
and let taxpayers CHOOSE which track to fund.
Anyone can participate in nonprofits or govt programs of both tracks,
but just separate the taxes where people are fully and equally represented.

That is both prochoice and prolife!


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 
> There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
> about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
> to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
> to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.
> 
> Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
> A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
> catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
> with no time to eat or sleep in between.
> 
> ^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
> and were behind on both for about a month each and only
> have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
> that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?
> 
> If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
> to get you to acknowledge this?
> 
> B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
> have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.
> 
> Are you really going to
> 1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
> 2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?
> 
> WHY would you do that?
> Do you not believe me?
> Or  you don't care to consider there are other reasons?
> 
> ????
> Can you explain what you are really thinking
> and why you are projecting that onto me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying fuck that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquies
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. there is only one of me, and there are 4-5 of you.
> Do you think I have time to answer 10 posts by Sneekin, you and rightwinger?
> 
> 2. did you get my PM that I have two jobs, that i am behind on.
> Does that register in your head that I don't have time in betwe en my two jobs
> to even eat and sleep in a healthy manner?
> 
> Faun have you ever worked two jobs at the same time?
> Do you have any idea how strenous it is?
> 
> I can't even call my own mother back for we eks to catch up.
> I can't se e my nephews in California, I can barely se e my own boyfriend
> once a we ek if I am lucky.
> 
> Why would I spend more time online answering questions
> from you than I spend time with my boyfriend or talking with my family?
> 
> Are you that insulted that I don't have time to
> answer all your messages when I can't even call my own mother back on time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, stop whining. I asked you a simple question which could have been answered in 2 seconds with _"yes"_ or _"no."_
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARE YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN MOTHER???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF is wrong with you? I'm the one who suggested you spend less time here and more time with your mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.
> 
> I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?
> 
> Is this just your way of communicating?
> 
> If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!
> 
> If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you _thought_ you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a _"yes"_ or _"no"_ answer and neither were forthcoming from you.
> 
> Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....
> 
> Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.
> 
> That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's *but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.*
> 
> I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...
> 
> ___________________________​
> *Faun: *_do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?_
> 
> *emilynghiem: *_I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction. The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt._
> 
> ... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...
> 
> ___________________________​
> So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??
> 
> That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> Thanks for your answer but your answer is *EXACTLY* the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.
> 
> A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)
> 
> In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.
> 
> The government is not divorcing itself from marriage *precisely because of people like you* who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RE: In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> NO, I'm saying to AVOID that by either:
> A. if govt use marriage then ALL people get that
> (and I'm suggesting that to reach agreement on inclusion, to treat LGBT beliefs
> and Christian beliefs about spiritual healing prayer equally, neither imposing one while excluding the other)
> B. if people cannot agre e on that, but for example ALL agre e to civil contracts,
> then ALL people get that.
> C. as for your concern that if that were to happen and this leaves out Atheists who don't have
> a way to get married, I am saying to set it up -- by agreement BEFORE changing policies*. so if there needs to be separate CHOICE of funding for govt programs
> that deals with "social" benefits that not all people agree to the terms of, that can be done while
> setting up state alternatives to resolve ACA issues and requirements that are FACING this SAME ISSUE.
> 
> Sorry Faun if you don't like my full answer.
> I am trying to address these things in context.
> the solutions to one point (such as marriage issues) solve other problems as well (such as health care issues).
> 
> * NOTE to Faun: ACA required states alternatives to avoid penalty BEFORE setting these up. Did you complain about ACA being unconstitutional by requiring people to face fines for not choosing alternatives that weren't even allowed to be proposed to states yet much less set up?
Click to expand...

A. Already occurs - you can do all of the spiritual prayer healing on your own time, or during moments of silence.  You can't do it around me, as it violates my religious principles (first amendment violation).  Christianity isn't the only religion, there are thousands, and not all Christians believe in spiritual healing prayer.
B.  Nothing to agree to - already the law, and the law says civil marriages are civil contracts.  Anyone that gets married utilizing a state issued marriage license has the civil contract for their civil marriage.  If you don't want a civil marriage, have your officiant NOT sign a marriage license, and exempt yourself from the civic benefits you get from your civil marriage contract.
C.  Existing civil marriage laws cover both religious and Atheist - it already occurs.

Finally you don't get to agree/come to a consensus or directives such as the ACA - it's not YOUR JOB, it's the job of your Congress.   Sounds like it's going away.  Texas, in the next 2 weeks, is going to cut Medicaid for Autistic, Children with Down's Syndrome, and other disabled children's therapy services.  A cut of 350 Million dollars that will affect 60,000 children, and also force businesses that provide these services to fold.   So it seems you people in Texas need to clean up your own back yard before you mess with our services.  Children with these delays require constant attention that will no longer be provided, which means more parents will be unable to work.....Texas congressmen are on record as not even investigating the impacts of implementing these changes. Texas health officials testified in court in 2015 that they had not studied how the budget cuts would affect children’s access to medically necessary therapy treatments.  Not to mention your law going into effect on the 19th of this month, requiring fetal remains to be buried or cremated - unless the abortion or miscarriage happens at home.  Let's just hope you don't miscarry/spontaneously abort on your way to work, as by the new law, you are required to go to the ER and be treated - even if you are weeks along.  Your illustrious governor is requiring the hospitals to pay these expenses - which will more than likely raise your taxes.  Attorneys for the reproductive rights of women are ready to litigate, and predict this will be costly - for the state.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Here's another example Sneekin
> 
> A. I believe in both the Christian principle that salvation of humanity
> is central to faith in Christ Jesus as the unique authority to establish truth collectively
> inclusively and universally for all humanity covering collectively knowledge/perception of laws/history
> B. I also believe in universal inclusion of ALL people of ALL faiths
> including atheists and nontheists who do not identify as Christian.
> I believe the secular equivalent of faith in Christ Jesus is called
> Restorative Justice
> and atheists, nontheists, Buddhists, Muslims can believe and unite
> in this spirit and it is the same authority and process as Christ Jesus represents.
> 
> So I am both Christian in faith and secular in understanding and expression.
> 
> I consider this both A and B,
> but others may say I am not completely A or completely B.


You are imposing a state religion.   This can't be done.  

Restorative justice is an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of the victims and the offenders, as well as the involved community as opposed to simple punishment of the offender.  This in no way is the same as what you propose.

Your problem is using religion in your examples - that violates my first amendment rights.  Let's not forget, Restorative justice isn't used for every situation, and you are claiming that everything is a faith. Atheism is NOT a faith (trust me).  Atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.  A religion is an organization of like cultural beliefs regarding God or other deity.  Atheism isn't a group/organization.  It's stand alone.  There is no need for any common beliefs. Baptists share common reliefs.  Hasid's share common beliefs, as do Sunni's, Sikh's, Catholics, etc.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make.   Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion.  We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in.   Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex.  Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."  This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
> 
> Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right.   Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage.   Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs.  They are ruling solely on the point of law.  You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed.  As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion.  The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc.  The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us).  You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans.  They do not choose who gets married.   Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.
> 
> As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.
> 
> The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.
> 
> It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People on both sides are being forced to change terms of the contract without agreeing to the changes and how they are worded or applied.
> Unless the process recognizes consensus, it is pressuring one side to defend itself against the other, which isn't fair to eiether side.
> Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Contracts are invalidated if you detrimentally change the language.  However, contracts can be unilateral (one party makes the decisions) or bilateral (must arrive at a consensus). In a case where illegal language is contained (for example, Texas stated marriage was only between a man and a woman), the courts struck (repeatedly) the language "only between a man and a woman".  From a civil contract point of view, that does NOT pressure any one side to defend itself.  You (Texas) doesn't get to agree to changes when the changes make the contract legal and binding, instead of ILLEGAL and INVALID.  No consensus would be required - or would be legal.   When Loving v Virginia struck down the prohibition of interracial marriage, no one in the state of VA got to vote, discuss, negotiate, come to a consensus.  The verbiage was struck/rewritten to become LEGAL.   The only "fair way" is what is legal.  It's not what we think, it's what the law is.  You can't put have a legal and binding contract with illegal terms and conditions.  That's why you can't marry your cat, dog, or computer, and why there is no negotiating (putting aside the fact that all 3 can't give consent, nor meet ANY of the legal conditions).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and No Sneekin
> Yes removing a ban as unconstitutional is one thing.
> 
> But what it takes to legalize something under terms that people agree represents them and the public
> is a different process.
Click to expand...

You can say Iowa legalized gay marriage by striking down any laws passed by the people of Iowa because of 14th amendment violations as well as state violations.  Colorado legalized pot.  It can be the same process. Sorry to inform you.


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok Sneekin is this a better example:
> I believe in defending both prochoice and prolife equally.
> That makes me neither all one or all the other, but a third special case of defending both.
> 
> I believe this requires laws to be based on consensus between people of the other beliefs.
> so both are included represented and protected equally.
> Not everyone believes in this or that it is possible,
> thus all three are political beliefs by my approach.
> 
> I have a unique perspective that all abortion can be prevented 100% by free choice,
> as prolife advocates already operate completely by free choice not force of law,
> so that we CAN meet the standards of both prolife by eliminating abortion this way,
> and of free choice by not banning or punishing abortion in order to achieve the prolife goals.
> 
> (If you define prolife as only the belief that abortion should be illegal or banned,
> then you exclude me, and you call me prochoice only; but what makes me different
> is I DON'T believe prochoice can be imposed without consent of prolife or it's
> a form of discrimination for political expedience.)
> 
> One condition by which I would agree to prolife bans on abortion
> is if prochoice people AGREE to those laws by consensus.
> so consensus is the standard I support to defend beliefs
> of both prochoice and prolife, recognizing that prochoice
> can accommodate prolife inclusively but not vice versa
> unless there is a consensus on law by free choice.
> 
> I apply this same standard to beliefs on marriage as well.
> So that makes me different, with some traits of both sides,
> but without the belief that it is fair to impose one without the consent of the other.
> 
> NOTE: I honestly believe that if govt were to incorporate mediation to include
> my beliefs, this would also help protect the other two beliefs from infringement
> from each other. So that's why I push three times as hard to defend consensus
> and conflict resolution as a more Constitutionally inclusive standard; not only would
> it allow my beliefs to be exercised more freely, without constant harassment and
> threats of censorship, but it would help stop harassment and threats to people of
> the other views at the same time.
> 
> And the same system would help with all other issues like the marriage
> and gun rights issues, that people get so defensive about out of fear
> the other party will try to push their beliefs at the expense of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Makes no sense..
> 
> Now...in 50 words or less....PLEASE
> 
> How do you pass laws that are both pro-life and pro-choice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's an example rightwinger
> 
> A. What if we agree not to ban abortion but
> create a special level of law on state levels for Health and Safety
> which communities may choose to OPT INTO freely such as
> by school district, civic association for neighborhood communities, or whole cities
> if all residents happen to agree on terms.
> 
> Then people might agree that Relationship Abuse counts as a health code threat or violation
> (and also Drug abuse or addiction without Criminalizing it or penalizing it)
> and needs to be addressed by mandatory counseling by BOTH partners if a complaint is reported of abuse.
> 
> So it could be agreed upon that an act
> resulting in unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted child, unwanted abortion,
> etc. counts as Relationship Abuse and is subject to counseling to correct the problem.
> 
> so this can be applied to "ban sex that leads to unwanted abortion"
> as a form of abuse, if people agreed to terms and definitions and process.
> 
> It is not antichoice but saying in cases where abortion is not a wanted choice,
> both partners should be protected from that situation where something is being forced.
> 
> We are not banning the abortion in ways that affect the woman more than the man,
> but banning acts of coercion or abuse that otherwise would result in abortion,a
> and holding BOTH partners responsible for not abusing the relationship or sex,
> where it causes mental emotional or physical coercion or stress on one or both partners.
> 
> B. if that doesn't work I also suggest separating funding
> by taxes where prolife people can match dollars going to Planned Parenthood
> with the same amount going to the Nurturing Network which isn't affiliated with
> anything to do with abortion.
> 
> If the left wants right to health care through govt,
> why not separate two tracks and let the right have right to life through govt.
> Let both tracks fund the programs they believe in,
> and let taxpayers CHOOSE which track to fund.
> Anyone can participate in nonprofits or govt programs of both tracks,
> but just separate the taxes where people are fully and equally represented.
> 
> That is both prochoice and prolife!
Click to expand...


300 words and you still didn't answer a simple question. Let me rephrase...

The problem with abortion is there can be no consensus. There is no middle ground. Dividing up communities into smaller and smaller segments will still not reach the consensus you desire. If you can't get consensus on abortion in families how can you get it by town?

Those who want to ban abortion want it banned for EVERYONE
How do you reconcile that?


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 
> There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
> about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
> to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
> to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.
> 
> Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
> A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
> catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
> with no time to eat or sleep in between.
> 
> ^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
> and were behind on both for about a month each and only
> have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
> that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?
> 
> If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
> to get you to acknowledge this?
> 
> B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
> have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.
> 
> Are you really going to
> 1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
> 2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?
> 
> WHY would you do that?
> Do you not believe me?
> Or  you don't care to consider there are other reasons?
> 
> ????
> Can you explain what you are really thinking
> and why you are projecting that onto me?
> 
> 
> 
> Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying fuck that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquies
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. there is only one of me, and there are 4-5 of you.
> Do you think I have time to answer 10 posts by Sneekin, you and rightwinger?
> 
> 2. did you get my PM that I have two jobs, that i am behind on.
> Does that register in your head that I don't have time in betwe en my two jobs
> to even eat and sleep in a healthy manner?
> 
> Faun have you ever worked two jobs at the same time?
> Do you have any idea how strenous it is?
> 
> I can't even call my own mother back for we eks to catch up.
> I can't se e my nephews in California, I can barely se e my own boyfriend
> once a we ek if I am lucky.
> 
> Why would I spend more time online answering questions
> from you than I spend time with my boyfriend or talking with my family?
> 
> Are you that insulted that I don't have time to
> answer all your messages when I can't even call my own mother back on time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, stop whining. I asked you a simple question which could have been answered in 2 seconds with _"yes"_ or _"no."_
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARE YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN MOTHER???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF is wrong with you? I'm the one who suggested you spend less time here and more time with your mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.
> 
> I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?
> 
> Is this just your way of communicating?
> 
> If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!
> 
> If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you _thought_ you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a _"yes"_ or _"no"_ answer and neither were forthcoming from you.
> 
> Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....
> 
> Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.
> 
> That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's *but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.*
> 
> I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...
> 
> ___________________________​
> *Faun: *_do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?_
> 
> *emilynghiem: *_I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction. The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt._
> 
> ... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...
> 
> ___________________________​
> So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??
> 
> That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> Thanks for your answer but your answer is *EXACTLY* the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.
> 
> A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)
> 
> In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.
> 
> The government is not divorcing itself from marriage *precisely because of people like you* who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RE: In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> NO, I'm saying to AVOID that by either:
> A. if govt use marriage then ALL people get that
> (and I'm suggesting that to reach agreement on inclusion, to treat LGBT beliefs
> and Christian beliefs about spiritual healing prayer equally, neither imposing one while excluding the other)
> B. if people cannot agre e on that, but for example ALL agre e to civil contracts,
> then ALL people get that.
> C. as for your concern that if that were to happen and this leaves out Atheists who don't have
> a way to get married, I am saying to set it up -- by agreement BEFORE changing policies*. so if there needs to be separate CHOICE of funding for govt programs
> that deals with "social" benefits that not all people agree to the terms of, that can be done while
> setting up state alternatives to resolve ACA issues and requirements that are FACING this SAME ISSUE.
> 
> Sorry Faun if you don't like my full answer.
> I am trying to address these things in context.
> the solutions to one point (such as marriage issues) solve other problems as well (such as health care issues).
> 
> * NOTE to Faun: ACA required states alternatives to avoid penalty BEFORE setting these up. Did you complain about ACA being unconstitutional by requiring people to face fines for not choosing alternatives that weren't even allowed to be proposed to states yet much less set up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A. Already occurs - you can do all of the spiritual prayer healing on your own time, or during moments of silence.  You can't do it around me, as it violates my religious principles (first amendment violation).  Christianity isn't the only religion, there are thousands, and not all Christians believe in spiritual healing prayer.
> B.  Nothing to agree to - already the law, and the law says civil marriages are civil contracts.  Anyone that gets married utilizing a state issued marriage license has the civil contract for their civil marriage.  If you don't want a civil marriage, have your officiant NOT sign a marriage license, and exempt yourself from the civic benefits you get from your civil marriage contract.
> C.  Existing civil marriage laws cover both religious and Atheist - it already occurs.
> 
> Finally you don't get to agree/come to a consensus or directives such as the ACA - it's not YOUR JOB, it's the job of your Congress.   Sounds like it's going away.  Texas, in the next 2 weeks, is going to cut Medicaid for Autistic, Children with Down's Syndrome, and other disabled children's therapy services.  A cut of 350 Million dollars that will affect 60,000 children, and also force businesses that provide these services to fold.   So it seems you people in Texas need to clean up your own back yard before you mess with our services.  Children with these delays require constant attention that will no longer be provided, which means more parents will be unable to work.....Texas congressmen are on record as not even investigating the impacts of implementing these changes. Texas health officials testified in court in 2015 that they had not studied how the budget cuts would affect children’s access to medically necessary therapy treatments.  Not to mention your law going into effect on the 19th of this month, requiring fetal remains to be buried or cremated - unless the abortion or miscarriage happens at home.  Let's just hope you don't miscarry/spontaneously abort on your way to work, as by the new law, you are required to go to the ER and be treated - even if you are weeks along.  Your illustrious governor is requiring the hospitals to pay these expenses - which will more than likely raise your taxes.  Attorneys for the reproductive rights of women are ready to litigate, and predict this will be costly - for the state.
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin

3. RE: ACA as long as it affects my taxes and income, it is my job to see that I am represented.

The people are supposed to be the govt, the govt is supposed to represent the people.
If there is conflict it is up to both people inside and outside govt to fix it.
Nobody is going to mediate and reach consensus if they don't even believe it is possible much less legally necessary.
That is my belief, and only I can take responsibility for it, and/or for finding leaders who believe the same
so we can work it out together.

2. spiritual healing is an essential part of health care, and one of the keys for sustainable universal care afforded to ALL.

Sneekin if we do not research the ability of spiritual healing to cure CRIMINAL illness,
this puts innocent people, like children killed by Andrea Yates due to sick obsession with
demonic type voices, at risk instead of protecting them from deadly disease
that CAN BE CURED by REMOVING the demonic type obessions and voices driving people to kill.

This spiritual healing process works on ATHEISTS. I have a friend who used it to fight off
demons he also had, similar to the patients in Scott Peck's book Glimpses of the Devil.

The good news is we can research and prove how this process works naturally and universally
with medical science, so it does NOT have to be imposed which doesn't work anyway.
The only way this process works is by FREE choice because the therapy is based
on Forgiveness which has to be chosen freely or it's false and FAILS.

You CANNOT fake healing because you cannot fake forgiveness. 
Either you are healed and free or you are SUPPRESSED like you said where it's fake.

I would say of all the things and angles we discussed,
spiritual healing is the closest "equivalent" of wanting govt marriage.

To incorporate the CHOICE of spiritual healing into mental and medical health care
would change the system to free up resources to save more lives and mental/physical health of people.

so it would not be "taking away" any choices but A D DING them.
Your same reaction that it is AGAINST what you believe
is how others are saying SIMILAR about gay marriage.
But if we are OFFERING an equal choice, that is adding not taking away.

And you can wait until you see PROOF that it saves lives
and decide which cases you believe are true or which are fake.

1. If we focus on that, then there will be agreement reached on other areas as well.
Because the same process of forgiveness that heals mind and body in spiritual healing therapy
also heals relationships between people, so it affects all other areas of conflicts, both political or religious,
that can then be resolved without the contention getting in the way of forming agreed solutions!
*(And no, you aren't asked to take that on faith either, that can be proven in the same process.
by the time we do the medical research on spiritual healing, all levels it applies to can be demonstrated with the same efforts
it takes to prove one area. so you can see the proof it works before adapting any knowledge or understanding of this into your thinking.)


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok Sneekin is this a better example:
> I believe in defending both prochoice and prolife equally.
> That makes me neither all one or all the other, but a third special case of defending both.
> 
> I believe this requires laws to be based on consensus between people of the other beliefs.
> so both are included represented and protected equally.
> Not everyone believes in this or that it is possible,
> thus all three are political beliefs by my approach.
> 
> I have a unique perspective that all abortion can be prevented 100% by free choice,
> as prolife advocates already operate completely by free choice not force of law,
> so that we CAN meet the standards of both prolife by eliminating abortion this way,
> and of free choice by not banning or punishing abortion in order to achieve the prolife goals.
> 
> (If you define prolife as only the belief that abortion should be illegal or banned,
> then you exclude me, and you call me prochoice only; but what makes me different
> is I DON'T believe prochoice can be imposed without consent of prolife or it's
> a form of discrimination for political expedience.)
> 
> One condition by which I would agree to prolife bans on abortion
> is if prochoice people AGREE to those laws by consensus.
> so consensus is the standard I support to defend beliefs
> of both prochoice and prolife, recognizing that prochoice
> can accommodate prolife inclusively but not vice versa
> unless there is a consensus on law by free choice.
> 
> I apply this same standard to beliefs on marriage as well.
> So that makes me different, with some traits of both sides,
> but without the belief that it is fair to impose one without the consent of the other.
> 
> NOTE: I honestly believe that if govt were to incorporate mediation to include
> my beliefs, this would also help protect the other two beliefs from infringement
> from each other. So that's why I push three times as hard to defend consensus
> and conflict resolution as a more Constitutionally inclusive standard; not only would
> it allow my beliefs to be exercised more freely, without constant harassment and
> threats of censorship, but it would help stop harassment and threats to people of
> the other views at the same time.
> 
> And the same system would help with all other issues like the marriage
> and gun rights issues, that people get so defensive about out of fear
> the other party will try to push their beliefs at the expense of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Makes no sense..
> 
> Now...in 50 words or less....PLEASE
> 
> How do you pass laws that are both pro-life and pro-choice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's an example rightwinger
> 
> A. What if we agree not to ban abortion but
> create a special level of law on state levels for Health and Safety
> which communities may choose to OPT INTO freely such as
> by school district, civic association for neighborhood communities, or whole cities
> if all residents happen to agree on terms.
> 
> Then people might agree that Relationship Abuse counts as a health code threat or violation
> (and also Drug abuse or addiction without Criminalizing it or penalizing it)
> and needs to be addressed by mandatory counseling by BOTH partners if a complaint is reported of abuse.
> 
> So it could be agreed upon that an act
> resulting in unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted child, unwanted abortion,
> etc. counts as Relationship Abuse and is subject to counseling to correct the problem.
> 
> so this can be applied to "ban sex that leads to unwanted abortion"
> as a form of abuse, if people agreed to terms and definitions and process.
> 
> It is not antichoice but saying in cases where abortion is not a wanted choice,
> both partners should be protected from that situation where something is being forced.
> 
> We are not banning the abortion in ways that affect the woman more than the man,
> but banning acts of coercion or abuse that otherwise would result in abortion,a
> and holding BOTH partners responsible for not abusing the relationship or sex,
> where it causes mental emotional or physical coercion or stress on one or both partners.
> 
> B. if that doesn't work I also suggest separating funding
> by taxes where prolife people can match dollars going to Planned Parenthood
> with the same amount going to the Nurturing Network which isn't affiliated with
> anything to do with abortion.
> 
> If the left wants right to health care through govt,
> why not separate two tracks and let the right have right to life through govt.
> Let both tracks fund the programs they believe in,
> and let taxpayers CHOOSE which track to fund.
> Anyone can participate in nonprofits or govt programs of both tracks,
> but just separate the taxes where people are fully and equally represented.
> 
> That is both prochoice and prolife!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 300 words and you still didn't answer a simple question. Let me rephrase...
> 
> The problem with abortion is there can be no consensus. There is no middle ground. Dividing up communities into smaller and smaller segments will still not reach the consensus you desire. If you can't get consensus on abortion in families how can you get it by town?
> 
> Those who want to ban abortion want it banned for EVERYONE
> How do you reconcile that?
Click to expand...


I answered that if you bothered to read it rightwinger
Go BACK and R-E-A-D, here is the summary but the explanation is LONGER (see previous answer):
1. one OPTION is to set up health and safety policies
where RELATIONSHIP ABUSE can be targeted
for prevention in order to stop abortion without banning the abortion directly

2. another is to SEPARATE funding where the prolife
are not endorsing abortion through their taxes or involvement in the same govt,
but have a separate system they fund that is prolife

*Who said answers to COMPLEX problems have to be answered in 50 words or less?
Where did you get that would ever work?
No wonder you don't believe in consensus because you restrict speech to 500 or 50?
Sorry rightwinger but the answers are not that simple as you want!

The First Amendment is 45 words.
And look how many Applications and Explanations it takes
to apply that to actual real life issues!!!

(Now that's fine if you have this belief answers have to fit in 50 words.
but don't blame your beliefs on me when I believe in free speech,
not restricting speech to terms I NEVER agreed to meet
then get mad when I don't meet them!)*


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Tennyson the passage of the Constitution was contingent on the agreement that a Bill of Rights would be added
> to define the individual rights not protected in the body of the Constitution that only defined federal powers and duties.
> 
> so you cannot have the Constitution without the Bill of Rights
> or it is like having the OT of the Bible without the NT!
> 
> In fact, the same way the Bible is summarized in 2-3 great commandments
> 1. love of God with all our heart mind and soul
> 2. love of neighbor as ourselves
> 3. love of one another as Christ Jesus loves us (ie with forgiveness and correction
> that is Restorative Justice, not judgment and punishment or retributive justice)
> 
> I would say the First Amendment summarizes the whole of the law
> that all other laws are based on
> 1. free exercise of religion as free will, equal executive power of each person
> 2. free speech and freedom of religion as equal judicial freedom of each person
> 3. free press and right to assemble as equal legislative or power of attorney of each person to authorize contracts
> and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances
> combines these as democratic due process of laws to resolve conflicts and establish agreed law and order.
> 
> All other laws come from these basic natural laws
> that are inherent in human nature as combining
> * Mind
> * Body
> * Spirit
> 
> where laws or contracts/agreements connect
> * INDIVIDUAL to
> * COLLECTIVE levels, based on the
> * RELATIONSHIP between the two.
> 
> both religious and political/civil laws attempt to define the terms of that RELATIONSHIP
> so you will see this same pattern of THREE levels
> in any system of laws, religion, philosophy or govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So....hate to tell you, but if I'm Jewish, my bible (My book of sacred writings) is just the Old Testament.  No Christianity for me.  If I'm Muslim - then it's the Qu'ran - which again doesn't have the New Testament, but most of the old testament.
> 
> The first amendment doesn't summarize the whole of law - if that were the case, we'd still have slavery, ban interracial marriages, no divorces, the list just goes on and on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I mean Sneekin
> A. is if we followed what was already in the First Amendment,
> ie free exercise of religion or free will for everyone
> [within the bounds of right of all people PEACEABLY to assemble]
> there wouldn't BE slavery or oppresion of any sort:
> All conflicts would be resolved if we practiced fre e speech
> press and right to petition to redress grievances.
> 
> B. and no I don't mean this voids the need for other laws
> like due process and equal protections, but that the SPIRIT
> of the Constitutional laws fulfills and includes those as well.
> Under free exercise, all these other laws can be cited as well
> as defenses to explain and petition for one's rights beliefs and interests to be accounted for.
> 
> so this INCLUDES citing Quran, Jewish or Christian principles, Buddhist teachings, etc.
> 
> C. As for the Bible this also INCLUDES Islam/Quran, Jewish laws,
> and all forms of natural laws. By Colossians, all authorities are governed
> under the same Lord or Law that Jesus represents as Universal JUSTICE for all.
> 
> Just because we express laws in different ways does not mean they are excluded.
> 
> They are all protected under Free exercise of religion, free choice or free will
> which is naturally self-existent as part of human nature.
> 
> And the Bible also calls for obedience and submission to civil authority
> and human institutions. So that includes respecting Constitutional law
> and equal inclusion and protection for people of all faiths under religious freedom.
Click to expand...

A.  Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution.  In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage.  In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage.   In some religions, slavery is allowed.  Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law.  Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
B.  Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc.  Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church.  They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment.  I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says.   I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists).  I have no book of Colossians.  Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god.  They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Tennyson the passage of the Constitution was contingent on the agreement that a Bill of Rights would be added
> to define the individual rights not protected in the body of the Constitution that only defined federal powers and duties.
> 
> so you cannot have the Constitution without the Bill of Rights
> or it is like having the OT of the Bible without the NT!
> 
> In fact, the same way the Bible is summarized in 2-3 great commandments
> 1. love of God with all our heart mind and soul
> 2. love of neighbor as ourselves
> 3. love of one another as Christ Jesus loves us (ie with forgiveness and correction
> that is Restorative Justice, not judgment and punishment or retributive justice)
> 
> I would say the First Amendment summarizes the whole of the law
> that all other laws are based on
> 1. free exercise of religion as free will, equal executive power of each person
> 2. free speech and freedom of religion as equal judicial freedom of each person
> 3. free press and right to assemble as equal legislative or power of attorney of each person to authorize contracts
> and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances
> combines these as democratic due process of laws to resolve conflicts and establish agreed law and order.
> 
> All other laws come from these basic natural laws
> that are inherent in human nature as combining
> * Mind
> * Body
> * Spirit
> 
> where laws or contracts/agreements connect
> * INDIVIDUAL to
> * COLLECTIVE levels, based on the
> * RELATIONSHIP between the two.
> 
> both religious and political/civil laws attempt to define the terms of that RELATIONSHIP
> so you will see this same pattern of THREE levels
> in any system of laws, religion, philosophy or govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So....hate to tell you, but if I'm Jewish, my bible (My book of sacred writings) is just the Old Testament.  No Christianity for me.  If I'm Muslim - then it's the Qu'ran - which again doesn't have the New Testament, but most of the old testament.
> 
> The first amendment doesn't summarize the whole of law - if that were the case, we'd still have slavery, ban interracial marriages, no divorces, the list just goes on and on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I mean Sneekin
> A. is if we followed what was already in the First Amendment,
> ie free exercise of religion or free will for everyone
> [within the bounds of right of all people PEACEABLY to assemble]
> there wouldn't BE slavery or oppresion of any sort:
> All conflicts would be resolved if we practiced fre e speech
> press and right to petition to redress grievances.
> 
> B. and no I don't mean this voids the need for other laws
> like due process and equal protections, but that the SPIRIT
> of the Constitutional laws fulfills and includes those as well.
> Under free exercise, all these other laws can be cited as well
> as defenses to explain and petition for one's rights beliefs and interests to be accounted for.
> 
> so this INCLUDES citing Quran, Jewish or Christian principles, Buddhist teachings, etc.
> 
> C. As for the Bible this also INCLUDES Islam/Quran, Jewish laws,
> and all forms of natural laws. By Colossians, all authorities are governed
> under the same Lord or Law that Jesus represents as Universal JUSTICE for all.
> 
> Just because we express laws in different ways does not mean they are excluded.
> 
> They are all protected under Free exercise of religion, free choice or free will
> which is naturally self-existent as part of human nature.
> 
> And the Bible also calls for obedience and submission to civil authority
> and human institutions. So that includes respecting Constitutional law
> and equal inclusion and protection for people of all faiths under religious freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A.  Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution.  In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage.  In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage.   In some religions, slavery is allowed.  Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law.  Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
> B.  Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc.  Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church.  They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
> C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment.  I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says.   I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists).  I have no book of Colossians.  Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god.  They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.
Click to expand...


I said NO to all three.
A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
their right to petition to redress grievances.
Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.

B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
That is NOT what I am asking.
1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage

C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!

Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
how would you describe the equivalent process of
* govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
* govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing

If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
or accept it,
how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."

Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are against freedom. That most of them are against gay marriage makes it a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No WheelieAddict
> Are you going to say that not wanting to legislate God and Christianity through govt
> means being antiChristian and antiGod?
> 
> Just because conservatives resist govt making decisions that belong to people
> doesn't make them AGAINST those things!
> 
> the REAL conservatives and Constitutionalists want LIMITED govt
> and MAXIMUM power to the people instead of being overregulated.
> 
> As for which party is against freedom,
> the Democrats are argued as being more "antichoice"
> if they are
> AGAINST the free choice of how to pay for health care,
> AGAINST the free choice to bear arms and to interpret the law as
> recognizing right of people without requiring membership in a militia,
> AGAINST the free choice of reparative therapy and the inclusion of
> exgays and other people who believe in changing orientation.
Click to expand...

If that's what you want, vote progressive.  Republicans grow government, spend more, and rob from the poor and give tax breaks to the rich.  Republicans also want to legislate God and Christianity throughout government.

Just because Democrats/Progressives want to uphold the first amendment doesn't make them anti Christian or God.

Conservatives make decisions that impact people, mainly the poor.  They are against Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Welfare, Section 8, SNAp, etc.  They are ON RECORD for being against the programs.

Democrats do not argue about free choice to pay for health care - at no time did Obama direct it not be free choice.  In fact, quite the opposite, as the majority of the people with health insurance are paying out of their free choice.   The extreme poor (until Texas law passed) get Medicaid, IF THEY CHOOSE.   As does the middle class and upper class.  You are talking under 15 percent that utilizes the exchanges (as a half to, in lieu of alternative sources).
Democrats are not against the right to bear arms.   And even the great Idol, Scalia, says that the second amendment is not an unlimited right.  You can't have certain weapons.  If you are a felon, no weapons and so on.  I'm not aware of anyone that doesn't interpret existing law as saying MOST (not all) people have a right to bear arms.  
You need to pull your head out and read up on what really happens with conversion therapy.  The fact that you think there is such a thing as an ex-gay just demonstrates nothing more than stupidity (refusal to accept, versus simply being ignorant (uninformed)).  Sexual Orientation CANNOT change.  It can only be repressed.  You are a Christian.   Just because I tell you that you are a Catholic doesn't make you one.  Same with conversion therapy.  It's never worked, and if you knew anyone that IS GAY that has experienced Conversion therapy, they will tell you they are STILL GAY, they are repressing their sexual urges.  Sex act is not the same as sexual orientation. I'm sorry you refuse to understand it, and I'm sorry you have no friends having experienced it, but I've had friends of my daughters that have suicided after therapy.  Others have become wildly promiscuous (same sex)  Some have married opposite sex spouses, and to this day sneak around on their spouses and having sex on the down low.  Until you grasp the difference between the sex act and what sexual preference is, you should drop the subject. I can send you to Lesbian conversion therapy - and possibly you can be "converted" - that is, you might be able to have sex with another female.  Does that make you a lesbian? NO.   Will you still have sex with your opposite sex spouse?  Most definitely.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying fuck that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquies
> Oh, stop whining. I asked you a simple question which could have been answered in 2 seconds with _"yes"_ or _"no."_
> 
> WTF is wrong with you? I'm the one who suggested you spend less time here and more time with your mother.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.
> 
> I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?
> 
> Is this just your way of communicating?
> 
> If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!
> 
> If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you _thought_ you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a _"yes"_ or _"no"_ answer and neither were forthcoming from you.
> 
> Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....
> 
> Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.
> 
> That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's *but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.*
> 
> I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...
> 
> ___________________________​
> *Faun: *_do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?_
> 
> *emilynghiem: *_I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction. The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt._
> 
> ... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...
> 
> ___________________________​
> So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??
> 
> That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> Thanks for your answer but your answer is *EXACTLY* the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.
> 
> A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)
> 
> In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.
> 
> The government is not divorcing itself from marriage *precisely because of people like you* who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RE: In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> NO, I'm saying to AVOID that by either:
> A. if govt use marriage then ALL people get that
> (and I'm suggesting that to reach agreement on inclusion, to treat LGBT beliefs
> and Christian beliefs about spiritual healing prayer equally, neither imposing one while excluding the other)
> B. if people cannot agre e on that, but for example ALL agre e to civil contracts,
> then ALL people get that.
> C. as for your concern that if that were to happen and this leaves out Atheists who don't have
> a way to get married, I am saying to set it up -- by agreement BEFORE changing policies*. so if there needs to be separate CHOICE of funding for govt programs
> that deals with "social" benefits that not all people agree to the terms of, that can be done while
> setting up state alternatives to resolve ACA issues and requirements that are FACING this SAME ISSUE.
> 
> Sorry Faun if you don't like my full answer.
> I am trying to address these things in context.
> the solutions to one point (such as marriage issues) solve other problems as well (such as health care issues).
> 
> * NOTE to Faun: ACA required states alternatives to avoid penalty BEFORE setting these up. Did you complain about ACA being unconstitutional by requiring people to face fines for not choosing alternatives that weren't even allowed to be proposed to states yet much less set up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A. Already occurs - you can do all of the spiritual prayer healing on your own time, or during moments of silence.  You can't do it around me, as it violates my religious principles (first amendment violation).  Christianity isn't the only religion, there are thousands, and not all Christians believe in spiritual healing prayer.
> B.  Nothing to agree to - already the law, and the law says civil marriages are civil contracts.  Anyone that gets married utilizing a state issued marriage license has the civil contract for their civil marriage.  If you don't want a civil marriage, have your officiant NOT sign a marriage license, and exempt yourself from the civic benefits you get from your civil marriage contract.
> C.  Existing civil marriage laws cover both religious and Atheist - it already occurs.
> 
> Finally you don't get to agree/come to a consensus or directives such as the ACA - it's not YOUR JOB, it's the job of your Congress.   Sounds like it's going away.  Texas, in the next 2 weeks, is going to cut Medicaid for Autistic, Children with Down's Syndrome, and other disabled children's therapy services.  A cut of 350 Million dollars that will affect 60,000 children, and also force businesses that provide these services to fold.   So it seems you people in Texas need to clean up your own back yard before you mess with our services.  Children with these delays require constant attention that will no longer be provided, which means more parents will be unable to work.....Texas congressmen are on record as not even investigating the impacts of implementing these changes. Texas health officials testified in court in 2015 that they had not studied how the budget cuts would affect children’s access to medically necessary therapy treatments.  Not to mention your law going into effect on the 19th of this month, requiring fetal remains to be buried or cremated - unless the abortion or miscarriage happens at home.  Let's just hope you don't miscarry/spontaneously abort on your way to work, as by the new law, you are required to go to the ER and be treated - even if you are weeks along.  Your illustrious governor is requiring the hospitals to pay these expenses - which will more than likely raise your taxes.  Attorneys for the reproductive rights of women are ready to litigate, and predict this will be costly - for the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> 3. RE: ACA as long as it affects my taxes and income, it is my job to see that I am represented.
> 
> The people are supposed to be the govt, the govt is supposed to represent the people.
> If there is conflict it is up to both people inside and outside govt to fix it.
> Nobody is going to mediate and reach consensus if they don't even believe it is possible much less legally necessary.
> That is my belief, and only I can take responsibility for it, and/or for finding leaders who believe the same
> so we can work it out together.
> 
> 2. spiritual healing is an essential part of health care, and one of the keys for sustainable universal care afforded to ALL.
> 
> Sneekin if we do not research the ability of spiritual healing to cure CRIMINAL illness,
> this puts innocent people, like children killed by Andrea Yates due to sick obsession with
> demonic type voices, at risk instead of protecting them from deadly disease
> that CAN BE CURED by REMOVING the demonic type obessions and voices driving people to kill.
> 
> This spiritual healing process works on ATHEISTS. I have a friend who used it to fight off
> demons he also had, similar to the patients in Scott Peck's book Glimpses of the Devil.
> 
> The good news is we can research and prove how this process works naturally and universally
> with medical science, so it does NOT have to be imposed which doesn't work anyway.
> The only way this process works is by FREE choice because the therapy is based
> on Forgiveness which has to be chosen freely or it's false and FAILS.
> 
> You CANNOT fake healing because you cannot fake forgiveness.
> Either you are healed and free or you are SUPPRESSED like you said where it's fake.
> 
> I would say of all the things and angles we discussed,
> spiritual healing is the closest "equivalent" of wanting govt marriage.
> 
> To incorporate the CHOICE of spiritual healing into mental and medical health care
> would change the system to free up resources to save more lives and mental/physical health of people.
> 
> so it would not be "taking away" any choices but A D DING them.
> Your same reaction that it is AGAINST what you believe
> is how others are saying SIMILAR about gay marriage.
> But if we are OFFERING an equal choice, that is adding not taking away.
> 
> And you can wait until you see PROOF that it saves lives
> and decide which cases you believe are true or which are fake.
> 
> 1. If we focus on that, then there will be agreement reached on other areas as well.
> Because the same process of forgiveness that heals mind and body in spiritual healing therapy
> also heals relationships between people, so it affects all other areas of conflicts, both political or religious,
> that can then be resolved without the contention getting in the way of forming agreed solutions!
> *(And no, you aren't asked to take that on faith either, that can be proven in the same process.
> by the time we do the medical research on spiritual healing, all levels it applies to can be demonstrated with the same efforts
> it takes to prove one area. so you can see the proof it works before adapting any knowledge or understanding of this into your thinking.)
Click to expand...

You are represented. Call your congressmen.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are against freedom. That most of them are against gay marriage makes it a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No WheelieAddict
> Are you going to say that not wanting to legislate God and Christianity through govt
> means being antiChristian and antiGod?
> 
> Just because conservatives resist govt making decisions that belong to people
> doesn't make them AGAINST those things!
> 
> the REAL conservatives and Constitutionalists want LIMITED govt
> and MAXIMUM power to the people instead of being overregulated.
> 
> As for which party is against freedom,
> the Democrats are argued as being more "antichoice"
> if they are
> AGAINST the free choice of how to pay for health care,
> AGAINST the free choice to bear arms and to interpret the law as
> recognizing right of people without requiring membership in a militia,
> AGAINST the free choice of reparative therapy and the inclusion of
> exgays and other people who believe in changing orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's what you want, vote progressive.  Republicans grow government, spend more, and rob from the poor and give tax breaks to the rich.  Republicans also want to legislate God and Christianity throughout government.
> 
> Just because Democrats/Progressives want to uphold the first amendment doesn't make them anti Christian or God.
> 
> Conservatives make decisions that impact people, mainly the poor.  They are against Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Welfare, Section 8, SNAp, etc.  They are ON RECORD for being against the programs.
> 
> Democrats do not argue about free choice to pay for health care - at no time did Obama direct it not be free choice.  In fact, quite the opposite, as the majority of the people with health insurance are paying out of their free choice.   The extreme poor (until Texas law passed) get Medicaid, IF THEY CHOOSE.   As does the middle class and upper class.  You are talking under 15 percent that utilizes the exchanges (as a half to, in lieu of alternative sources).
> Democrats are not against the right to bear arms.   And even the great Idol, Scalia, says that the second amendment is not an unlimited right.  You can't have certain weapons.  If you are a felon, no weapons and so on.  I'm not aware of anyone that doesn't interpret existing law as saying MOST (not all) people have a right to bear arms.
> You need to pull your head out and read up on what really happens with conversion therapy.  The fact that you think there is such a thing as an ex-gay just demonstrates nothing more than stupidity (refusal to accept, versus simply being ignorant (uninformed)).  Sexual Orientation CANNOT change.  It can only be repressed.  You are a Christian.   Just because I tell you that you are a Catholic doesn't make you one.  Same with conversion therapy.  It's never worked, and if you knew anyone that IS GAY that has experienced Conversion therapy, they will tell you they are STILL GAY, they are repressing their sexual urges.  Sex act is not the same as sexual orientation. I'm sorry you refuse to understand it, and I'm sorry you have no friends having experienced it, but I've had friends of my daughters that have suicided after therapy.  Others have become wildly promiscuous (same sex)  Some have married opposite sex spouses, and to this day sneak around on their spouses and having sex on the down low.  Until you grasp the difference between the sex act and what sexual preference is, you should drop the subject. I can send you to Lesbian conversion therapy - and possibly you can be "converted" - that is, you might be able to have sex with another female.  Does that make you a lesbian? NO.   Will you still have sex with your opposite sex spouse?  Most definitely.
Click to expand...


^ Dear Sneekin what part of MANDATES and FINES are you saying are free choice?
the cheapest route for me to avoid being under fines/mandates I never agreed to was
to pay or owe 45 a month for membership in a Christian health shares ministry.

So basically the Federal Govt REQUIRED me to either
* pay for insurance I couldn't afford,
* register for an exchange I don't believe in (the very least intrusion on my civil liberties
being to apply for domestic abuse exception where I do consider this depriving me of my income
and exercise of my liberties without any due process to prove I committed a crime or abuse)
* or PAY to join a RELIGIOUS organization that exempts me from penalty

How is any of THAT "free choice" to pay and provide health care through charities and medical programs
I deem more cost effective and sustainable?

Sneekin I USED to have free choice without penalties,
but now I am restricted to only the choices above until state alternatives are set up.

And the CHEAPEST choice even requires JOINING A FAITH BASED GROUP
AND PAYING FOR MEMBERSHIP.

Why aren't you offended by that ^ as a VIOLATION where govt is REGULATING
exemptions based on PAID MEMBERSHIP IN APPROVED RELIGIOUS GROUPS!!!

BTW here is the DOJ definition of domestic abuse I would ask to use for an exemption:

Domestic Violence | OVW | Department of Justice

*Economic Abuse:* Is defined as making or attempting to make an individual financially dependent by maintaining total control over financial resources, *withholding one's access to money,* or forbidding one's attendance at school or employment.

I have been begging for help to get out from under MANDATES I never agreed to because these violate my beliefs and free choice without due process of laws and representation,
and equal protection of my beliefs in rights of people and states that weren't changed by an amendment to the Constitution to authorize govt to impose mandates on health care.

*If you teach law in a school where you can ask other profs or students to research this,
I would love to find a law firm or lawyer to petition to fix this mess!*


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then
> Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.
> 
> I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?
> 
> Is this just your way of communicating?
> 
> If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!
> 
> If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun
> 
> 
> 
> Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you _thought_ you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a _"yes"_ or _"no"_ answer and neither were forthcoming from you.
> 
> Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....
> 
> Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.
> 
> That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's *but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.*
> 
> I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...
> 
> ___________________________​
> *Faun: *_do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?_
> 
> *emilynghiem: *_I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction. The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt._
> 
> ... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...
> 
> ___________________________​
> So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??
> 
> That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> Thanks for your answer but your answer is *EXACTLY* the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.
> 
> A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)
> 
> In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.
> 
> The government is not divorcing itself from marriage *precisely because of people like you* who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RE: In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> NO, I'm saying to AVOID that by either:
> A. if govt use marriage then ALL people get that
> (and I'm suggesting that to reach agreement on inclusion, to treat LGBT beliefs
> and Christian beliefs about spiritual healing prayer equally, neither imposing one while excluding the other)
> B. if people cannot agre e on that, but for example ALL agre e to civil contracts,
> then ALL people get that.
> C. as for your concern that if that were to happen and this leaves out Atheists who don't have
> a way to get married, I am saying to set it up -- by agreement BEFORE changing policies*. so if there needs to be separate CHOICE of funding for govt programs
> that deals with "social" benefits that not all people agree to the terms of, that can be done while
> setting up state alternatives to resolve ACA issues and requirements that are FACING this SAME ISSUE.
> 
> Sorry Faun if you don't like my full answer.
> I am trying to address these things in context.
> the solutions to one point (such as marriage issues) solve other problems as well (such as health care issues).
> 
> * NOTE to Faun: ACA required states alternatives to avoid penalty BEFORE setting these up. Did you complain about ACA being unconstitutional by requiring people to face fines for not choosing alternatives that weren't even allowed to be proposed to states yet much less set up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A. Already occurs - you can do all of the spiritual prayer healing on your own time, or during moments of silence.  You can't do it around me, as it violates my religious principles (first amendment violation).  Christianity isn't the only religion, there are thousands, and not all Christians believe in spiritual healing prayer.
> B.  Nothing to agree to - already the law, and the law says civil marriages are civil contracts.  Anyone that gets married utilizing a state issued marriage license has the civil contract for their civil marriage.  If you don't want a civil marriage, have your officiant NOT sign a marriage license, and exempt yourself from the civic benefits you get from your civil marriage contract.
> C.  Existing civil marriage laws cover both religious and Atheist - it already occurs.
> 
> Finally you don't get to agree/come to a consensus or directives such as the ACA - it's not YOUR JOB, it's the job of your Congress.   Sounds like it's going away.  Texas, in the next 2 weeks, is going to cut Medicaid for Autistic, Children with Down's Syndrome, and other disabled children's therapy services.  A cut of 350 Million dollars that will affect 60,000 children, and also force businesses that provide these services to fold.   So it seems you people in Texas need to clean up your own back yard before you mess with our services.  Children with these delays require constant attention that will no longer be provided, which means more parents will be unable to work.....Texas congressmen are on record as not even investigating the impacts of implementing these changes. Texas health officials testified in court in 2015 that they had not studied how the budget cuts would affect children’s access to medically necessary therapy treatments.  Not to mention your law going into effect on the 19th of this month, requiring fetal remains to be buried or cremated - unless the abortion or miscarriage happens at home.  Let's just hope you don't miscarry/spontaneously abort on your way to work, as by the new law, you are required to go to the ER and be treated - even if you are weeks along.  Your illustrious governor is requiring the hospitals to pay these expenses - which will more than likely raise your taxes.  Attorneys for the reproductive rights of women are ready to litigate, and predict this will be costly - for the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> 3. RE: ACA as long as it affects my taxes and income, it is my job to see that I am represented.
> 
> The people are supposed to be the govt, the govt is supposed to represent the people.
> If there is conflict it is up to both people inside and outside govt to fix it.
> Nobody is going to mediate and reach consensus if they don't even believe it is possible much less legally necessary.
> That is my belief, and only I can take responsibility for it, and/or for finding leaders who believe the same
> so we can work it out together.
> 
> 2. spiritual healing is an essential part of health care, and one of the keys for sustainable universal care afforded to ALL.
> 
> Sneekin if we do not research the ability of spiritual healing to cure CRIMINAL illness,
> this puts innocent people, like children killed by Andrea Yates due to sick obsession with
> demonic type voices, at risk instead of protecting them from deadly disease
> that CAN BE CURED by REMOVING the demonic type obessions and voices driving people to kill.
> 
> This spiritual healing process works on ATHEISTS. I have a friend who used it to fight off
> demons he also had, similar to the patients in Scott Peck's book Glimpses of the Devil.
> 
> The good news is we can research and prove how this process works naturally and universally
> with medical science, so it does NOT have to be imposed which doesn't work anyway.
> The only way this process works is by FREE choice because the therapy is based
> on Forgiveness which has to be chosen freely or it's false and FAILS.
> 
> You CANNOT fake healing because you cannot fake forgiveness.
> Either you are healed and free or you are SUPPRESSED like you said where it's fake.
> 
> I would say of all the things and angles we discussed,
> spiritual healing is the closest "equivalent" of wanting govt marriage.
> 
> To incorporate the CHOICE of spiritual healing into mental and medical health care
> would change the system to free up resources to save more lives and mental/physical health of people.
> 
> so it would not be "taking away" any choices but A D DING them.
> Your same reaction that it is AGAINST what you believe
> is how others are saying SIMILAR about gay marriage.
> But if we are OFFERING an equal choice, that is adding not taking away.
> 
> And you can wait until you see PROOF that it saves lives
> and decide which cases you believe are true or which are fake.
> 
> 1. If we focus on that, then there will be agreement reached on other areas as well.
> Because the same process of forgiveness that heals mind and body in spiritual healing therapy
> also heals relationships between people, so it affects all other areas of conflicts, both political or religious,
> that can then be resolved without the contention getting in the way of forming agreed solutions!
> *(And no, you aren't asked to take that on faith either, that can be proven in the same process.
> by the time we do the medical research on spiritual healing, all levels it applies to can be demonstrated with the same efforts
> it takes to prove one area. so you can see the proof it works before adapting any knowledge or understanding of this into your thinking.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are represented. Call your congressmen.
Click to expand...


Yes and no. I have been trying to work with our local Congresswoman who even signed the plans
to restore our national historic Freedmen's Town district as a campus back in 1994.
http://www.campusplan.org
After holding a press conference in 2012 to save the last set of historic houses,
she also held a press conference with NAACP leaders to save them, but nothing has been done.

I asked our Democratic Precinct Chair to contact Obama and ask to visit FT as a site for
his Executive Order on Excellence in African American Education, and nothing has been done.

My hope now is to contact Ben Carsons in charge of HUD and see if he can put these plans together and lead them. People will only listen if the MEN leaders unite and stand up, they won't respect me, SJL or any other women to be in charge, so nothing has been done. Not until the men unite, or nobody takes this seriously and keeps waiting on someone else to take charge. Sneekin 

Gladys House is trying to save those last rowhouses. since she is a Black Republican
maybe she can get to Ben Carsons better than the Democrats ever got to Obama
which never happened, and he was in office for 8 years. and never got in contact.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Tennyson the passage of the Constitution was contingent on the agreement that a Bill of Rights would be added
> to define the individual rights not protected in the body of the Constitution that only defined federal powers and duties.
> 
> so you cannot have the Constitution without the Bill of Rights
> or it is like having the OT of the Bible without the NT!
> 
> In fact, the same way the Bible is summarized in 2-3 great commandments
> 1. love of God with all our heart mind and soul
> 2. love of neighbor as ourselves
> 3. love of one another as Christ Jesus loves us (ie with forgiveness and correction
> that is Restorative Justice, not judgment and punishment or retributive justice)
> 
> I would say the First Amendment summarizes the whole of the law
> that all other laws are based on
> 1. free exercise of religion as free will, equal executive power of each person
> 2. free speech and freedom of religion as equal judicial freedom of each person
> 3. free press and right to assemble as equal legislative or power of attorney of each person to authorize contracts
> and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances
> combines these as democratic due process of laws to resolve conflicts and establish agreed law and order.
> 
> All other laws come from these basic natural laws
> that are inherent in human nature as combining
> * Mind
> * Body
> * Spirit
> 
> where laws or contracts/agreements connect
> * INDIVIDUAL to
> * COLLECTIVE levels, based on the
> * RELATIONSHIP between the two.
> 
> both religious and political/civil laws attempt to define the terms of that RELATIONSHIP
> so you will see this same pattern of THREE levels
> in any system of laws, religion, philosophy or govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So....hate to tell you, but if I'm Jewish, my bible (My book of sacred writings) is just the Old Testament.  No Christianity for me.  If I'm Muslim - then it's the Qu'ran - which again doesn't have the New Testament, but most of the old testament.
> 
> The first amendment doesn't summarize the whole of law - if that were the case, we'd still have slavery, ban interracial marriages, no divorces, the list just goes on and on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I mean Sneekin
> A. is if we followed what was already in the First Amendment,
> ie free exercise of religion or free will for everyone
> [within the bounds of right of all people PEACEABLY to assemble]
> there wouldn't BE slavery or oppresion of any sort:
> All conflicts would be resolved if we practiced fre e speech
> press and right to petition to redress grievances.
> 
> B. and no I don't mean this voids the need for other laws
> like due process and equal protections, but that the SPIRIT
> of the Constitutional laws fulfills and includes those as well.
> Under free exercise, all these other laws can be cited as well
> as defenses to explain and petition for one's rights beliefs and interests to be accounted for.
> 
> so this INCLUDES citing Quran, Jewish or Christian principles, Buddhist teachings, etc.
> 
> C. As for the Bible this also INCLUDES Islam/Quran, Jewish laws,
> and all forms of natural laws. By Colossians, all authorities are governed
> under the same Lord or Law that Jesus represents as Universal JUSTICE for all.
> 
> Just because we express laws in different ways does not mean they are excluded.
> 
> They are all protected under Free exercise of religion, free choice or free will
> which is naturally self-existent as part of human nature.
> 
> And the Bible also calls for obedience and submission to civil authority
> and human institutions. So that includes respecting Constitutional law
> and equal inclusion and protection for people of all faiths under religious freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A.  Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution.  In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage.  In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage.   In some religions, slavery is allowed.  Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law.  Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
> B.  Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc.  Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church.  They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
> C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment.  I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says.   I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists).  I have no book of Colossians.  Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god.  They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said NO to all three.
> A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
> their right to petition to redress grievances.
> Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
> It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
> If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
> it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
> with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
> NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
> if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.
> 
> B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
> The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
> That is NOT what I am asking.
> 1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
> for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
> 2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
> where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage
> 
> C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
> at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!
> 
> Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
> how would you describe the equivalent process of
> * govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
> * govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing
> 
> If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
> or accept it,
> how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."
> 
> Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
> so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???
Click to expand...

A.  So then you are wrong in your claims - I can't freely exercise my religion - violation of my first amendment rights.  As some Christians will tell you, Slavery is allowed under biblical law.  So I DEMAND to have a slave, using your argument.
B.  Spiritual Healing has been ruled unconstitutional in certain situations.  The law will stay that way.  Read your case law governing Jehovah Witness and children.
C.  There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE.  There is only CIVIL MARRIAGE.  It's not a choice, it cannot be agreed to or rejected by the government, as it doesn't exist.  Your religion can refuse to do SSM or Straight marriages under the 1st amendment.

Actually, the government said licensing of only straight couples was illegal.  They didn't include gay people, they removed the existing requirement that they be opposite sex.  Different from a legal perspective. 14th amendment - equal protection and due process.

Spiritual Healing is religious and violates the 1st amendment.  If your private insurance company doesn't receive federal funds, then your company can offer spiritual healing.  If it receives government funding (Medicaid, Medicare, etc), then it would violate the 1st amendment - because you are endorsing a religion over another.  You've claimed some people don't want to pay for certain procedures - well i certainly don't want to pay for someone handling snakes, rattling beads, speaking in tongues, or any of the hundreds of other forms of spiritual healing.

You can't set up a state recognized religion, so you can't set up spiritual healing that wouldn't impose your religion on me.  This is in direct opposition to your other argument,  because there is no gay marriage and straight marriage, but simply civil marriage.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are against freedom. That most of them are against gay marriage makes it a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No WheelieAddict
> Are you going to say that not wanting to legislate God and Christianity through govt
> means being antiChristian and antiGod?
> 
> Just because conservatives resist govt making decisions that belong to people
> doesn't make them AGAINST those things!
> 
> the REAL conservatives and Constitutionalists want LIMITED govt
> and MAXIMUM power to the people instead of being overregulated.
> 
> As for which party is against freedom,
> the Democrats are argued as being more "antichoice"
> if they are
> AGAINST the free choice of how to pay for health care,
> AGAINST the free choice to bear arms and to interpret the law as
> recognizing right of people without requiring membership in a militia,
> AGAINST the free choice of reparative therapy and the inclusion of
> exgays and other people who believe in changing orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's what you want, vote progressive.  Republicans grow government, spend more, and rob from the poor and give tax breaks to the rich.  Republicans also want to legislate God and Christianity throughout government.
> 
> Just because Democrats/Progressives want to uphold the first amendment doesn't make them anti Christian or God.
> 
> Conservatives make decisions that impact people, mainly the poor.  They are against Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Welfare, Section 8, SNAp, etc.  They are ON RECORD for being against the programs.
> 
> Democrats do not argue about free choice to pay for health care - at no time did Obama direct it not be free choice.  In fact, quite the opposite, as the majority of the people with health insurance are paying out of their free choice.   The extreme poor (until Texas law passed) get Medicaid, IF THEY CHOOSE.   As does the middle class and upper class.  You are talking under 15 percent that utilizes the exchanges (as a half to, in lieu of alternative sources).
> Democrats are not against the right to bear arms.   And even the great Idol, Scalia, says that the second amendment is not an unlimited right.  You can't have certain weapons.  If you are a felon, no weapons and so on.  I'm not aware of anyone that doesn't interpret existing law as saying MOST (not all) people have a right to bear arms.
> You need to pull your head out and read up on what really happens with conversion therapy.  The fact that you think there is such a thing as an ex-gay just demonstrates nothing more than stupidity (refusal to accept, versus simply being ignorant (uninformed)).  Sexual Orientation CANNOT change.  It can only be repressed.  You are a Christian.   Just because I tell you that you are a Catholic doesn't make you one.  Same with conversion therapy.  It's never worked, and if you knew anyone that IS GAY that has experienced Conversion therapy, they will tell you they are STILL GAY, they are repressing their sexual urges.  Sex act is not the same as sexual orientation. I'm sorry you refuse to understand it, and I'm sorry you have no friends having experienced it, but I've had friends of my daughters that have suicided after therapy.  Others have become wildly promiscuous (same sex)  Some have married opposite sex spouses, and to this day sneak around on their spouses and having sex on the down low.  Until you grasp the difference between the sex act and what sexual preference is, you should drop the subject. I can send you to Lesbian conversion therapy - and possibly you can be "converted" - that is, you might be able to have sex with another female.  Does that make you a lesbian? NO.   Will you still have sex with your opposite sex spouse?  Most definitely.
Click to expand...


Yes and no about Republicans and Democrats Sneekin
1. Republicans who want to push prolife or Christian beliefs through govt
are in violation of the First Amendment and contradict themselves and the Constitution.

I can work with fellow Constitutionalists and be perfectly consistent with Christianity
but cannot impose any beliefs that violate the equal rights or protections of others,
per the Constitution.

Yes, I am a progressive Democrat so that proves your point this doesn't have to 
mean being anti God anti Christian or against prolife

2. Rejecting spiritual healing -- instead of proving it by science first so it can be
universally offered as a secular choice through science and medicine --
would count as discriminating against Christianity and God by exclusion by label or group associations,
instead of including this natural process of healing through secular science and proven research,
where it isn't relying on  forcing faith but is a free choice consistent with science and medicine.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are against freedom. That most of them are against gay marriage makes it a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No WheelieAddict
> Are you going to say that not wanting to legislate God and Christianity through govt
> means being antiChristian and antiGod?
> 
> Just because conservatives resist govt making decisions that belong to people
> doesn't make them AGAINST those things!
> 
> the REAL conservatives and Constitutionalists want LIMITED govt
> and MAXIMUM power to the people instead of being overregulated.
> 
> As for which party is against freedom,
> the Democrats are argued as being more "antichoice"
> if they are
> AGAINST the free choice of how to pay for health care,
> AGAINST the free choice to bear arms and to interpret the law as
> recognizing right of people without requiring membership in a militia,
> AGAINST the free choice of reparative therapy and the inclusion of
> exgays and other people who believe in changing orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's what you want, vote progressive.  Republicans grow government, spend more, and rob from the poor and give tax breaks to the rich.  Republicans also want to legislate God and Christianity throughout government.
> 
> Just because Democrats/Progressives want to uphold the first amendment doesn't make them anti Christian or God.
> 
> Conservatives make decisions that impact people, mainly the poor.  They are against Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Welfare, Section 8, SNAp, etc.  They are ON RECORD for being against the programs.
> 
> Democrats do not argue about free choice to pay for health care - at no time did Obama direct it not be free choice.  In fact, quite the opposite, as the majority of the people with health insurance are paying out of their free choice.   The extreme poor (until Texas law passed) get Medicaid, IF THEY CHOOSE.   As does the middle class and upper class.  You are talking under 15 percent that utilizes the exchanges (as a half to, in lieu of alternative sources).
> Democrats are not against the right to bear arms.   And even the great Idol, Scalia, says that the second amendment is not an unlimited right.  You can't have certain weapons.  If you are a felon, no weapons and so on.  I'm not aware of anyone that doesn't interpret existing law as saying MOST (not all) people have a right to bear arms.
> You need to pull your head out and read up on what really happens with conversion therapy.  The fact that you think there is such a thing as an ex-gay just demonstrates nothing more than stupidity (refusal to accept, versus simply being ignorant (uninformed)).  Sexual Orientation CANNOT change.  It can only be repressed.  You are a Christian.   Just because I tell you that you are a Catholic doesn't make you one.  Same with conversion therapy.  It's never worked, and if you knew anyone that IS GAY that has experienced Conversion therapy, they will tell you they are STILL GAY, they are repressing their sexual urges.  Sex act is not the same as sexual orientation. I'm sorry you refuse to understand it, and I'm sorry you have no friends having experienced it, but I've had friends of my daughters that have suicided after therapy.  Others have become wildly promiscuous (same sex)  Some have married opposite sex spouses, and to this day sneak around on their spouses and having sex on the down low.  Until you grasp the difference between the sex act and what sexual preference is, you should drop the subject. I can send you to Lesbian conversion therapy - and possibly you can be "converted" - that is, you might be able to have sex with another female.  Does that make you a lesbian? NO.   Will you still have sex with your opposite sex spouse?  Most definitely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^ Dear Sneekin what part of MANDATES and FINES are you saying are free choice?
> the cheapest route for me to avoid being under fines/mandates I never agreed to was
> to pay or owe 45 a month for membership in a Christian health shares ministry.
> 
> So basically the Federal Govt REQUIRED me to either
> * pay for insurance I couldn't afford,
> * register for an exchange I don't believe in (the very least intrusion on my civil liberties
> being to apply for domestic abuse exception where I do consider this depriving me of my income
> and exercise of my liberties without any due process to prove I committed a crime or abuse)
> * or PAY to join a RELIGIOUS organization that exempts me from penalty
> 
> How is any of THAT "free choice" to pay and provide health care through charities and medical programs
> I deem more cost effective and sustainable?
> 
> Sneekin I USED to have free choice without penalties,
> but now I am restricted to only the choices above until state alternatives are set up.
> 
> And the CHEAPEST choice even requires JOINING A FAITH BASED GROUP
> AND PAYING FOR MEMBERSHIP.
> 
> Why aren't you offended by that ^ as a VIOLATION where govt is REGULATING
> exemptions based on PAID MEMBERSHIP IN APPROVED RELIGIOUS GROUPS!!!
> 
> BTW here is the DOJ definition of domestic abuse I would ask to use for an exemption:
> 
> Domestic Violence | OVW | Department of Justice
> 
> *Economic Abuse:* Is defined as making or attempting to make an individual financially dependent by maintaining total control over financial resources, *withholding one's access to money,* or forbidding one's attendance at school or employment.
> 
> I have been begging for help to get out from under MANDATES I never agreed to because these violate my beliefs and free choice without due process of laws and representation,
> and equal protection of my beliefs in rights of people and states that weren't changed by an amendment to the Constitution to authorize govt to impose mandates on health care.
> 
> *If you teach law in a school where you can ask other profs or students to research this,
> I would love to find a law firm or lawyer to petition to fix this mess!*
Click to expand...

This post is offensive.   For you to belittle and ridicule domestic abuse......I hope you are never in need of any resources.   To answer your question,  you can't get an exemption from DV.   No one is withholding your money.  You could go self insured, and not costs you a cent, provided your business has the  resources to cover expenses.  
Mandate:  the authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election:  You elect people, they voted contrary to what you wanted.  I believe that falls in the too bad too sad pile.  You'll need to "drain the swamp" and get new people in from Texas.  Otherwise, it's the definition of insanity - repeating the same mistakes over and over again and expecting different results


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Ok Sneekin is this a better example:
> I believe in defending both prochoice and prolife equally.
> That makes me neither all one or all the other, but a third special case of defending both.
> 
> I believe this requires laws to be based on consensus between people of the other beliefs.
> so both are included represented and protected equally.
> Not everyone believes in this or that it is possible,
> thus all three are political beliefs by my approach.
> 
> I have a unique perspective that all abortion can be prevented 100% by free choice,
> as prolife advocates already operate completely by free choice not force of law,
> so that we CAN meet the standards of both prolife by eliminating abortion this way,
> and of free choice by not banning or punishing abortion in order to achieve the prolife goals.
> 
> (If you define prolife as only the belief that abortion should be illegal or banned,
> then you exclude me, and you call me prochoice only; but what makes me different
> is I DON'T believe prochoice can be imposed without consent of prolife or it's
> a form of discrimination for political expedience.)
> 
> One condition by which I would agree to prolife bans on abortion
> is if prochoice people AGREE to those laws by consensus.
> so consensus is the standard I support to defend beliefs
> of both prochoice and prolife, recognizing that prochoice
> can accommodate prolife inclusively but not vice versa
> unless there is a consensus on law by free choice.
> 
> I apply this same standard to beliefs on marriage as well.
> So that makes me different, with some traits of both sides,
> but without the belief that it is fair to impose one without the consent of the other.
> 
> NOTE: I honestly believe that if govt were to incorporate mediation to include
> my beliefs, this would also help protect the other two beliefs from infringement
> from each other. So that's why I push three times as hard to defend consensus
> and conflict resolution as a more Constitutionally inclusive standard; not only would
> it allow my beliefs to be exercised more freely, without constant harassment and
> threats of censorship, but it would help stop harassment and threats to people of
> the other views at the same time.
> 
> And the same system would help with all other issues like the marriage
> and gun rights issues, that people get so defensive about out of fear
> the other party will try to push their beliefs at the expense of others.


Emily - if you believe in abortion for any purpose at all, you are pro choice.   Pro-choice is constitutional.  Refusal of abortion for any reason (Pro-Life) is not constitutional..(29 words).


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Tennyson the passage of the Constitution was contingent on the agreement that a Bill of Rights would be added
> to define the individual rights not protected in the body of the Constitution that only defined federal powers and duties.
> 
> so you cannot have the Constitution without the Bill of Rights
> or it is like having the OT of the Bible without the NT!
> 
> In fact, the same way the Bible is summarized in 2-3 great commandments
> 1. love of God with all our heart mind and soul
> 2. love of neighbor as ourselves
> 3. love of one another as Christ Jesus loves us (ie with forgiveness and correction
> that is Restorative Justice, not judgment and punishment or retributive justice)
> 
> I would say the First Amendment summarizes the whole of the law
> that all other laws are based on
> 1. free exercise of religion as free will, equal executive power of each person
> 2. free speech and freedom of religion as equal judicial freedom of each person
> 3. free press and right to assemble as equal legislative or power of attorney of each person to authorize contracts
> and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances
> combines these as democratic due process of laws to resolve conflicts and establish agreed law and order.
> 
> All other laws come from these basic natural laws
> that are inherent in human nature as combining
> * Mind
> * Body
> * Spirit
> 
> where laws or contracts/agreements connect
> * INDIVIDUAL to
> * COLLECTIVE levels, based on the
> * RELATIONSHIP between the two.
> 
> both religious and political/civil laws attempt to define the terms of that RELATIONSHIP
> so you will see this same pattern of THREE levels
> in any system of laws, religion, philosophy or govt.
> 
> 
> 
> So....hate to tell you, but if I'm Jewish, my bible (My book of sacred writings) is just the Old Testament.  No Christianity for me.  If I'm Muslim - then it's the Qu'ran - which again doesn't have the New Testament, but most of the old testament.
> 
> The first amendment doesn't summarize the whole of law - if that were the case, we'd still have slavery, ban interracial marriages, no divorces, the list just goes on and on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I mean Sneekin
> A. is if we followed what was already in the First Amendment,
> ie free exercise of religion or free will for everyone
> [within the bounds of right of all people PEACEABLY to assemble]
> there wouldn't BE slavery or oppresion of any sort:
> All conflicts would be resolved if we practiced fre e speech
> press and right to petition to redress grievances.
> 
> B. and no I don't mean this voids the need for other laws
> like due process and equal protections, but that the SPIRIT
> of the Constitutional laws fulfills and includes those as well.
> Under free exercise, all these other laws can be cited as well
> as defenses to explain and petition for one's rights beliefs and interests to be accounted for.
> 
> so this INCLUDES citing Quran, Jewish or Christian principles, Buddhist teachings, etc.
> 
> C. As for the Bible this also INCLUDES Islam/Quran, Jewish laws,
> and all forms of natural laws. By Colossians, all authorities are governed
> under the same Lord or Law that Jesus represents as Universal JUSTICE for all.
> 
> Just because we express laws in different ways does not mean they are excluded.
> 
> They are all protected under Free exercise of religion, free choice or free will
> which is naturally self-existent as part of human nature.
> 
> And the Bible also calls for obedience and submission to civil authority
> and human institutions. So that includes respecting Constitutional law
> and equal inclusion and protection for people of all faiths under religious freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A.  Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution.  In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage.  In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage.   In some religions, slavery is allowed.  Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law.  Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
> B.  Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc.  Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church.  They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
> C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment.  I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says.   I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists).  I have no book of Colossians.  Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god.  They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said NO to all three.
> A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
> their right to petition to redress grievances.
> Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
> It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
> If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
> it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
> with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
> NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
> if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.
> 
> B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
> The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
> That is NOT what I am asking.
> 1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
> for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
> 2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
> where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage
> 
> C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
> at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!
> 
> Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
> how would you describe the equivalent process of
> * govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
> * govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing
> 
> If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
> or accept it,
> how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."
> 
> Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
> so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A.  So then you are wrong in your claims - I can't freely exercise my religion - violation of my first amendment rights.  As some Christians will tell you, Slavery is allowed under biblical law.  So I DEMAND to have a slave, using your argument.
> B.  Spiritual Healing has been ruled unconstitutional in certain situations.  The law will stay that way.  Read your case law governing Jehovah Witness and children.
> C.  There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE.  There is only CIVIL MARRIAGE.  It's not a choice, it cannot be agreed to or rejected by the government, as it doesn't exist.  Your religion can refuse to do SSM or Straight marriages under the 1st amendment.
> 
> Actually, the government said licensing of only straight couples was illegal.  They didn't include gay people, they removed the existing requirement that they be opposite sex.  Different from a legal perspective. 14th amendment - equal protection and due process.
> 
> Spiritual Healing is religious and violates the 1st amendment.  If your private insurance company doesn't receive federal funds, then your company can offer spiritual healing.  If it receives government funding (Medicaid, Medicare, etc), then it would violate the 1st amendment - because you are endorsing a religion over another.  You've claimed some people don't want to pay for certain procedures - well i certainly don't want to pay for someone handling snakes, rattling beads, speaking in tongues, or any of the hundreds of other forms of spiritual healing.
> 
> You can't set up a state recognized religion, so you can't set up spiritual healing that wouldn't impose your religion on me.  This is in direct opposition to your other argument,  because there is no gay marriage and straight marriage, but simply civil marriage.
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin 

1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?

In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?

In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.

You can have 
* VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
* or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.

These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.

2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.

Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?

We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
but if we live by caring for our neighbors
equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok Sneekin is this a better example:
> I believe in defending both prochoice and prolife equally.
> That makes me neither all one or all the other, but a third special case of defending both.
> 
> I believe this requires laws to be based on consensus between people of the other beliefs.
> so both are included represented and protected equally.
> Not everyone believes in this or that it is possible,
> thus all three are political beliefs by my approach.
> 
> I have a unique perspective that all abortion can be prevented 100% by free choice,
> as prolife advocates already operate completely by free choice not force of law,
> so that we CAN meet the standards of both prolife by eliminating abortion this way,
> and of free choice by not banning or punishing abortion in order to achieve the prolife goals.
> 
> (If you define prolife as only the belief that abortion should be illegal or banned,
> then you exclude me, and you call me prochoice only; but what makes me different
> is I DON'T believe prochoice can be imposed without consent of prolife or it's
> a form of discrimination for political expedience.)
> 
> One condition by which I would agree to prolife bans on abortion
> is if prochoice people AGREE to those laws by consensus.
> so consensus is the standard I support to defend beliefs
> of both prochoice and prolife, recognizing that prochoice
> can accommodate prolife inclusively but not vice versa
> unless there is a consensus on law by free choice.
> 
> I apply this same standard to beliefs on marriage as well.
> So that makes me different, with some traits of both sides,
> but without the belief that it is fair to impose one without the consent of the other.
> 
> NOTE: I honestly believe that if govt were to incorporate mediation to include
> my beliefs, this would also help protect the other two beliefs from infringement
> from each other. So that's why I push three times as hard to defend consensus
> and conflict resolution as a more Constitutionally inclusive standard; not only would
> it allow my beliefs to be exercised more freely, without constant harassment and
> threats of censorship, but it would help stop harassment and threats to people of
> the other views at the same time.
> 
> And the same system would help with all other issues like the marriage
> and gun rights issues, that people get so defensive about out of fear
> the other party will try to push their beliefs at the expense of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Makes no sense..
> 
> Now...in 50 words or less....PLEASE
> 
> How do you pass laws that are both pro-life and pro-choice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's an example rightwinger
> 
> A. What if we agree not to ban abortion but
> create a special level of law on state levels for Health and Safety
> which communities may choose to OPT INTO freely such as
> by school district, civic association for neighborhood communities, or whole cities
> if all residents happen to agree on terms.
> 
> Then people might agree that Relationship Abuse counts as a health code threat or violation
> (and also Drug abuse or addiction without Criminalizing it or penalizing it)
> and needs to be addressed by mandatory counseling by BOTH partners if a complaint is reported of abuse.
> 
> So it could be agreed upon that an act
> resulting in unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted child, unwanted abortion,
> etc. counts as Relationship Abuse and is subject to counseling to correct the problem.
> 
> so this can be applied to "ban sex that leads to unwanted abortion"
> as a form of abuse, if people agreed to terms and definitions and process.
> 
> It is not antichoice but saying in cases where abortion is not a wanted choice,
> both partners should be protected from that situation where something is being forced.
> 
> We are not banning the abortion in ways that affect the woman more than the man,
> but banning acts of coercion or abuse that otherwise would result in abortion,a
> and holding BOTH partners responsible for not abusing the relationship or sex,
> where it causes mental emotional or physical coercion or stress on one or both partners.
> 
> B. if that doesn't work I also suggest separating funding
> by taxes where prolife people can match dollars going to Planned Parenthood
> with the same amount going to the Nurturing Network which isn't affiliated with
> anything to do with abortion.
> 
> If the left wants right to health care through govt,
> why not separate two tracks and let the right have right to life through govt.
> Let both tracks fund the programs they believe in,
> and let taxpayers CHOOSE which track to fund.
> Anyone can participate in nonprofits or govt programs of both tracks,
> but just separate the taxes where people are fully and equally represented.
> 
> That is both prochoice and prolife!
Click to expand...

Wow - what you propose would be impossible to enforce.  if the female "thinks" she took her pill but forgot and conceived, you would call it abuse?  Or if the condom fails, you would call it abuse?

Nurturing network is religious based.  Planned Parenthood isn't.  Only PP can get federal funding.

Texas is already trying to allow abortion in just certain counties - it's tied up in the courts, if you remember. That example of yours won't work.

Can't have just the left getting health care through government.  Unwanted sex is called RAPE.  It's a crime
Your examples are not Prochoice And ProLife - quite the opposite.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are against freedom. That most of them are against gay marriage makes it a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No WheelieAddict
> Are you going to say that not wanting to legislate God and Christianity through govt
> means being antiChristian and antiGod?
> 
> Just because conservatives resist govt making decisions that belong to people
> doesn't make them AGAINST those things!
> 
> the REAL conservatives and Constitutionalists want LIMITED govt
> and MAXIMUM power to the people instead of being overregulated.
> 
> As for which party is against freedom,
> the Democrats are argued as being more "antichoice"
> if they are
> AGAINST the free choice of how to pay for health care,
> AGAINST the free choice to bear arms and to interpret the law as
> recognizing right of people without requiring membership in a militia,
> AGAINST the free choice of reparative therapy and the inclusion of
> exgays and other people who believe in changing orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's what you want, vote progressive.  Republicans grow government, spend more, and rob from the poor and give tax breaks to the rich.  Republicans also want to legislate God and Christianity throughout government.
> 
> Just because Democrats/Progressives want to uphold the first amendment doesn't make them anti Christian or God.
> 
> Conservatives make decisions that impact people, mainly the poor.  They are against Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Welfare, Section 8, SNAp, etc.  They are ON RECORD for being against the programs.
> 
> Democrats do not argue about free choice to pay for health care - at no time did Obama direct it not be free choice.  In fact, quite the opposite, as the majority of the people with health insurance are paying out of their free choice.   The extreme poor (until Texas law passed) get Medicaid, IF THEY CHOOSE.   As does the middle class and upper class.  You are talking under 15 percent that utilizes the exchanges (as a half to, in lieu of alternative sources).
> Democrats are not against the right to bear arms.   And even the great Idol, Scalia, says that the second amendment is not an unlimited right.  You can't have certain weapons.  If you are a felon, no weapons and so on.  I'm not aware of anyone that doesn't interpret existing law as saying MOST (not all) people have a right to bear arms.
> You need to pull your head out and read up on what really happens with conversion therapy.  The fact that you think there is such a thing as an ex-gay just demonstrates nothing more than stupidity (refusal to accept, versus simply being ignorant (uninformed)).  Sexual Orientation CANNOT change.  It can only be repressed.  You are a Christian.   Just because I tell you that you are a Catholic doesn't make you one.  Same with conversion therapy.  It's never worked, and if you knew anyone that IS GAY that has experienced Conversion therapy, they will tell you they are STILL GAY, they are repressing their sexual urges.  Sex act is not the same as sexual orientation. I'm sorry you refuse to understand it, and I'm sorry you have no friends having experienced it, but I've had friends of my daughters that have suicided after therapy.  Others have become wildly promiscuous (same sex)  Some have married opposite sex spouses, and to this day sneak around on their spouses and having sex on the down low.  Until you grasp the difference between the sex act and what sexual preference is, you should drop the subject. I can send you to Lesbian conversion therapy - and possibly you can be "converted" - that is, you might be able to have sex with another female.  Does that make you a lesbian? NO.   Will you still have sex with your opposite sex spouse?  Most definitely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^ Dear Sneekin what part of MANDATES and FINES are you saying are free choice?
> the cheapest route for me to avoid being under fines/mandates I never agreed to was
> to pay or owe 45 a month for membership in a Christian health shares ministry.
> 
> So basically the Federal Govt REQUIRED me to either
> * pay for insurance I couldn't afford,
> * register for an exchange I don't believe in (the very least intrusion on my civil liberties
> being to apply for domestic abuse exception where I do consider this depriving me of my income
> and exercise of my liberties without any due process to prove I committed a crime or abuse)
> * or PAY to join a RELIGIOUS organization that exempts me from penalty
> 
> How is any of THAT "free choice" to pay and provide health care through charities and medical programs
> I deem more cost effective and sustainable?
> 
> Sneekin I USED to have free choice without penalties,
> but now I am restricted to only the choices above until state alternatives are set up.
> 
> And the CHEAPEST choice even requires JOINING A FAITH BASED GROUP
> AND PAYING FOR MEMBERSHIP.
> 
> Why aren't you offended by that ^ as a VIOLATION where govt is REGULATING
> exemptions based on PAID MEMBERSHIP IN APPROVED RELIGIOUS GROUPS!!!
> 
> BTW here is the DOJ definition of domestic abuse I would ask to use for an exemption:
> 
> Domestic Violence | OVW | Department of Justice
> 
> *Economic Abuse:* Is defined as making or attempting to make an individual financially dependent by maintaining total control over financial resources, *withholding one's access to money,* or forbidding one's attendance at school or employment.
> 
> I have been begging for help to get out from under MANDATES I never agreed to because these violate my beliefs and free choice without due process of laws and representation,
> and equal protection of my beliefs in rights of people and states that weren't changed by an amendment to the Constitution to authorize govt to impose mandates on health care.
> 
> *If you teach law in a school where you can ask other profs or students to research this,
> I would love to find a law firm or lawyer to petition to fix this mess!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This post is offensive.   For you to belittle and ridicule domestic abuse......I hope you are never in need of any resources.   To answer your question,  you can't get an exemption from DV.   No one is withholding your money.  You could go self insured, and not costs you a cent, provided your business has the  resources to cover expenses.
> Mandate:  the authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election:  You elect people, they voted contrary to what you wanted.  I believe that falls in the too bad too sad pile.  You'll need to "drain the swamp" and get new people in from Texas.  Otherwise, it's the definition of insanity - repeating the same mistakes over and over again and expecting different results
Click to expand...


No Sneekin I did NOT EVER consent to authorize Govt to violate the Constitutional principle of liberty and rights of states and people in this manner.

Just because someone consents to marriage including SEX
does NOT GIVE the other partner FULL LICENSE to RAPE that person by forcing SEX without CONSENT.

Just because I vote for and support govt does NOT give anyone license to violate Constitutional ethics and equal protections.
You may consent to that, but not me, because I cannot afford the cost of correcting overreaches of govt.

Saying I should join the exchanges at no cost
is as offense to me as against my beliefs in Constitutional limits on govt,
as saying YOU could go get free spiritual healing or marriage
through a Christian church that is against YOUR beliefs!

So the govt mandating that I join an exchange or pay for insurance I cannot afford,
is like telling YOU to "go join a free Christian group to get help with health care,"
or worse, to PAY to join one as ACA requires me to do to get an exemption!


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying fuck that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquies
> Oh, stop whining. I asked you a simple question which could have been answered in 2 seconds with _"yes"_ or _"no."_
> 
> WTF is wrong with you? I'm the one who suggested you spend less time here and more time with your mother.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.
> 
> I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?
> 
> Is this just your way of communicating?
> 
> If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!
> 
> If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you _thought_ you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a _"yes"_ or _"no"_ answer and neither were forthcoming from you.
> 
> Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....
> 
> Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.
> 
> That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's *but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.*
> 
> I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...
> 
> ___________________________​
> *Faun: *_do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?_
> 
> *emilynghiem: *_I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction. The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt._
> 
> ... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...
> 
> ___________________________​
> So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??
> 
> That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> Thanks for your answer but your answer is *EXACTLY* the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.
> 
> A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)
> 
> In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.
> 
> The government is not divorcing itself from marriage *precisely because of people like you* who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RE: In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> NO, I'm saying to AVOID that by either:
> A. if govt use marriage then ALL people get that
> (and I'm suggesting that to reach agreement on inclusion, to treat LGBT beliefs
> and Christian beliefs about spiritual healing prayer equally, neither imposing one while excluding the other)
> B. if people cannot agre e on that, but for example ALL agre e to civil contracts,
> then ALL people get that.
> C. as for your concern that if that were to happen and this leaves out Atheists who don't have
> a way to get married, I am saying to set it up -- by agreement BEFORE changing policies*. so if there needs to be separate CHOICE of funding for govt programs
> that deals with "social" benefits that not all people agree to the terms of, that can be done while
> setting up state alternatives to resolve ACA issues and requirements that are FACING this SAME ISSUE.
> 
> Sorry Faun if you don't like my full answer.
> I am trying to address these things in context.
> the solutions to one point (such as marriage issues) solve other problems as well (such as health care issues).
> 
> * NOTE to Faun: ACA required states alternatives to avoid penalty BEFORE setting these up. Did you complain about ACA being unconstitutional by requiring people to face fines for not choosing alternatives that weren't even allowed to be proposed to states yet much less set up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A. Already occurs - you can do all of the spiritual prayer healing on your own time, or during moments of silence.  You can't do it around me, as it violates my religious principles (first amendment violation).  Christianity isn't the only religion, there are thousands, and not all Christians believe in spiritual healing prayer.
> B.  Nothing to agree to - already the law, and the law says civil marriages are civil contracts.  Anyone that gets married utilizing a state issued marriage license has the civil contract for their civil marriage.  If you don't want a civil marriage, have your officiant NOT sign a marriage license, and exempt yourself from the civic benefits you get from your civil marriage contract.
> C.  Existing civil marriage laws cover both religious and Atheist - it already occurs.
> 
> Finally you don't get to agree/come to a consensus or directives such as the ACA - it's not YOUR JOB, it's the job of your Congress.   Sounds like it's going away.  Texas, in the next 2 weeks, is going to cut Medicaid for Autistic, Children with Down's Syndrome, and other disabled children's therapy services.  A cut of 350 Million dollars that will affect 60,000 children, and also force businesses that provide these services to fold.   So it seems you people in Texas need to clean up your own back yard before you mess with our services.  Children with these delays require constant attention that will no longer be provided, which means more parents will be unable to work.....Texas congressmen are on record as not even investigating the impacts of implementing these changes. Texas health officials testified in court in 2015 that they had not studied how the budget cuts would affect children’s access to medically necessary therapy treatments.  Not to mention your law going into effect on the 19th of this month, requiring fetal remains to be buried or cremated - unless the abortion or miscarriage happens at home.  Let's just hope you don't miscarry/spontaneously abort on your way to work, as by the new law, you are required to go to the ER and be treated - even if you are weeks along.  Your illustrious governor is requiring the hospitals to pay these expenses - which will more than likely raise your taxes.  Attorneys for the reproductive rights of women are ready to litigate, and predict this will be costly - for the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> 3. RE: ACA as long as it affects my taxes and income, it is my job to see that I am represented.
> 
> The people are supposed to be the govt, the govt is supposed to represent the people.
> If there is conflict it is up to both people inside and outside govt to fix it.
> Nobody is going to mediate and reach consensus if they don't even believe it is possible much less legally necessary.
> That is my belief, and only I can take responsibility for it, and/or for finding leaders who believe the same
> so we can work it out together.
> 
> 2. spiritual healing is an essential part of health care, and one of the keys for sustainable universal care afforded to ALL.
> 
> Sneekin if we do not research the ability of spiritual healing to cure CRIMINAL illness,
> this puts innocent people, like children killed by Andrea Yates due to sick obsession with
> demonic type voices, at risk instead of protecting them from deadly disease
> that CAN BE CURED by REMOVING the demonic type obessions and voices driving people to kill.
> 
> This spiritual healing process works on ATHEISTS. I have a friend who used it to fight off
> demons he also had, similar to the patients in Scott Peck's book Glimpses of the Devil.
> 
> The good news is we can research and prove how this process works naturally and universally
> with medical science, so it does NOT have to be imposed which doesn't work anyway.
> The only way this process works is by FREE choice because the therapy is based
> on Forgiveness which has to be chosen freely or it's false and FAILS.
> 
> You CANNOT fake healing because you cannot fake forgiveness.
> Either you are healed and free or you are SUPPRESSED like you said where it's fake.
> 
> I would say of all the things and angles we discussed,
> spiritual healing is the closest "equivalent" of wanting govt marriage.
> 
> To incorporate the CHOICE of spiritual healing into mental and medical health care
> would change the system to free up resources to save more lives and mental/physical health of people.
> 
> so it would not be "taking away" any choices but A D DING them.
> Your same reaction that it is AGAINST what you believe
> is how others are saying SIMILAR about gay marriage.
> But if we are OFFERING an equal choice, that is adding not taking away.
> 
> And you can wait until you see PROOF that it saves lives
> and decide which cases you believe are true or which are fake.
> 
> 1. If we focus on that, then there will be agreement reached on other areas as well.
> Because the same process of forgiveness that heals mind and body in spiritual healing therapy
> also heals relationships between people, so it affects all other areas of conflicts, both political or religious,
> that can then be resolved without the contention getting in the way of forming agreed solutions!
> *(And no, you aren't asked to take that on faith either, that can be proven in the same process.
> by the time we do the medical research on spiritual healing, all levels it applies to can be demonstrated with the same efforts
> it takes to prove one area. so you can see the proof it works before adapting any knowledge or understanding of this into your thinking.)
Click to expand...

3.  You are represented regarding the ACA - if you failed to vote, blame yourself.
Spiritual healing violates the first amendment.  It's adding nothing, but mandating a state religion, and certainly not a religion I would choose to believe in.
1.  We have a separation of church and state - so we will never allow spiritual healing as a government funded option.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are against freedom. That most of them are against gay marriage makes it a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No WheelieAddict
> Are you going to say that not wanting to legislate God and Christianity through govt
> means being antiChristian and antiGod?
> 
> Just because conservatives resist govt making decisions that belong to people
> doesn't make them AGAINST those things!
> 
> the REAL conservatives and Constitutionalists want LIMITED govt
> and MAXIMUM power to the people instead of being overregulated.
> 
> As for which party is against freedom,
> the Democrats are argued as being more "antichoice"
> if they are
> AGAINST the free choice of how to pay for health care,
> AGAINST the free choice to bear arms and to interpret the law as
> recognizing right of people without requiring membership in a militia,
> AGAINST the free choice of reparative therapy and the inclusion of
> exgays and other people who believe in changing orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's what you want, vote progressive.  Republicans grow government, spend more, and rob from the poor and give tax breaks to the rich.  Republicans also want to legislate God and Christianity throughout government.
> 
> Just because Democrats/Progressives want to uphold the first amendment doesn't make them anti Christian or God.
> 
> Conservatives make decisions that impact people, mainly the poor.  They are against Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Welfare, Section 8, SNAp, etc.  They are ON RECORD for being against the programs.
> 
> Democrats do not argue about free choice to pay for health care - at no time did Obama direct it not be free choice.  In fact, quite the opposite, as the majority of the people with health insurance are paying out of their free choice.   The extreme poor (until Texas law passed) get Medicaid, IF THEY CHOOSE.   As does the middle class and upper class.  You are talking under 15 percent that utilizes the exchanges (as a half to, in lieu of alternative sources).
> Democrats are not against the right to bear arms.   And even the great Idol, Scalia, says that the second amendment is not an unlimited right.  You can't have certain weapons.  If you are a felon, no weapons and so on.  I'm not aware of anyone that doesn't interpret existing law as saying MOST (not all) people have a right to bear arms.
> You need to pull your head out and read up on what really happens with conversion therapy.  The fact that you think there is such a thing as an ex-gay just demonstrates nothing more than stupidity (refusal to accept, versus simply being ignorant (uninformed)).  Sexual Orientation CANNOT change.  It can only be repressed.  You are a Christian.   Just because I tell you that you are a Catholic doesn't make you one.  Same with conversion therapy.  It's never worked, and if you knew anyone that IS GAY that has experienced Conversion therapy, they will tell you they are STILL GAY, they are repressing their sexual urges.  Sex act is not the same as sexual orientation. I'm sorry you refuse to understand it, and I'm sorry you have no friends having experienced it, but I've had friends of my daughters that have suicided after therapy.  Others have become wildly promiscuous (same sex)  Some have married opposite sex spouses, and to this day sneak around on their spouses and having sex on the down low.  Until you grasp the difference between the sex act and what sexual preference is, you should drop the subject. I can send you to Lesbian conversion therapy - and possibly you can be "converted" - that is, you might be able to have sex with another female.  Does that make you a lesbian? NO.   Will you still have sex with your opposite sex spouse?  Most definitely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and no about Republicans and Democrats Sneekin
> 1. Republicans who want to push prolife or Christian beliefs through govt
> are in violation of the First Amendment and contradict themselves and the Constitution.
> 
> I can work with fellow Constitutionalists and be perfectly consistent with Christianity
> but cannot impose any beliefs that violate the equal rights or protections of others,
> per the Constitution.
> 
> Yes, I am a progressive Democrat so that proves your point this doesn't have to
> mean being anti God anti Christian or against prolife
> 
> 2. Rejecting spiritual healing -- instead of proving it by science first so it can be
> universally offered as a secular choice through science and medicine --
> would count as discriminating against Christianity and God by exclusion by label or group associations,
> instead of including this natural process of healing through secular science and proven research,
> where it isn't relying on  forcing faith but is a free choice consistent with science and medicine.
Click to expand...

Sorry, not the way our constitution or our laws work (statement 2).


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok Sneekin is this a better example:
> I believe in defending both prochoice and prolife equally.
> That makes me neither all one or all the other, but a third special case of defending both.
> 
> I believe this requires laws to be based on consensus between people of the other beliefs.
> so both are included represented and protected equally.
> Not everyone believes in this or that it is possible,
> thus all three are political beliefs by my approach.
> 
> I have a unique perspective that all abortion can be prevented 100% by free choice,
> as prolife advocates already operate completely by free choice not force of law,
> so that we CAN meet the standards of both prolife by eliminating abortion this way,
> and of free choice by not banning or punishing abortion in order to achieve the prolife goals.
> 
> (If you define prolife as only the belief that abortion should be illegal or banned,
> then you exclude me, and you call me prochoice only; but what makes me different
> is I DON'T believe prochoice can be imposed without consent of prolife or it's
> a form of discrimination for political expedience.)
> 
> One condition by which I would agree to prolife bans on abortion
> is if prochoice people AGREE to those laws by consensus.
> so consensus is the standard I support to defend beliefs
> of both prochoice and prolife, recognizing that prochoice
> can accommodate prolife inclusively but not vice versa
> unless there is a consensus on law by free choice.
> 
> I apply this same standard to beliefs on marriage as well.
> So that makes me different, with some traits of both sides,
> but without the belief that it is fair to impose one without the consent of the other.
> 
> NOTE: I honestly believe that if govt were to incorporate mediation to include
> my beliefs, this would also help protect the other two beliefs from infringement
> from each other. So that's why I push three times as hard to defend consensus
> and conflict resolution as a more Constitutionally inclusive standard; not only would
> it allow my beliefs to be exercised more freely, without constant harassment and
> threats of censorship, but it would help stop harassment and threats to people of
> the other views at the same time.
> 
> And the same system would help with all other issues like the marriage
> and gun rights issues, that people get so defensive about out of fear
> the other party will try to push their beliefs at the expense of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Makes no sense..
> 
> Now...in 50 words or less....PLEASE
> 
> How do you pass laws that are both pro-life and pro-choice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's an example rightwinger
> 
> A. What if we agree not to ban abortion but
> create a special level of law on state levels for Health and Safety
> which communities may choose to OPT INTO freely such as
> by school district, civic association for neighborhood communities, or whole cities
> if all residents happen to agree on terms.
> 
> Then people might agree that Relationship Abuse counts as a health code threat or violation
> (and also Drug abuse or addiction without Criminalizing it or penalizing it)
> and needs to be addressed by mandatory counseling by BOTH partners if a complaint is reported of abuse.
> 
> So it could be agreed upon that an act
> resulting in unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted child, unwanted abortion,
> etc. counts as Relationship Abuse and is subject to counseling to correct the problem.
> 
> so this can be applied to "ban sex that leads to unwanted abortion"
> as a form of abuse, if people agreed to terms and definitions and process.
> 
> It is not antichoice but saying in cases where abortion is not a wanted choice,
> both partners should be protected from that situation where something is being forced.
> 
> We are not banning the abortion in ways that affect the woman more than the man,
> but banning acts of coercion or abuse that otherwise would result in abortion,a
> and holding BOTH partners responsible for not abusing the relationship or sex,
> where it causes mental emotional or physical coercion or stress on one or both partners.
> 
> B. if that doesn't work I also suggest separating funding
> by taxes where prolife people can match dollars going to Planned Parenthood
> with the same amount going to the Nurturing Network which isn't affiliated with
> anything to do with abortion.
> 
> If the left wants right to health care through govt,
> why not separate two tracks and let the right have right to life through govt.
> Let both tracks fund the programs they believe in,
> and let taxpayers CHOOSE which track to fund.
> Anyone can participate in nonprofits or govt programs of both tracks,
> but just separate the taxes where people are fully and equally represented.
> 
> That is both prochoice and prolife!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow - what you propose would be impossible to enforce.  if the female "thinks" she took her pill but forgot and conceived, you would call it abuse?  Or if the condom fails, you would call it abuse?
> 
> Nurturing network is religious based.  Planned Parenthood isn't.  Only PP can get federal funding.
> 
> Texas is already trying to allow abortion in just certain counties - it's tied up in the courts, if you remember. That example of yours won't work.
> 
> Can't have just the left getting health care through government.  Unwanted sex is called RAPE.  It's a crime
> Your examples are not Prochoice And ProLife - quite the opposite.
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin 

1. It depends on what terms people would agree to.
And I would make it Optional for people to adopt some form of this policy instead of trying to ban abortions after 
sex or pregnancy has already occurred.  I think there is greater chance of consensus there, then after the fact.

And yes I would offer the IDEA of expanding statutory or a lesser degree of RAPE
to apply to coercion to start addressing abortion prevention at the point where men are equally responsible for
the decision to have sex if pregnancy, children or abortion are not wanted.

2. Nurturing Network is nonprofit and so is Planned Parenthood.
If people argue one or the other is biased at least they are equal choices.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then
> Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.
> 
> I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?
> 
> Is this just your way of communicating?
> 
> If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!
> 
> If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun
> 
> 
> 
> Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you _thought_ you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a _"yes"_ or _"no"_ answer and neither were forthcoming from you.
> 
> Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....
> 
> Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.
> 
> That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's *but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.*
> 
> I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...
> 
> ___________________________​
> *Faun: *_do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?_
> 
> *emilynghiem: *_I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction. The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt._
> 
> ... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...
> 
> ___________________________​
> So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??
> 
> That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> Thanks for your answer but your answer is *EXACTLY* the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.
> 
> A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)
> 
> In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.
> 
> The government is not divorcing itself from marriage *precisely because of people like you* who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RE: In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> NO, I'm saying to AVOID that by either:
> A. if govt use marriage then ALL people get that
> (and I'm suggesting that to reach agreement on inclusion, to treat LGBT beliefs
> and Christian beliefs about spiritual healing prayer equally, neither imposing one while excluding the other)
> B. if people cannot agre e on that, but for example ALL agre e to civil contracts,
> then ALL people get that.
> C. as for your concern that if that were to happen and this leaves out Atheists who don't have
> a way to get married, I am saying to set it up -- by agreement BEFORE changing policies*. so if there needs to be separate CHOICE of funding for govt programs
> that deals with "social" benefits that not all people agree to the terms of, that can be done while
> setting up state alternatives to resolve ACA issues and requirements that are FACING this SAME ISSUE.
> 
> Sorry Faun if you don't like my full answer.
> I am trying to address these things in context.
> the solutions to one point (such as marriage issues) solve other problems as well (such as health care issues).
> 
> * NOTE to Faun: ACA required states alternatives to avoid penalty BEFORE setting these up. Did you complain about ACA being unconstitutional by requiring people to face fines for not choosing alternatives that weren't even allowed to be proposed to states yet much less set up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A. Already occurs - you can do all of the spiritual prayer healing on your own time, or during moments of silence.  You can't do it around me, as it violates my religious principles (first amendment violation).  Christianity isn't the only religion, there are thousands, and not all Christians believe in spiritual healing prayer.
> B.  Nothing to agree to - already the law, and the law says civil marriages are civil contracts.  Anyone that gets married utilizing a state issued marriage license has the civil contract for their civil marriage.  If you don't want a civil marriage, have your officiant NOT sign a marriage license, and exempt yourself from the civic benefits you get from your civil marriage contract.
> C.  Existing civil marriage laws cover both religious and Atheist - it already occurs.
> 
> Finally you don't get to agree/come to a consensus or directives such as the ACA - it's not YOUR JOB, it's the job of your Congress.   Sounds like it's going away.  Texas, in the next 2 weeks, is going to cut Medicaid for Autistic, Children with Down's Syndrome, and other disabled children's therapy services.  A cut of 350 Million dollars that will affect 60,000 children, and also force businesses that provide these services to fold.   So it seems you people in Texas need to clean up your own back yard before you mess with our services.  Children with these delays require constant attention that will no longer be provided, which means more parents will be unable to work.....Texas congressmen are on record as not even investigating the impacts of implementing these changes. Texas health officials testified in court in 2015 that they had not studied how the budget cuts would affect children’s access to medically necessary therapy treatments.  Not to mention your law going into effect on the 19th of this month, requiring fetal remains to be buried or cremated - unless the abortion or miscarriage happens at home.  Let's just hope you don't miscarry/spontaneously abort on your way to work, as by the new law, you are required to go to the ER and be treated - even if you are weeks along.  Your illustrious governor is requiring the hospitals to pay these expenses - which will more than likely raise your taxes.  Attorneys for the reproductive rights of women are ready to litigate, and predict this will be costly - for the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> 3. RE: ACA as long as it affects my taxes and income, it is my job to see that I am represented.
> 
> The people are supposed to be the govt, the govt is supposed to represent the people.
> If there is conflict it is up to both people inside and outside govt to fix it.
> Nobody is going to mediate and reach consensus if they don't even believe it is possible much less legally necessary.
> That is my belief, and only I can take responsibility for it, and/or for finding leaders who believe the same
> so we can work it out together.
> 
> 2. spiritual healing is an essential part of health care, and one of the keys for sustainable universal care afforded to ALL.
> 
> Sneekin if we do not research the ability of spiritual healing to cure CRIMINAL illness,
> this puts innocent people, like children killed by Andrea Yates due to sick obsession with
> demonic type voices, at risk instead of protecting them from deadly disease
> that CAN BE CURED by REMOVING the demonic type obessions and voices driving people to kill.
> 
> This spiritual healing process works on ATHEISTS. I have a friend who used it to fight off
> demons he also had, similar to the patients in Scott Peck's book Glimpses of the Devil.
> 
> The good news is we can research and prove how this process works naturally and universally
> with medical science, so it does NOT have to be imposed which doesn't work anyway.
> The only way this process works is by FREE choice because the therapy is based
> on Forgiveness which has to be chosen freely or it's false and FAILS.
> 
> You CANNOT fake healing because you cannot fake forgiveness.
> Either you are healed and free or you are SUPPRESSED like you said where it's fake.
> 
> I would say of all the things and angles we discussed,
> spiritual healing is the closest "equivalent" of wanting govt marriage.
> 
> To incorporate the CHOICE of spiritual healing into mental and medical health care
> would change the system to free up resources to save more lives and mental/physical health of people.
> 
> so it would not be "taking away" any choices but A D DING them.
> Your same reaction that it is AGAINST what you believe
> is how others are saying SIMILAR about gay marriage.
> But if we are OFFERING an equal choice, that is adding not taking away.
> 
> And you can wait until you see PROOF that it saves lives
> and decide which cases you believe are true or which are fake.
> 
> 1. If we focus on that, then there will be agreement reached on other areas as well.
> Because the same process of forgiveness that heals mind and body in spiritual healing therapy
> also heals relationships between people, so it affects all other areas of conflicts, both political or religious,
> that can then be resolved without the contention getting in the way of forming agreed solutions!
> *(And no, you aren't asked to take that on faith either, that can be proven in the same process.
> by the time we do the medical research on spiritual healing, all levels it applies to can be demonstrated with the same efforts
> it takes to prove one area. so you can see the proof it works before adapting any knowledge or understanding of this into your thinking.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3.  You are represented regarding the ACA - if you failed to vote, blame yourself.
> Spiritual healing violates the first amendment.  It's adding nothing, but mandating a state religion, and certainly not a religion I would choose to believe in.
> 1.  We have a separation of church and state - so we will never allow spiritual healing as a government funded option.
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin
I didn't get to vote on ACA.
That's part of the complaint.

The option I believe in is offering both tracks,
so since nobody is offering to write this I may have to do it myself!

If you teach law, can I work with your students or fellow profs
to try to write a revised clause to make the two versions equal
options for taxpayers to sign up for on their tax forms?

If you can assess or even estimate the cost of this work
to consult and write up a proposed revision to the tax code
I would like to present the proposed project, including  how much in grants would be needed to fund it, to a couple of student groups in law and policy in Houston
collaborating already on drug reforms, and see if this can be done at the same time.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are against freedom. That most of them are against gay marriage makes it a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No WheelieAddict
> Are you going to say that not wanting to legislate God and Christianity through govt
> means being antiChristian and antiGod?
> 
> Just because conservatives resist govt making decisions that belong to people
> doesn't make them AGAINST those things!
> 
> the REAL conservatives and Constitutionalists want LIMITED govt
> and MAXIMUM power to the people instead of being overregulated.
> 
> As for which party is against freedom,
> the Democrats are argued as being more "antichoice"
> if they are
> AGAINST the free choice of how to pay for health care,
> AGAINST the free choice to bear arms and to interpret the law as
> recognizing right of people without requiring membership in a militia,
> AGAINST the free choice of reparative therapy and the inclusion of
> exgays and other people who believe in changing orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's what you want, vote progressive.  Republicans grow government, spend more, and rob from the poor and give tax breaks to the rich.  Republicans also want to legislate God and Christianity throughout government.
> 
> Just because Democrats/Progressives want to uphold the first amendment doesn't make them anti Christian or God.
> 
> Conservatives make decisions that impact people, mainly the poor.  They are against Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Welfare, Section 8, SNAp, etc.  They are ON RECORD for being against the programs.
> 
> Democrats do not argue about free choice to pay for health care - at no time did Obama direct it not be free choice.  In fact, quite the opposite, as the majority of the people with health insurance are paying out of their free choice.   The extreme poor (until Texas law passed) get Medicaid, IF THEY CHOOSE.   As does the middle class and upper class.  You are talking under 15 percent that utilizes the exchanges (as a half to, in lieu of alternative sources).
> Democrats are not against the right to bear arms.   And even the great Idol, Scalia, says that the second amendment is not an unlimited right.  You can't have certain weapons.  If you are a felon, no weapons and so on.  I'm not aware of anyone that doesn't interpret existing law as saying MOST (not all) people have a right to bear arms.
> You need to pull your head out and read up on what really happens with conversion therapy.  The fact that you think there is such a thing as an ex-gay just demonstrates nothing more than stupidity (refusal to accept, versus simply being ignorant (uninformed)).  Sexual Orientation CANNOT change.  It can only be repressed.  You are a Christian.   Just because I tell you that you are a Catholic doesn't make you one.  Same with conversion therapy.  It's never worked, and if you knew anyone that IS GAY that has experienced Conversion therapy, they will tell you they are STILL GAY, they are repressing their sexual urges.  Sex act is not the same as sexual orientation. I'm sorry you refuse to understand it, and I'm sorry you have no friends having experienced it, but I've had friends of my daughters that have suicided after therapy.  Others have become wildly promiscuous (same sex)  Some have married opposite sex spouses, and to this day sneak around on their spouses and having sex on the down low.  Until you grasp the difference between the sex act and what sexual preference is, you should drop the subject. I can send you to Lesbian conversion therapy - and possibly you can be "converted" - that is, you might be able to have sex with another female.  Does that make you a lesbian? NO.   Will you still have sex with your opposite sex spouse?  Most definitely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^ Dear Sneekin what part of MANDATES and FINES are you saying are free choice?
> the cheapest route for me to avoid being under fines/mandates I never agreed to was
> to pay or owe 45 a month for membership in a Christian health shares ministry.
> 
> So basically the Federal Govt REQUIRED me to either
> * pay for insurance I couldn't afford,
> * register for an exchange I don't believe in (the very least intrusion on my civil liberties
> being to apply for domestic abuse exception where I do consider this depriving me of my income
> and exercise of my liberties without any due process to prove I committed a crime or abuse)
> * or PAY to join a RELIGIOUS organization that exempts me from penalty
> 
> How is any of THAT "free choice" to pay and provide health care through charities and medical programs
> I deem more cost effective and sustainable?
> 
> Sneekin I USED to have free choice without penalties,
> but now I am restricted to only the choices above until state alternatives are set up.
> 
> And the CHEAPEST choice even requires JOINING A FAITH BASED GROUP
> AND PAYING FOR MEMBERSHIP.
> 
> Why aren't you offended by that ^ as a VIOLATION where govt is REGULATING
> exemptions based on PAID MEMBERSHIP IN APPROVED RELIGIOUS GROUPS!!!
> 
> BTW here is the DOJ definition of domestic abuse I would ask to use for an exemption:
> 
> Domestic Violence | OVW | Department of Justice
> 
> *Economic Abuse:* Is defined as making or attempting to make an individual financially dependent by maintaining total control over financial resources, *withholding one's access to money,* or forbidding one's attendance at school or employment.
> 
> I have been begging for help to get out from under MANDATES I never agreed to because these violate my beliefs and free choice without due process of laws and representation,
> and equal protection of my beliefs in rights of people and states that weren't changed by an amendment to the Constitution to authorize govt to impose mandates on health care.
> 
> *If you teach law in a school where you can ask other profs or students to research this,
> I would love to find a law firm or lawyer to petition to fix this mess!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This post is offensive.   For you to belittle and ridicule domestic abuse......I hope you are never in need of any resources.   To answer your question,  you can't get an exemption from DV.   No one is withholding your money.  You could go self insured, and not costs you a cent, provided your business has the  resources to cover expenses.
> Mandate:  the authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election:  You elect people, they voted contrary to what you wanted.  I believe that falls in the too bad too sad pile.  You'll need to "drain the swamp" and get new people in from Texas.  Otherwise, it's the definition of insanity - repeating the same mistakes over and over again and expecting different results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Sneekin I did NOT EVER consent to authorize Govt to violate the Constitutional principle of liberty and rights of states and people in this manner.
> 
> Just because someone consents to marriage including SEX
> does NOT GIVE the other partner FULL LICENSE to RAPE that person by forcing SEX without CONSENT.
> 
> Just because I vote for and support govt does NOT give anyone license to violate Constitutional ethics and equal protections.
> You may consent to that, but not me, because I cannot afford the cost of correcting overreaches of govt.
> 
> Saying I should join the exchanges at no cost
> is as offense to me as against my beliefs in Constitutional limits on govt,
> as saying YOU could go get free spiritual healing or marriage
> through a Christian church that is against YOUR beliefs!
> 
> So the govt mandating that I join an exchange or pay for insurance I cannot afford,
> is like telling YOU to "go join a free Christian group to get help with health care,"
> or worse, to PAY to join one as ACA requires me to do to get an exemption!
Click to expand...

Yes, you did consent to authorize - I went online and checked, and the state of Texas was represented in the PP/ACA voting by congress.   In our form of government, YOU don't have a separate vote on these matters, you have people you elected to office that vote.  I believe they voted against the PP/ACA (I know Cruz did).  So, they heard your vote, and you were OUTVOTED.

Rape is non-consensual.  Of course it's not the same as sex - it's a violent act where the rapist acts to control the victim, not to perform a sex act.

I didn't say you should join the exchanges.  Actually, I said you COULD join a private self funded program through work, which is totally opposite of what you are claiming.  If you have insurance through work, there's no reason to go through the exchanges.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you _thought_ you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a _"yes"_ or _"no"_ answer and neither were forthcoming from you.
> 
> Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....
> 
> Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.
> 
> That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's *but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.*
> 
> I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...
> 
> ___________________________​
> *Faun: *_do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?_
> 
> *emilynghiem: *_I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction. The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt._
> 
> ... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...
> 
> ___________________________​
> So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??
> 
> That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> Thanks for your answer but your answer is *EXACTLY* the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.
> 
> A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)
> 
> In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.
> 
> The government is not divorcing itself from marriage *precisely because of people like you* who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RE: In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> NO, I'm saying to AVOID that by either:
> A. if govt use marriage then ALL people get that
> (and I'm suggesting that to reach agreement on inclusion, to treat LGBT beliefs
> and Christian beliefs about spiritual healing prayer equally, neither imposing one while excluding the other)
> B. if people cannot agre e on that, but for example ALL agre e to civil contracts,
> then ALL people get that.
> C. as for your concern that if that were to happen and this leaves out Atheists who don't have
> a way to get married, I am saying to set it up -- by agreement BEFORE changing policies*. so if there needs to be separate CHOICE of funding for govt programs
> that deals with "social" benefits that not all people agree to the terms of, that can be done while
> setting up state alternatives to resolve ACA issues and requirements that are FACING this SAME ISSUE.
> 
> Sorry Faun if you don't like my full answer.
> I am trying to address these things in context.
> the solutions to one point (such as marriage issues) solve other problems as well (such as health care issues).
> 
> * NOTE to Faun: ACA required states alternatives to avoid penalty BEFORE setting these up. Did you complain about ACA being unconstitutional by requiring people to face fines for not choosing alternatives that weren't even allowed to be proposed to states yet much less set up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A. Already occurs - you can do all of the spiritual prayer healing on your own time, or during moments of silence.  You can't do it around me, as it violates my religious principles (first amendment violation).  Christianity isn't the only religion, there are thousands, and not all Christians believe in spiritual healing prayer.
> B.  Nothing to agree to - already the law, and the law says civil marriages are civil contracts.  Anyone that gets married utilizing a state issued marriage license has the civil contract for their civil marriage.  If you don't want a civil marriage, have your officiant NOT sign a marriage license, and exempt yourself from the civic benefits you get from your civil marriage contract.
> C.  Existing civil marriage laws cover both religious and Atheist - it already occurs.
> 
> Finally you don't get to agree/come to a consensus or directives such as the ACA - it's not YOUR JOB, it's the job of your Congress.   Sounds like it's going away.  Texas, in the next 2 weeks, is going to cut Medicaid for Autistic, Children with Down's Syndrome, and other disabled children's therapy services.  A cut of 350 Million dollars that will affect 60,000 children, and also force businesses that provide these services to fold.   So it seems you people in Texas need to clean up your own back yard before you mess with our services.  Children with these delays require constant attention that will no longer be provided, which means more parents will be unable to work.....Texas congressmen are on record as not even investigating the impacts of implementing these changes. Texas health officials testified in court in 2015 that they had not studied how the budget cuts would affect children’s access to medically necessary therapy treatments.  Not to mention your law going into effect on the 19th of this month, requiring fetal remains to be buried or cremated - unless the abortion or miscarriage happens at home.  Let's just hope you don't miscarry/spontaneously abort on your way to work, as by the new law, you are required to go to the ER and be treated - even if you are weeks along.  Your illustrious governor is requiring the hospitals to pay these expenses - which will more than likely raise your taxes.  Attorneys for the reproductive rights of women are ready to litigate, and predict this will be costly - for the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> 3. RE: ACA as long as it affects my taxes and income, it is my job to see that I am represented.
> 
> The people are supposed to be the govt, the govt is supposed to represent the people.
> If there is conflict it is up to both people inside and outside govt to fix it.
> Nobody is going to mediate and reach consensus if they don't even believe it is possible much less legally necessary.
> That is my belief, and only I can take responsibility for it, and/or for finding leaders who believe the same
> so we can work it out together.
> 
> 2. spiritual healing is an essential part of health care, and one of the keys for sustainable universal care afforded to ALL.
> 
> Sneekin if we do not research the ability of spiritual healing to cure CRIMINAL illness,
> this puts innocent people, like children killed by Andrea Yates due to sick obsession with
> demonic type voices, at risk instead of protecting them from deadly disease
> that CAN BE CURED by REMOVING the demonic type obessions and voices driving people to kill.
> 
> This spiritual healing process works on ATHEISTS. I have a friend who used it to fight off
> demons he also had, similar to the patients in Scott Peck's book Glimpses of the Devil.
> 
> The good news is we can research and prove how this process works naturally and universally
> with medical science, so it does NOT have to be imposed which doesn't work anyway.
> The only way this process works is by FREE choice because the therapy is based
> on Forgiveness which has to be chosen freely or it's false and FAILS.
> 
> You CANNOT fake healing because you cannot fake forgiveness.
> Either you are healed and free or you are SUPPRESSED like you said where it's fake.
> 
> I would say of all the things and angles we discussed,
> spiritual healing is the closest "equivalent" of wanting govt marriage.
> 
> To incorporate the CHOICE of spiritual healing into mental and medical health care
> would change the system to free up resources to save more lives and mental/physical health of people.
> 
> so it would not be "taking away" any choices but A D DING them.
> Your same reaction that it is AGAINST what you believe
> is how others are saying SIMILAR about gay marriage.
> But if we are OFFERING an equal choice, that is adding not taking away.
> 
> And you can wait until you see PROOF that it saves lives
> and decide which cases you believe are true or which are fake.
> 
> 1. If we focus on that, then there will be agreement reached on other areas as well.
> Because the same process of forgiveness that heals mind and body in spiritual healing therapy
> also heals relationships between people, so it affects all other areas of conflicts, both political or religious,
> that can then be resolved without the contention getting in the way of forming agreed solutions!
> *(And no, you aren't asked to take that on faith either, that can be proven in the same process.
> by the time we do the medical research on spiritual healing, all levels it applies to can be demonstrated with the same efforts
> it takes to prove one area. so you can see the proof it works before adapting any knowledge or understanding of this into your thinking.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3.  You are represented regarding the ACA - if you failed to vote, blame yourself.
> Spiritual healing violates the first amendment.  It's adding nothing, but mandating a state religion, and certainly not a religion I would choose to believe in.
> 1.  We have a separation of church and state - so we will never allow spiritual healing as a government funded option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> I didn't get to vote on ACA.
> That's part of the complaint.
> 
> The option I believe in is offering both tracks,
> so since nobody is offering to write this I may have to do it myself!
> 
> If you teach law, can I work with your students or fellow profs
> to try to write a revised clause to make the two versions equal
> options for taxpayers to sign up for on their tax forms?
> 
> If you can assess or even estimate the cost of this work
> to consult and write up a proposed revision to the tax code
> I would like to present the proposed project, including  how much in grants would be needed to fund it, to a couple of student groups in law and policy in Houston
> collaborating already on drug reforms, and see if this can be done at the same time.
Click to expand...

You voted for your elected official, who voted against the PP/ACA. Under our form of government, we don't vote on these federal laws. Sorry.


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok Sneekin is this a better example:
> I believe in defending both prochoice and prolife equally.
> That makes me neither all one or all the other, but a third special case of defending both.
> 
> I believe this requires laws to be based on consensus between people of the other beliefs.
> so both are included represented and protected equally.
> Not everyone believes in this or that it is possible,
> thus all three are political beliefs by my approach.
> 
> I have a unique perspective that all abortion can be prevented 100% by free choice,
> as prolife advocates already operate completely by free choice not force of law,
> so that we CAN meet the standards of both prolife by eliminating abortion this way,
> and of free choice by not banning or punishing abortion in order to achieve the prolife goals.
> 
> (If you define prolife as only the belief that abortion should be illegal or banned,
> then you exclude me, and you call me prochoice only; but what makes me different
> is I DON'T believe prochoice can be imposed without consent of prolife or it's
> a form of discrimination for political expedience.)
> 
> One condition by which I would agree to prolife bans on abortion
> is if prochoice people AGREE to those laws by consensus.
> so consensus is the standard I support to defend beliefs
> of both prochoice and prolife, recognizing that prochoice
> can accommodate prolife inclusively but not vice versa
> unless there is a consensus on law by free choice.
> 
> I apply this same standard to beliefs on marriage as well.
> So that makes me different, with some traits of both sides,
> but without the belief that it is fair to impose one without the consent of the other.
> 
> NOTE: I honestly believe that if govt were to incorporate mediation to include
> my beliefs, this would also help protect the other two beliefs from infringement
> from each other. So that's why I push three times as hard to defend consensus
> and conflict resolution as a more Constitutionally inclusive standard; not only would
> it allow my beliefs to be exercised more freely, without constant harassment and
> threats of censorship, but it would help stop harassment and threats to people of
> the other views at the same time.
> 
> And the same system would help with all other issues like the marriage
> and gun rights issues, that people get so defensive about out of fear
> the other party will try to push their beliefs at the expense of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Makes no sense..
> 
> Now...in 50 words or less....PLEASE
> 
> How do you pass laws that are both pro-life and pro-choice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's an example rightwinger
> 
> A. What if we agree not to ban abortion but
> create a special level of law on state levels for Health and Safety
> which communities may choose to OPT INTO freely such as
> by school district, civic association for neighborhood communities, or whole cities
> if all residents happen to agree on terms.
> 
> Then people might agree that Relationship Abuse counts as a health code threat or violation
> (and also Drug abuse or addiction without Criminalizing it or penalizing it)
> and needs to be addressed by mandatory counseling by BOTH partners if a complaint is reported of abuse.
> 
> So it could be agreed upon that an act
> resulting in unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted child, unwanted abortion,
> etc. counts as Relationship Abuse and is subject to counseling to correct the problem.
> 
> so this can be applied to "ban sex that leads to unwanted abortion"
> as a form of abuse, if people agreed to terms and definitions and process.
> 
> It is not antichoice but saying in cases where abortion is not a wanted choice,
> both partners should be protected from that situation where something is being forced.
> 
> We are not banning the abortion in ways that affect the woman more than the man,
> but banning acts of coercion or abuse that otherwise would result in abortion,a
> and holding BOTH partners responsible for not abusing the relationship or sex,
> where it causes mental emotional or physical coercion or stress on one or both partners.
> 
> B. if that doesn't work I also suggest separating funding
> by taxes where prolife people can match dollars going to Planned Parenthood
> with the same amount going to the Nurturing Network which isn't affiliated with
> anything to do with abortion.
> 
> If the left wants right to health care through govt,
> why not separate two tracks and let the right have right to life through govt.
> Let both tracks fund the programs they believe in,
> and let taxpayers CHOOSE which track to fund.
> Anyone can participate in nonprofits or govt programs of both tracks,
> but just separate the taxes where people are fully and equally represented.
> 
> That is both prochoice and prolife!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 300 words and you still didn't answer a simple question. Let me rephrase...
> 
> The problem with abortion is there can be no consensus. There is no middle ground. Dividing up communities into smaller and smaller segments will still not reach the consensus you desire. If you can't get consensus on abortion in families how can you get it by town?
> 
> Those who want to ban abortion want it banned for EVERYONE
> How do you reconcile that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered that if you bothered to read it rightwinger
> Go BACK and R-E-A-D, here is the summary but the explanation is LONGER (see previous answer):
> 1. one OPTION is to set up health and safety policies
> where RELATIONSHIP ABUSE can be targeted
> for prevention in order to stop abortion without banning the abortion directly
> 
> 2. another is to SEPARATE funding where the prolife
> are not endorsing abortion through their taxes or involvement in the same govt,
> but have a separate system they fund that is prolife
> 
> *Who said answers to COMPLEX problems have to be answered in 50 words or less?
> Where did you get that would ever work?
> No wonder you don't believe in consensus because you restrict speech to 500 or 50?
> Sorry rightwinger but the answers are not that simple as you want!
> 
> The First Amendment is 45 words.
> And look how many Applications and Explanations it takes
> to apply that to actual real life issues!!!
> 
> (Now that's fine if you have this belief answers have to fit in 50 words.
> but don't blame your beliefs on me when I believe in free speech,
> not restricting speech to terms I NEVER agreed to meet
> then get mad when I don't meet them!)*
Click to expand...



I asked a simple question...and No Emily you did not answer

I answered that if you bothered to read it rightwinger
Go BACK and R-E-A-D, here is the summary but the explanation is LONGER (see previous answer):
1. one OPTION is to set up health and safety policies
where RELATIONSHIP ABUSE can be targeted
for prevention in order to stop abortion without banning the abortion directly

*Abortion is a womans decision. It can be for "relationship abuse", family planning, financial difficulty or any other reason a woman chooses. How do you stop abortion without banning it?*

2. another is to SEPARATE funding where the prolife
are not endorsing abortion through their taxes or involvement in the same govt,
but have a separate system they fund that is prolife

*Prolife people have already blocked taxpayer funding..whether you support abortion or not...They will not be satisfied until ALL abortion is illegal. There is no middle ground....no place to compromise*


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> NO, I'm saying to AVOID that by either:
> A. if govt use marriage then ALL people get that
> (and I'm suggesting that to reach agreement on inclusion, to treat LGBT beliefs
> and Christian beliefs about spiritual healing prayer equally, neither imposing one while excluding the other)
> B. if people cannot agre e on that, but for example ALL agre e to civil contracts,
> then ALL people get that.
> C. as for your concern that if that were to happen and this leaves out Atheists who don't have
> a way to get married, I am saying to set it up -- by agreement BEFORE changing policies*. so if there needs to be separate CHOICE of funding for govt programs
> that deals with "social" benefits that not all people agree to the terms of, that can be done while
> setting up state alternatives to resolve ACA issues and requirements that are FACING this SAME ISSUE.
> 
> Sorry Faun if you don't like my full answer.
> I am trying to address these things in context.
> the solutions to one point (such as marriage issues) solve other problems as well (such as health care issues).
> 
> * NOTE to Faun: ACA required states alternatives to avoid penalty BEFORE setting these up. Did you complain about ACA being unconstitutional by requiring people to face fines for not choosing alternatives that weren't even allowed to be proposed to states yet much less set up?
> 
> 
> 
> A. Already occurs - you can do all of the spiritual prayer healing on your own time, or during moments of silence.  You can't do it around me, as it violates my religious principles (first amendment violation).  Christianity isn't the only religion, there are thousands, and not all Christians believe in spiritual healing prayer.
> B.  Nothing to agree to - already the law, and the law says civil marriages are civil contracts.  Anyone that gets married utilizing a state issued marriage license has the civil contract for their civil marriage.  If you don't want a civil marriage, have your officiant NOT sign a marriage license, and exempt yourself from the civic benefits you get from your civil marriage contract.
> C.  Existing civil marriage laws cover both religious and Atheist - it already occurs.
> 
> Finally you don't get to agree/come to a consensus or directives such as the ACA - it's not YOUR JOB, it's the job of your Congress.   Sounds like it's going away.  Texas, in the next 2 weeks, is going to cut Medicaid for Autistic, Children with Down's Syndrome, and other disabled children's therapy services.  A cut of 350 Million dollars that will affect 60,000 children, and also force businesses that provide these services to fold.   So it seems you people in Texas need to clean up your own back yard before you mess with our services.  Children with these delays require constant attention that will no longer be provided, which means more parents will be unable to work.....Texas congressmen are on record as not even investigating the impacts of implementing these changes. Texas health officials testified in court in 2015 that they had not studied how the budget cuts would affect children’s access to medically necessary therapy treatments.  Not to mention your law going into effect on the 19th of this month, requiring fetal remains to be buried or cremated - unless the abortion or miscarriage happens at home.  Let's just hope you don't miscarry/spontaneously abort on your way to work, as by the new law, you are required to go to the ER and be treated - even if you are weeks along.  Your illustrious governor is requiring the hospitals to pay these expenses - which will more than likely raise your taxes.  Attorneys for the reproductive rights of women are ready to litigate, and predict this will be costly - for the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> 3. RE: ACA as long as it affects my taxes and income, it is my job to see that I am represented.
> 
> The people are supposed to be the govt, the govt is supposed to represent the people.
> If there is conflict it is up to both people inside and outside govt to fix it.
> Nobody is going to mediate and reach consensus if they don't even believe it is possible much less legally necessary.
> That is my belief, and only I can take responsibility for it, and/or for finding leaders who believe the same
> so we can work it out together.
> 
> 2. spiritual healing is an essential part of health care, and one of the keys for sustainable universal care afforded to ALL.
> 
> Sneekin if we do not research the ability of spiritual healing to cure CRIMINAL illness,
> this puts innocent people, like children killed by Andrea Yates due to sick obsession with
> demonic type voices, at risk instead of protecting them from deadly disease
> that CAN BE CURED by REMOVING the demonic type obessions and voices driving people to kill.
> 
> This spiritual healing process works on ATHEISTS. I have a friend who used it to fight off
> demons he also had, similar to the patients in Scott Peck's book Glimpses of the Devil.
> 
> The good news is we can research and prove how this process works naturally and universally
> with medical science, so it does NOT have to be imposed which doesn't work anyway.
> The only way this process works is by FREE choice because the therapy is based
> on Forgiveness which has to be chosen freely or it's false and FAILS.
> 
> You CANNOT fake healing because you cannot fake forgiveness.
> Either you are healed and free or you are SUPPRESSED like you said where it's fake.
> 
> I would say of all the things and angles we discussed,
> spiritual healing is the closest "equivalent" of wanting govt marriage.
> 
> To incorporate the CHOICE of spiritual healing into mental and medical health care
> would change the system to free up resources to save more lives and mental/physical health of people.
> 
> so it would not be "taking away" any choices but A D DING them.
> Your same reaction that it is AGAINST what you believe
> is how others are saying SIMILAR about gay marriage.
> But if we are OFFERING an equal choice, that is adding not taking away.
> 
> And you can wait until you see PROOF that it saves lives
> and decide which cases you believe are true or which are fake.
> 
> 1. If we focus on that, then there will be agreement reached on other areas as well.
> Because the same process of forgiveness that heals mind and body in spiritual healing therapy
> also heals relationships between people, so it affects all other areas of conflicts, both political or religious,
> that can then be resolved without the contention getting in the way of forming agreed solutions!
> *(And no, you aren't asked to take that on faith either, that can be proven in the same process.
> by the time we do the medical research on spiritual healing, all levels it applies to can be demonstrated with the same efforts
> it takes to prove one area. so you can see the proof it works before adapting any knowledge or understanding of this into your thinking.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3.  You are represented regarding the ACA - if you failed to vote, blame yourself.
> Spiritual healing violates the first amendment.  It's adding nothing, but mandating a state religion, and certainly not a religion I would choose to believe in.
> 1.  We have a separation of church and state - so we will never allow spiritual healing as a government funded option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> I didn't get to vote on ACA.
> That's part of the complaint.
> 
> The option I believe in is offering both tracks,
> so since nobody is offering to write this I may have to do it myself!
> 
> If you teach law, can I work with your students or fellow profs
> to try to write a revised clause to make the two versions equal
> options for taxpayers to sign up for on their tax forms?
> 
> If you can assess or even estimate the cost of this work
> to consult and write up a proposed revision to the tax code
> I would like to present the proposed project, including  how much in grants would be needed to fund it, to a couple of student groups in law and policy in Houston
> collaborating already on drug reforms, and see if this can be done at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You voted for your elected official, who voted against the PP/ACA. Under our form of government, we don't vote on these federal laws. Sorry.
Click to expand...


that's right Sneekin 
and if you look at the VOTES split in Congress
these were divided by PARTY.

so if the Democrats who BELIEVE in right to health care as
a political BELIEF or RELIGION were treated equally
as Christians imposing right to life against free choice,
this would not have passed as Constitutional.

It would be recognized as an overreach in establishing
 a biased belief that violates the beliefs and freedom of others!

I argue to treat right to health care imposition against free choice
DIFFERENTLY from right to life imposition against free chioce
is DISCRIMINATION BY CREED.

The same way I would reject faith based right to life imposed on people through govt,
I treat secular faith based beliefs in right to health care the same way,
and argue this should remain FREE CHOICE of people,
NOT IMPOSED BY FEDERAL GOVT under mandates, penalty and fines!


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok Sneekin is this a better example:
> I believe in defending both prochoice and prolife equally.
> That makes me neither all one or all the other, but a third special case of defending both.
> 
> I believe this requires laws to be based on consensus between people of the other beliefs.
> so both are included represented and protected equally.
> Not everyone believes in this or that it is possible,
> thus all three are political beliefs by my approach.
> 
> I have a unique perspective that all abortion can be prevented 100% by free choice,
> as prolife advocates already operate completely by free choice not force of law,
> so that we CAN meet the standards of both prolife by eliminating abortion this way,
> and of free choice by not banning or punishing abortion in order to achieve the prolife goals.
> 
> (If you define prolife as only the belief that abortion should be illegal or banned,
> then you exclude me, and you call me prochoice only; but what makes me different
> is I DON'T believe prochoice can be imposed without consent of prolife or it's
> a form of discrimination for political expedience.)
> 
> One condition by which I would agree to prolife bans on abortion
> is if prochoice people AGREE to those laws by consensus.
> so consensus is the standard I support to defend beliefs
> of both prochoice and prolife, recognizing that prochoice
> can accommodate prolife inclusively but not vice versa
> unless there is a consensus on law by free choice.
> 
> I apply this same standard to beliefs on marriage as well.
> So that makes me different, with some traits of both sides,
> but without the belief that it is fair to impose one without the consent of the other.
> 
> NOTE: I honestly believe that if govt were to incorporate mediation to include
> my beliefs, this would also help protect the other two beliefs from infringement
> from each other. So that's why I push three times as hard to defend consensus
> and conflict resolution as a more Constitutionally inclusive standard; not only would
> it allow my beliefs to be exercised more freely, without constant harassment and
> threats of censorship, but it would help stop harassment and threats to people of
> the other views at the same time.
> 
> And the same system would help with all other issues like the marriage
> and gun rights issues, that people get so defensive about out of fear
> the other party will try to push their beliefs at the expense of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Makes no sense..
> 
> Now...in 50 words or less....PLEASE
> 
> How do you pass laws that are both pro-life and pro-choice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's an example rightwinger
> 
> A. What if we agree not to ban abortion but
> create a special level of law on state levels for Health and Safety
> which communities may choose to OPT INTO freely such as
> by school district, civic association for neighborhood communities, or whole cities
> if all residents happen to agree on terms.
> 
> Then people might agree that Relationship Abuse counts as a health code threat or violation
> (and also Drug abuse or addiction without Criminalizing it or penalizing it)
> and needs to be addressed by mandatory counseling by BOTH partners if a complaint is reported of abuse.
> 
> So it could be agreed upon that an act
> resulting in unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted child, unwanted abortion,
> etc. counts as Relationship Abuse and is subject to counseling to correct the problem.
> 
> so this can be applied to "ban sex that leads to unwanted abortion"
> as a form of abuse, if people agreed to terms and definitions and process.
> 
> It is not antichoice but saying in cases where abortion is not a wanted choice,
> both partners should be protected from that situation where something is being forced.
> 
> We are not banning the abortion in ways that affect the woman more than the man,
> but banning acts of coercion or abuse that otherwise would result in abortion,a
> and holding BOTH partners responsible for not abusing the relationship or sex,
> where it causes mental emotional or physical coercion or stress on one or both partners.
> 
> B. if that doesn't work I also suggest separating funding
> by taxes where prolife people can match dollars going to Planned Parenthood
> with the same amount going to the Nurturing Network which isn't affiliated with
> anything to do with abortion.
> 
> If the left wants right to health care through govt,
> why not separate two tracks and let the right have right to life through govt.
> Let both tracks fund the programs they believe in,
> and let taxpayers CHOOSE which track to fund.
> Anyone can participate in nonprofits or govt programs of both tracks,
> but just separate the taxes where people are fully and equally represented.
> 
> That is both prochoice and prolife!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 300 words and you still didn't answer a simple question. Let me rephrase...
> 
> The problem with abortion is there can be no consensus. There is no middle ground. Dividing up communities into smaller and smaller segments will still not reach the consensus you desire. If you can't get consensus on abortion in families how can you get it by town?
> 
> Those who want to ban abortion want it banned for EVERYONE
> How do you reconcile that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered that if you bothered to read it rightwinger
> Go BACK and R-E-A-D, here is the summary but the explanation is LONGER (see previous answer):
> 1. one OPTION is to set up health and safety policies
> where RELATIONSHIP ABUSE can be targeted
> for prevention in order to stop abortion without banning the abortion directly
> 
> 2. another is to SEPARATE funding where the prolife
> are not endorsing abortion through their taxes or involvement in the same govt,
> but have a separate system they fund that is prolife
> 
> *Who said answers to COMPLEX problems have to be answered in 50 words or less?
> Where did you get that would ever work?
> No wonder you don't believe in consensus because you restrict speech to 500 or 50?
> Sorry rightwinger but the answers are not that simple as you want!
> 
> The First Amendment is 45 words.
> And look how many Applications and Explanations it takes
> to apply that to actual real life issues!!!
> 
> (Now that's fine if you have this belief answers have to fit in 50 words.
> but don't blame your beliefs on me when I believe in free speech,
> not restricting speech to terms I NEVER agreed to meet
> then get mad when I don't meet them!)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I asked a simple question...and No Emily you did not answer
> 
> I answered that if you bothered to read it rightwinger
> Go BACK and R-E-A-D, here is the summary but the explanation is LONGER (see previous answer):
> 1. one OPTION is to set up health and safety policies
> where RELATIONSHIP ABUSE can be targeted
> for prevention in order to stop abortion without banning the abortion directly
> 
> *Abortion is a womans decision. It can be for "relationship abuse", family planning, financial difficulty or any other reason a woman chooses. How do you stop abortion without banning it?*
> 
> 2. another is to SEPARATE funding where the prolife
> are not endorsing abortion through their taxes or involvement in the same govt,
> but have a separate system they fund that is prolife
> 
> *Prolife people have already blocked taxpayer funding..whether you support abortion or not...They will not be satisfied until ALL abortion is illegal. There is no middle ground....no place to compromise*
Click to expand...


Dear rightwinger

1. I am saying that all sex that leads to abortion can
be counted as relationship abuse.

That is one way to go after it indirectly.
Stop the abuse of sex and relationships across the board,
and indirectly this would eliminate abortion.

2. separate health care tracks into
* right to health care / prochoice/anti death penalty
* right to life/ no abortion or drugs or euthanasia/ no ACA mandates

And the right to life people will be so happy to have a separate track that
doesn't have gay marriage or abortion, they would agree to separate.

Whatever you THINK would prevent consensus, find out
what they want or don't want and agree to add those conditions on to fix several at once.

If people absolutely religiously believe in no abortion and no gay marriage,
sure, they have full right to fund their own programs that don't have these things
they don't believe in. I totally support them in separating,
or if they cannot, in totally integrating the choice of spiritual healing into health care
programs if that would solve the problem easier!
Give them what they want and believe in, and the right answers will get a YES


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok Sneekin is this a better example:
> I believe in defending both prochoice and prolife equally.
> That makes me neither all one or all the other, but a third special case of defending both.
> 
> I believe this requires laws to be based on consensus between people of the other beliefs.
> so both are included represented and protected equally.
> Not everyone believes in this or that it is possible,
> thus all three are political beliefs by my approach.
> 
> I have a unique perspective that all abortion can be prevented 100% by free choice,
> as prolife advocates already operate completely by free choice not force of law,
> so that we CAN meet the standards of both prolife by eliminating abortion this way,
> and of free choice by not banning or punishing abortion in order to achieve the prolife goals.
> 
> (If you define prolife as only the belief that abortion should be illegal or banned,
> then you exclude me, and you call me prochoice only; but what makes me different
> is I DON'T believe prochoice can be imposed without consent of prolife or it's
> a form of discrimination for political expedience.)
> 
> One condition by which I would agree to prolife bans on abortion
> is if prochoice people AGREE to those laws by consensus.
> so consensus is the standard I support to defend beliefs
> of both prochoice and prolife, recognizing that prochoice
> can accommodate prolife inclusively but not vice versa
> unless there is a consensus on law by free choice.
> 
> I apply this same standard to beliefs on marriage as well.
> So that makes me different, with some traits of both sides,
> but without the belief that it is fair to impose one without the consent of the other.
> 
> NOTE: I honestly believe that if govt were to incorporate mediation to include
> my beliefs, this would also help protect the other two beliefs from infringement
> from each other. So that's why I push three times as hard to defend consensus
> and conflict resolution as a more Constitutionally inclusive standard; not only would
> it allow my beliefs to be exercised more freely, without constant harassment and
> threats of censorship, but it would help stop harassment and threats to people of
> the other views at the same time.
> 
> And the same system would help with all other issues like the marriage
> and gun rights issues, that people get so defensive about out of fear
> the other party will try to push their beliefs at the expense of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Makes no sense..
> 
> Now...in 50 words or less....PLEASE
> 
> How do you pass laws that are both pro-life and pro-choice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's an example rightwinger
> 
> A. What if we agree not to ban abortion but
> create a special level of law on state levels for Health and Safety
> which communities may choose to OPT INTO freely such as
> by school district, civic association for neighborhood communities, or whole cities
> if all residents happen to agree on terms.
> 
> Then people might agree that Relationship Abuse counts as a health code threat or violation
> (and also Drug abuse or addiction without Criminalizing it or penalizing it)
> and needs to be addressed by mandatory counseling by BOTH partners if a complaint is reported of abuse.
> 
> So it could be agreed upon that an act
> resulting in unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted child, unwanted abortion,
> etc. counts as Relationship Abuse and is subject to counseling to correct the problem.
> 
> so this can be applied to "ban sex that leads to unwanted abortion"
> as a form of abuse, if people agreed to terms and definitions and process.
> 
> It is not antichoice but saying in cases where abortion is not a wanted choice,
> both partners should be protected from that situation where something is being forced.
> 
> We are not banning the abortion in ways that affect the woman more than the man,
> but banning acts of coercion or abuse that otherwise would result in abortion,a
> and holding BOTH partners responsible for not abusing the relationship or sex,
> where it causes mental emotional or physical coercion or stress on one or both partners.
> 
> B. if that doesn't work I also suggest separating funding
> by taxes where prolife people can match dollars going to Planned Parenthood
> with the same amount going to the Nurturing Network which isn't affiliated with
> anything to do with abortion.
> 
> If the left wants right to health care through govt,
> why not separate two tracks and let the right have right to life through govt.
> Let both tracks fund the programs they believe in,
> and let taxpayers CHOOSE which track to fund.
> Anyone can participate in nonprofits or govt programs of both tracks,
> but just separate the taxes where people are fully and equally represented.
> 
> That is both prochoice and prolife!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow - what you propose would be impossible to enforce.  if the female "thinks" she took her pill but forgot and conceived, you would call it abuse?  Or if the condom fails, you would call it abuse?
> 
> Nurturing network is religious based.  Planned Parenthood isn't.  Only PP can get federal funding.
> 
> Texas is already trying to allow abortion in just certain counties - it's tied up in the courts, if you remember. That example of yours won't work.
> 
> Can't have just the left getting health care through government.  Unwanted sex is called RAPE.  It's a crime
> Your examples are not Prochoice And ProLife - quite the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> 1. It depends on what terms people would agree to.
> And I would make it Optional for people to adopt some form of this policy instead of trying to ban abortions after
> sex or pregnancy has already occurred.  I think there is greater chance of consensus there, then after the fact.
> 
> And yes I would offer the IDEA of expanding statutory or a lesser degree of RAPE
> to apply to coercion to start addressing abortion prevention at the point where men are equally responsible for
> the decision to have sex if pregnancy, children or abortion are not wanted.
> 
> 2. Nurturing Network is nonprofit and so is Planned Parenthood.
> If people argue one or the other is biased at least they are equal choices.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you need someone to lobby for Nurturing Network then.   It does say it's anti-abortion, so it's right on the line of political/religious.   You don't get to vote where your taxes go, you need to write your congressmen to have part of the money appropriated to NN instead of PP, or additional funding for NN.  

Coercion to have sex that results in pregnancy is either a rape or not a rape; not a lesser version of rape.  Again - Sexual Assault laws are on the books.  Have your state enforce the laws.  Unless we sterilize men and women at birth (which of course is unconstitutional), how are you going to hold someone equally responsible?  What if the pill doesn't work/forgot to take it/condom broke/condom sabotaged and so on?   What if he wants the pregnancy to continue and she doesn't?  What if he doesn't and she does?  She carries the fetus, not him.  If my 17 year old child is student teaching a 19 year old high school student, the law is specific - the 17 year old is in a position of power, and guilty of rape.   In various states, laws vary by the age gap between the consenting parties.  Where are the parents?   We need existing laws enforced - no expansion of laws.   Statutory rape is what it is, and should always be enforced.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> A. Already occurs - you can do all of the spiritual prayer healing on your own time, or during moments of silence.  You can't do it around me, as it violates my religious principles (first amendment violation).  Christianity isn't the only religion, there are thousands, and not all Christians believe in spiritual healing prayer.
> B.  Nothing to agree to - already the law, and the law says civil marriages are civil contracts.  Anyone that gets married utilizing a state issued marriage license has the civil contract for their civil marriage.  If you don't want a civil marriage, have your officiant NOT sign a marriage license, and exempt yourself from the civic benefits you get from your civil marriage contract.
> C.  Existing civil marriage laws cover both religious and Atheist - it already occurs.
> 
> Finally you don't get to agree/come to a consensus or directives such as the ACA - it's not YOUR JOB, it's the job of your Congress.   Sounds like it's going away.  Texas, in the next 2 weeks, is going to cut Medicaid for Autistic, Children with Down's Syndrome, and other disabled children's therapy services.  A cut of 350 Million dollars that will affect 60,000 children, and also force businesses that provide these services to fold.   So it seems you people in Texas need to clean up your own back yard before you mess with our services.  Children with these delays require constant attention that will no longer be provided, which means more parents will be unable to work.....Texas congressmen are on record as not even investigating the impacts of implementing these changes. Texas health officials testified in court in 2015 that they had not studied how the budget cuts would affect children’s access to medically necessary therapy treatments.  Not to mention your law going into effect on the 19th of this month, requiring fetal remains to be buried or cremated - unless the abortion or miscarriage happens at home.  Let's just hope you don't miscarry/spontaneously abort on your way to work, as by the new law, you are required to go to the ER and be treated - even if you are weeks along.  Your illustrious governor is requiring the hospitals to pay these expenses - which will more than likely raise your taxes.  Attorneys for the reproductive rights of women are ready to litigate, and predict this will be costly - for the state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> 3. RE: ACA as long as it affects my taxes and income, it is my job to see that I am represented.
> 
> The people are supposed to be the govt, the govt is supposed to represent the people.
> If there is conflict it is up to both people inside and outside govt to fix it.
> Nobody is going to mediate and reach consensus if they don't even believe it is possible much less legally necessary.
> That is my belief, and only I can take responsibility for it, and/or for finding leaders who believe the same
> so we can work it out together.
> 
> 2. spiritual healing is an essential part of health care, and one of the keys for sustainable universal care afforded to ALL.
> 
> Sneekin if we do not research the ability of spiritual healing to cure CRIMINAL illness,
> this puts innocent people, like children killed by Andrea Yates due to sick obsession with
> demonic type voices, at risk instead of protecting them from deadly disease
> that CAN BE CURED by REMOVING the demonic type obessions and voices driving people to kill.
> 
> This spiritual healing process works on ATHEISTS. I have a friend who used it to fight off
> demons he also had, similar to the patients in Scott Peck's book Glimpses of the Devil.
> 
> The good news is we can research and prove how this process works naturally and universally
> with medical science, so it does NOT have to be imposed which doesn't work anyway.
> The only way this process works is by FREE choice because the therapy is based
> on Forgiveness which has to be chosen freely or it's false and FAILS.
> 
> You CANNOT fake healing because you cannot fake forgiveness.
> Either you are healed and free or you are SUPPRESSED like you said where it's fake.
> 
> I would say of all the things and angles we discussed,
> spiritual healing is the closest "equivalent" of wanting govt marriage.
> 
> To incorporate the CHOICE of spiritual healing into mental and medical health care
> would change the system to free up resources to save more lives and mental/physical health of people.
> 
> so it would not be "taking away" any choices but A D DING them.
> Your same reaction that it is AGAINST what you believe
> is how others are saying SIMILAR about gay marriage.
> But if we are OFFERING an equal choice, that is adding not taking away.
> 
> And you can wait until you see PROOF that it saves lives
> and decide which cases you believe are true or which are fake.
> 
> 1. If we focus on that, then there will be agreement reached on other areas as well.
> Because the same process of forgiveness that heals mind and body in spiritual healing therapy
> also heals relationships between people, so it affects all other areas of conflicts, both political or religious,
> that can then be resolved without the contention getting in the way of forming agreed solutions!
> *(And no, you aren't asked to take that on faith either, that can be proven in the same process.
> by the time we do the medical research on spiritual healing, all levels it applies to can be demonstrated with the same efforts
> it takes to prove one area. so you can see the proof it works before adapting any knowledge or understanding of this into your thinking.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3.  You are represented regarding the ACA - if you failed to vote, blame yourself.
> Spiritual healing violates the first amendment.  It's adding nothing, but mandating a state religion, and certainly not a religion I would choose to believe in.
> 1.  We have a separation of church and state - so we will never allow spiritual healing as a government funded option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> I didn't get to vote on ACA.
> That's part of the complaint.
> 
> The option I believe in is offering both tracks,
> so since nobody is offering to write this I may have to do it myself!
> 
> If you teach law, can I work with your students or fellow profs
> to try to write a revised clause to make the two versions equal
> options for taxpayers to sign up for on their tax forms?
> 
> If you can assess or even estimate the cost of this work
> to consult and write up a proposed revision to the tax code
> I would like to present the proposed project, including  how much in grants would be needed to fund it, to a couple of student groups in law and policy in Houston
> collaborating already on drug reforms, and see if this can be done at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You voted for your elected official, who voted against the PP/ACA. Under our form of government, we don't vote on these federal laws. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's right Sneekin
> and if you look at the VOTES split in Congress
> these were divided by PARTY.
> 
> so if the Democrats who BELIEVE in right to health care as
> a political BELIEF or RELIGION were treated equally
> as Christians imposing right to life against free choice,
> this would not have passed as Constitutional.
> 
> It would be recognized as an overreach in establishing
> a biased belief that violates the beliefs and freedom of others!
> 
> I argue to treat right to health care imposition against free choice
> DIFFERENTLY from right to life imposition against free chioce
> is DISCRIMINATION BY CREED.
> 
> The same way I would reject faith based right to life imposed on people through govt,
> I treat secular faith based beliefs in right to health care the same way,
> and argue this should remain FREE CHOICE of people,
> NOT IMPOSED BY FEDERAL GOVT under mandates, penalty and fines!
Click to expand...

But yet, your own state politicians voted it down........by a majority.   You aren't familiar with the way the government works.   Please go on line and check it out.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Makes no sense..
> 
> Now...in 50 words or less....PLEASE
> 
> How do you pass laws that are both pro-life and pro-choice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an example rightwinger
> 
> A. What if we agree not to ban abortion but
> create a special level of law on state levels for Health and Safety
> which communities may choose to OPT INTO freely such as
> by school district, civic association for neighborhood communities, or whole cities
> if all residents happen to agree on terms.
> 
> Then people might agree that Relationship Abuse counts as a health code threat or violation
> (and also Drug abuse or addiction without Criminalizing it or penalizing it)
> and needs to be addressed by mandatory counseling by BOTH partners if a complaint is reported of abuse.
> 
> So it could be agreed upon that an act
> resulting in unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted child, unwanted abortion,
> etc. counts as Relationship Abuse and is subject to counseling to correct the problem.
> 
> so this can be applied to "ban sex that leads to unwanted abortion"
> as a form of abuse, if people agreed to terms and definitions and process.
> 
> It is not antichoice but saying in cases where abortion is not a wanted choice,
> both partners should be protected from that situation where something is being forced.
> 
> We are not banning the abortion in ways that affect the woman more than the man,
> but banning acts of coercion or abuse that otherwise would result in abortion,a
> and holding BOTH partners responsible for not abusing the relationship or sex,
> where it causes mental emotional or physical coercion or stress on one or both partners.
> 
> B. if that doesn't work I also suggest separating funding
> by taxes where prolife people can match dollars going to Planned Parenthood
> with the same amount going to the Nurturing Network which isn't affiliated with
> anything to do with abortion.
> 
> If the left wants right to health care through govt,
> why not separate two tracks and let the right have right to life through govt.
> Let both tracks fund the programs they believe in,
> and let taxpayers CHOOSE which track to fund.
> Anyone can participate in nonprofits or govt programs of both tracks,
> but just separate the taxes where people are fully and equally represented.
> 
> That is both prochoice and prolife!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 300 words and you still didn't answer a simple question. Let me rephrase...
> 
> The problem with abortion is there can be no consensus. There is no middle ground. Dividing up communities into smaller and smaller segments will still not reach the consensus you desire. If you can't get consensus on abortion in families how can you get it by town?
> 
> Those who want to ban abortion want it banned for EVERYONE
> How do you reconcile that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered that if you bothered to read it rightwinger
> Go BACK and R-E-A-D, here is the summary but the explanation is LONGER (see previous answer):
> 1. one OPTION is to set up health and safety policies
> where RELATIONSHIP ABUSE can be targeted
> for prevention in order to stop abortion without banning the abortion directly
> 
> 2. another is to SEPARATE funding where the prolife
> are not endorsing abortion through their taxes or involvement in the same govt,
> but have a separate system they fund that is prolife
> 
> *Who said answers to COMPLEX problems have to be answered in 50 words or less?
> Where did you get that would ever work?
> No wonder you don't believe in consensus because you restrict speech to 500 or 50?
> Sorry rightwinger but the answers are not that simple as you want!
> 
> The First Amendment is 45 words.
> And look how many Applications and Explanations it takes
> to apply that to actual real life issues!!!
> 
> (Now that's fine if you have this belief answers have to fit in 50 words.
> but don't blame your beliefs on me when I believe in free speech,
> not restricting speech to terms I NEVER agreed to meet
> then get mad when I don't meet them!)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I asked a simple question...and No Emily you did not answer
> 
> I answered that if you bothered to read it rightwinger
> Go BACK and R-E-A-D, here is the summary but the explanation is LONGER (see previous answer):
> 1. one OPTION is to set up health and safety policies
> where RELATIONSHIP ABUSE can be targeted
> for prevention in order to stop abortion without banning the abortion directly
> 
> *Abortion is a womans decision. It can be for "relationship abuse", family planning, financial difficulty or any other reason a woman chooses. How do you stop abortion without banning it?*
> 
> 2. another is to SEPARATE funding where the prolife
> are not endorsing abortion through their taxes or involvement in the same govt,
> but have a separate system they fund that is prolife
> 
> *Prolife people have already blocked taxpayer funding..whether you support abortion or not...They will not be satisfied until ALL abortion is illegal. There is no middle ground....no place to compromise*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> 
> 1. I am saying that all sex that leads to abortion can
> be counted as relationship abuse.
> 
> That is one way to go after it indirectly.
> Stop the abuse of sex and relationships across the board,
> and indirectly this would eliminate abortion.
> 
> 2. separate health care tracks into
> * right to health care / prochoice/anti death penalty
> * right to life/ no abortion or drugs or euthanasia/ no ACA mandates
> 
> And the right to life people will be so happy to have a separate track that
> doesn't have gay marriage or abortion, they would agree to separate.
> 
> Whatever you THINK would prevent consensus, find out
> what they want or don't want and agree to add those conditions on to fix several at once.
> 
> If people absolutely religiously believe in no abortion and no gay marriage,
> sure, they have full right to fund their own programs that don't have these things
> they don't believe in. I totally support them in separating,
> or if they cannot, in totally integrating the choice of spiritual healing into health care
> programs if that would solve the problem easier!
> Give them what they want and believe in, and the right answers will get a YES
Click to expand...

1.  All sex that can lead to abortion (any time a pregnancy occurs) would not be abuse.  It would not eliminate marriage.  What's been recommended for the last 30-40 years is birth control available to all - and blocked by right wing fundamentalists - is birth control.  It's amazing how quickly the birth rate drops when birth control becomes available to all (ie, no religious exemptions - because even the Catholic Church allows women to use birth control in certain scenarios).
2.  Courts ruled on this - 
a) healthcare - passed, ruled constitutional.
b) pro-choice - Roe v Wade, ruled constitutional
c) Death Penalty - state by state decision (I live in a no death penalty state - IL overturned the DP because of all of the cases getting overturned.  Texas, instead of killing innocent people, need to go back in and put a freeze on until outside agencies stop overturning DP cases)

If people want to live where there is no abortion and no gay marriage, I suggest they leave this country.  They don't have any right to fund fund any programs that would disallow others to take advantage of abortion or getting married (again, no such thing as gay marriage)).
Spiritual Healing violates the constitution - it cannot fully nor in part be incorporated into health care programs that receive federal funds.

You don't always get what you want - you have to obey standing law. You change the law - which is done by voting the right people into office.   Clean house in Texas, for starters.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Tennyson the passage of the Constitution was contingent on the agreement that a Bill of Rights would be added
> to define the individual rights not protected in the body of the Constitution that only defined federal powers and duties.
> 
> so you cannot have the Constitution without the Bill of Rights
> or it is like having the OT of the Bible without the NT!
> 
> In fact, the same way the Bible is summarized in 2-3 great commandments
> 1. love of God with all our heart mind and soul
> 2. love of neighbor as ourselves
> 3. love of one another as Christ Jesus loves us (ie with forgiveness and correction
> that is Restorative Justice, not judgment and punishment or retributive justice)
> 
> I would say the First Amendment summarizes the whole of the law
> that all other laws are based on
> 1. free exercise of religion as free will, equal executive power of each person
> 2. free speech and freedom of religion as equal judicial freedom of each person
> 3. free press and right to assemble as equal legislative or power of attorney of each person to authorize contracts
> and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances
> combines these as democratic due process of laws to resolve conflicts and establish agreed law and order.
> 
> All other laws come from these basic natural laws
> that are inherent in human nature as combining
> * Mind
> * Body
> * Spirit
> 
> where laws or contracts/agreements connect
> * INDIVIDUAL to
> * COLLECTIVE levels, based on the
> * RELATIONSHIP between the two.
> 
> both religious and political/civil laws attempt to define the terms of that RELATIONSHIP
> so you will see this same pattern of THREE levels
> in any system of laws, religion, philosophy or govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So....hate to tell you, but if I'm Jewish, my bible (My book of sacred writings) is just the Old Testament.  No Christianity for me.  If I'm Muslim - then it's the Qu'ran - which again doesn't have the New Testament, but most of the old testament.
> 
> The first amendment doesn't summarize the whole of law - if that were the case, we'd still have slavery, ban interracial marriages, no divorces, the list just goes on and on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I mean Sneekin
> A. is if we followed what was already in the First Amendment,
> ie free exercise of religion or free will for everyone
> [within the bounds of right of all people PEACEABLY to assemble]
> there wouldn't BE slavery or oppresion of any sort:
> All conflicts would be resolved if we practiced fre e speech
> press and right to petition to redress grievances.
> 
> B. and no I don't mean this voids the need for other laws
> like due process and equal protections, but that the SPIRIT
> of the Constitutional laws fulfills and includes those as well.
> Under free exercise, all these other laws can be cited as well
> as defenses to explain and petition for one's rights beliefs and interests to be accounted for.
> 
> so this INCLUDES citing Quran, Jewish or Christian principles, Buddhist teachings, etc.
> 
> C. As for the Bible this also INCLUDES Islam/Quran, Jewish laws,
> and all forms of natural laws. By Colossians, all authorities are governed
> under the same Lord or Law that Jesus represents as Universal JUSTICE for all.
> 
> Just because we express laws in different ways does not mean they are excluded.
> 
> They are all protected under Free exercise of religion, free choice or free will
> which is naturally self-existent as part of human nature.
> 
> And the Bible also calls for obedience and submission to civil authority
> and human institutions. So that includes respecting Constitutional law
> and equal inclusion and protection for people of all faiths under religious freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A.  Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution.  In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage.  In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage.   In some religions, slavery is allowed.  Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law.  Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
> B.  Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc.  Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church.  They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
> C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment.  I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says.   I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists).  I have no book of Colossians.  Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god.  They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said NO to all three.
> A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
> their right to petition to redress grievances.
> Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
> It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
> If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
> it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
> with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
> NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
> if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.
> 
> B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
> The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
> That is NOT what I am asking.
> 1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
> for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
> 2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
> where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage
> 
> C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
> at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!
> 
> Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
> how would you describe the equivalent process of
> * govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
> * govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing
> 
> If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
> or accept it,
> how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."
> 
> Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
> so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???
Click to expand...

A.  And as i told you, no slavery violates my rights.  My religion allows slavery to this day.  You VIOLATE MY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.  You are prohibiting me from the full performance of my religion.   

B.  1) Spiritual healing is religious.  I don't care if it's equal choice, it violates the 1st amendment if it receives government funding
B  2)  There is no such thing as gay marriage.   The Civil Marriage law was not opened up and added NOTHING as a CHOICE.  The law imposes NOTHING on ANYONE.  The Government isn't endorsing Gay Marriage, Straight Marriage.   It allows couples to get marriage, if THEY CHOOSE.  No endorsement at all, never has been.
C)  A religion can reject gay marriage (religious marriage).    It can refuse to officiate a civil marriage between same sex partners.  You, as a US citizen cannot choose to agree or reject MARRIAGE except as an opinion.   No one is forced to change any beliefs.   You must comprehend that MARRIAGE is a RIGHT..  Can you explain to me how CIVIL MARRIAGE forces anyone to do anything?   You keep combining religious matrimony with civil marriage.  Quite a difference.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? Are gay folks not human? Do they not have the same rights as straight folks? And marriage is about many aspects, reproduction is but one. Not everyone who gets married has kids; yet they still have the right to get married. And many couples who do marry, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, raise families through adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage - is not a rights. It's obligations. Spouses form a new society cell - and society gives them upkeep to do it. I mean not only reproduction, but education too. I know, some families don't have children and don't want to educate anyone, but why we have to add in this system families, known good as not able to educate children?
> 
> You speaking about rights of gays - did you remembered about rights of children? Without imposed homosexualism and without domestic sexual abuse?
> 
> Otherwise, what is the reason of official marriage, if you want to have a sex? "Because God forbid it?" So, God forbid an homosexualism too...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course marriage is a right. That's been reaffirmed no less than 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.
> 
> *Maynard v. Hill*, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
> 
> 
> *Meyer v. Nebraska*, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
> 
> 
> *Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson*, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
> 
> 
> *Griswold v. Connecticut*, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
> 
> 
> *Loving v. Virginia*, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
> 
> 
> *Boddie v. Connecticut*, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “Marriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
> 
> 
> *Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur*, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
> 
> 
> *Moore v. City of East Cleveland*, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
> 
> 
> *Carey v. Population Services International*, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
> 
> 
> *Zablocki v. Redhail*, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
> 
> 
> *Turner v. Safley*, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
> 
> 
> *Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey*, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
> 
> 
> *M.L.B. v. S.L.J.*, 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
> 
> 
> *Lawrence v. Texas*, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
> ... so marriage is most certainly a right -- and the courts (and many states) determined there are no compelling interests to deny folks equal protection under the law by restricting them access to the right to marry the person of their choice even if that other person happens to be of the same gender.
> 
> The bigger question is .... why on Earth would you seek to let the government take away rights from anybody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
> On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?
> 
> Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are the rights of any 'religious people' being taken away? No one is forcing any 'religious people' into gay marriage. No one is forcing them to have 'gay marriages' in their church.
> 
> And what about the religious gays who belong to a church that does allow gay marriage? Why would you deny them their religious beliefs?
> 
> The majority of Americans believe in marriage equality. That isn't the reason why gay couples have the right to marry each other- but it is a recognition that the majority of Americans have reached the same place as the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Syriusly if everyone can agree that the state marriages are civil only as Faun and I seem to agree in Spirit, but not all people yet agree on the language,
> then attaching all the other social conditions to marriage is what is causing the
> imposition of beliefs that not all people share.!
Click to expand...


Again- no one is being forced to marry- no one is having marriage imposed upon them.

Can you say what you would like to see in one short succinct sentence? 

I would truly love to see that.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> A. Already occurs - you can do all of the spiritual prayer healing on your own time, or during moments of silence.  You can't do it around me, as it violates my religious principles (first amendment violation).  Christianity isn't the only religion, there are thousands, and not all Christians believe in spiritual healing prayer.
> B.  Nothing to agree to - already the law, and the law says civil marriages are civil contracts.  Anyone that gets married utilizing a state issued marriage license has the civil contract for their civil marriage.  If you don't want a civil marriage, have your officiant NOT sign a marriage license, and exempt yourself from the civic benefits you get from your civil marriage contract.
> C.  Existing civil marriage laws cover both religious and Atheist - it already occurs.
> 
> Finally you don't get to agree/come to a consensus or directives such as the ACA - it's not YOUR JOB, it's the job of your Congress.   Sounds like it's going away.  Texas, in the next 2 weeks, is going to cut Medicaid for Autistic, Children with Down's Syndrome, and other disabled children's therapy services.  A cut of 350 Million dollars that will affect 60,000 children, and also force businesses that provide these services to fold.   So it seems you people in Texas need to clean up your own back yard before you mess with our services.  Children with these delays require constant attention that will no longer be provided, which means more parents will be unable to work.....Texas congressmen are on record as not even investigating the impacts of implementing these changes. Texas health officials testified in court in 2015 that they had not studied how the budget cuts would affect children’s access to medically necessary therapy treatments.  Not to mention your law going into effect on the 19th of this month, requiring fetal remains to be buried or cremated - unless the abortion or miscarriage happens at home.  Let's just hope you don't miscarry/spontaneously abort on your way to work, as by the new law, you are required to go to the ER and be treated - even if you are weeks along.  Your illustrious governor is requiring the hospitals to pay these expenses - which will more than likely raise your taxes.  Attorneys for the reproductive rights of women are ready to litigate, and predict this will be costly - for the state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> 3. RE: ACA as long as it affects my taxes and income, it is my job to see that I am represented.
> 
> The people are supposed to be the govt, the govt is supposed to represent the people.
> If there is conflict it is up to both people inside and outside govt to fix it.
> Nobody is going to mediate and reach consensus if they don't even believe it is possible much less legally necessary.
> That is my belief, and only I can take responsibility for it, and/or for finding leaders who believe the same
> so we can work it out together.
> 
> 2. spiritual healing is an essential part of health care, and one of the keys for sustainable universal care afforded to ALL.
> 
> Sneekin if we do not research the ability of spiritual healing to cure CRIMINAL illness,
> this puts innocent people, like children killed by Andrea Yates due to sick obsession with
> demonic type voices, at risk instead of protecting them from deadly disease
> that CAN BE CURED by REMOVING the demonic type obessions and voices driving people to kill.
> 
> This spiritual healing process works on ATHEISTS. I have a friend who used it to fight off
> demons he also had, similar to the patients in Scott Peck's book Glimpses of the Devil.
> 
> The good news is we can research and prove how this process works naturally and universally
> with medical science, so it does NOT have to be imposed which doesn't work anyway.
> The only way this process works is by FREE choice because the therapy is based
> on Forgiveness which has to be chosen freely or it's false and FAILS.
> 
> You CANNOT fake healing because you cannot fake forgiveness.
> Either you are healed and free or you are SUPPRESSED like you said where it's fake.
> 
> I would say of all the things and angles we discussed,
> spiritual healing is the closest "equivalent" of wanting govt marriage.
> 
> To incorporate the CHOICE of spiritual healing into mental and medical health care
> would change the system to free up resources to save more lives and mental/physical health of people.
> 
> so it would not be "taking away" any choices but A D DING them.
> Your same reaction that it is AGAINST what you believe
> is how others are saying SIMILAR about gay marriage.
> But if we are OFFERING an equal choice, that is adding not taking away.
> 
> And you can wait until you see PROOF that it saves lives
> and decide which cases you believe are true or which are fake.
> 
> 1. If we focus on that, then there will be agreement reached on other areas as well.
> Because the same process of forgiveness that heals mind and body in spiritual healing therapy
> also heals relationships between people, so it affects all other areas of conflicts, both political or religious,
> that can then be resolved without the contention getting in the way of forming agreed solutions!
> *(And no, you aren't asked to take that on faith either, that can be proven in the same process.
> by the time we do the medical research on spiritual healing, all levels it applies to can be demonstrated with the same efforts
> it takes to prove one area. so you can see the proof it works before adapting any knowledge or understanding of this into your thinking.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3.  You are represented regarding the ACA - if you failed to vote, blame yourself.
> Spiritual healing violates the first amendment.  It's adding nothing, but mandating a state religion, and certainly not a religion I would choose to believe in.
> 1.  We have a separation of church and state - so we will never allow spiritual healing as a government funded option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> I didn't get to vote on ACA.
> That's part of the complaint.
> 
> The option I believe in is offering both tracks,
> so since nobody is offering to write this I may have to do it myself!
> 
> If you teach law, can I work with your students or fellow profs
> to try to write a revised clause to make the two versions equal
> options for taxpayers to sign up for on their tax forms?
> 
> If you can assess or even estimate the cost of this work
> to consult and write up a proposed revision to the tax code
> I would like to present the proposed project, including  how much in grants would be needed to fund it, to a couple of student groups in law and policy in Houston
> collaborating already on drug reforms, and see if this can be done at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You voted for your elected official, who voted against the PP/ACA. Under our form of government, we don't vote on these federal laws. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's right Sneekin
> and if you look at the VOTES split in Congress
> these were divided by PARTY.
> 
> so if the Democrats who BELIEVE in right to health care as
> a political BELIEF or RELIGION were treated equally
> as Christians imposing right to life against free choice,
> this would not have passed as Constitutional.
> 
> It would be recognized as an overreach in establishing
> a biased belief that violates the beliefs and freedom of others!
> 
> I argue to treat right to health care imposition against free choice
> DIFFERENTLY from right to life imposition against free chioce
> is DISCRIMINATION BY CREED.
> 
> The same way I would reject faith based right to life imposed on people through govt,
> I treat secular faith based beliefs in right to health care the same way,
> and argue this should remain FREE CHOICE of people,
> NOT IMPOSED BY FEDERAL GOVT under mandates, penalty and fines!
Click to expand...

SIGH. Please admit the fact that YOUR REPRESENTATIVES voted it down.   They lost.  Welcome to our constitutional republic.  It's how the legal system works.


----------



## Syriusly

Sbiker said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QU
> I don't generally divide people by race, skin colour, religion or sexual orientation and here I'm just trying to understand, where in US is real border between rights of gays and rights of conservatives, and why..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no rights of gays or rights of conservatives here in the U.S.- we all have the same rights.
> There are no special rights for Christians or Jews, or straights or gays.
> There are just American rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Gays want official marriage, conervatives - no. If there are no special rights for them both, why they could not solve this conflict by simple voting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? You can't tell the difference between rights and opinions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you consider it as only "opinion"? It's "opinion" only from your point of view. Why don't you consider a Christian point of view, as well, as yours or gay's? Does the Christian have rights to consider this situation from THEIR point of view?
Click to expand...


Marriage is a right in the United States- that is a well established legal fact. 

Those rights are not always immediately recognized- hence court cases that said that voters couldn't deny marriage to mixed race couples, or gay couples, or men who owed child support, or prisoners in jail. 

No one is going to force any Christian to marry anyone he or she doesn't want to marry.


----------



## Syriusly

Sbiker said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me how the children I grew up with, who had same sex parents, had any impact on 4 generations following
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How it can be, if same-sex marriages legal at the US territory only since 2004 year? )
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that only married couples  have children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. But you have just confirmed, gays no need official marriage to organize their life how they want
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more than straights have a need for official marriage to organize their life how they want.
> 
> Again- my wife and I have been married for over 20 years. We didn't need to get married- we wanted to get legally married.
> 
> Just like the gay couple that gets married.
> 
> Of course marriage is a benefit- a legal protection for children. Which is why children whose parents legally marry have more legal protections- and why preventing gay parents from marrying harms their children.
> 
> Why would you want that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want that  I think only from position of children. If, as you saying, children feel comfortable in same-sex family and they only need to be legally married to be more happy - so, let them do it as fast as we can.
Click to expand...


No- why do you actually ignore the words I actually use- and make up your own crap?

Of course marriage is a benefit- *a legal protection for children*.* Which is why children whose parents legally marry have more legal protections-* and why preventing gay parents from marrying harms their children.

Why would you want that?


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Tennyson the passage of the Constitution was contingent on the agreement that a Bill of Rights would be added
> to define the individual rights not protected in the body of the Constitution that only defined federal powers and duties.
> 
> so you cannot have the Constitution without the Bill of Rights
> or it is like having the OT of the Bible without the NT!
> 
> In fact, the same way the Bible is summarized in 2-3 great commandments
> 1. love of God with all our heart mind and soul
> 2. love of neighbor as ourselves
> 3. love of one another as Christ Jesus loves us (ie with forgiveness and correction
> that is Restorative Justice, not judgment and punishment or retributive justice)
> 
> I would say the First Amendment summarizes the whole of the law
> that all other laws are based on
> 1. free exercise of religion as free will, equal executive power of each person
> 2. free speech and freedom of religion as equal judicial freedom of each person
> 3. free press and right to assemble as equal legislative or power of attorney of each person to authorize contracts
> and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances
> combines these as democratic due process of laws to resolve conflicts and establish agreed law and order.
> 
> All other laws come from these basic natural laws
> that are inherent in human nature as combining
> * Mind
> * Body
> * Spirit
> 
> where laws or contracts/agreements connect
> * INDIVIDUAL to
> * COLLECTIVE levels, based on the
> * RELATIONSHIP between the two.
> 
> both religious and political/civil laws attempt to define the terms of that RELATIONSHIP
> so you will see this same pattern of THREE levels
> in any system of laws, religion, philosophy or govt.
> 
> 
> 
> So....hate to tell you, but if I'm Jewish, my bible (My book of sacred writings) is just the Old Testament.  No Christianity for me.  If I'm Muslim - then it's the Qu'ran - which again doesn't have the New Testament, but most of the old testament.
> 
> The first amendment doesn't summarize the whole of law - if that were the case, we'd still have slavery, ban interracial marriages, no divorces, the list just goes on and on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I mean Sneekin
> A. is if we followed what was already in the First Amendment,
> ie free exercise of religion or free will for everyone
> [within the bounds of right of all people PEACEABLY to assemble]
> there wouldn't BE slavery or oppresion of any sort:
> All conflicts would be resolved if we practiced fre e speech
> press and right to petition to redress grievances.
> 
> B. and no I don't mean this voids the need for other laws
> like due process and equal protections, but that the SPIRIT
> of the Constitutional laws fulfills and includes those as well.
> Under free exercise, all these other laws can be cited as well
> as defenses to explain and petition for one's rights beliefs and interests to be accounted for.
> 
> so this INCLUDES citing Quran, Jewish or Christian principles, Buddhist teachings, etc.
> 
> C. As for the Bible this also INCLUDES Islam/Quran, Jewish laws,
> and all forms of natural laws. By Colossians, all authorities are governed
> under the same Lord or Law that Jesus represents as Universal JUSTICE for all.
> 
> Just because we express laws in different ways does not mean they are excluded.
> 
> They are all protected under Free exercise of religion, free choice or free will
> which is naturally self-existent as part of human nature.
> 
> And the Bible also calls for obedience and submission to civil authority
> and human institutions. So that includes respecting Constitutional law
> and equal inclusion and protection for people of all faiths under religious freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A.  Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution.  In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage.  In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage.   In some religions, slavery is allowed.  Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law.  Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
> B.  Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc.  Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church.  They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
> C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment.  I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says.   I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists).  I have no book of Colossians.  Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god.  They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said NO to all three.
> A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
> their right to petition to redress grievances.
> Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
> It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
> If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
> it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
> with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
> NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
> if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.
> 
> B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
> The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
> That is NOT what I am asking.
> 1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
> for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
> 2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
> where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage
> 
> C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
> at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!
> 
> Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
> how would you describe the equivalent process of
> * govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
> * govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing
> 
> If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
> or accept it,
> how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."
> 
> Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
> so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A.  And as i told you, no slavery violates my rights.  My religion allows slavery to this day.  You VIOLATE MY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.  You are prohibiting me from the full performance of my religion.
> 
> B.  1) Spiritual healing is religious.  I don't care if it's equal choice, it violates the 1st amendment if it receives government funding
> B  2)  There is no such thing as gay marriage.   The Civil Marriage law was not opened up and added NOTHING as a CHOICE.  The law imposes NOTHING on ANYONE.  The Government isn't endorsing Gay Marriage, Straight Marriage.   It allows couples to get marriage, if THEY CHOOSE.  No endorsement at all, never has been.
> C)  A religion can reject gay marriage (religious marriage).    It can refuse to officiate a civil marriage between same sex partners.  You, as a US citizen cannot choose to agree or reject MARRIAGE except as an opinion.   No one is forced to change any beliefs.   You must comprehend that MARRIAGE is a RIGHT..  Can you explain to me how CIVIL MARRIAGE forces anyone to do anything?   You keep combining religious matrimony with civil marriage.  Quite a difference.
Click to expand...


Sneekin

A. And I would tell you that you have the right to exercise slavery VOLUNTARILY
with those who AGREE to it as you do. If you agree to be enslaved, such as for charity,
and providing free health care at no cost to others, you are free to do so.
but by the same Bible you claim endorses slavery,
* it says to love one another as equal neighbors.
* it says to obey human institutions and civil authority,
so if laws say no involuntary servitude except as punishment for crime prescribed by law
then you as a believer would accept this rebuke and correction.

B. as for spiritual healing
I am asking for the same thing that applies for marriage

if people choose to endorse it or engage in it,
it is by free choice and not imposed.

so how can this be done for spiritual healing
as it is for marriage?


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QU
> I don't generally divide people by race, skin colour, religion or sexual orientation and here I'm just trying to understand, where in US is real border between rights of gays and rights of conservatives, and why..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no rights of gays or rights of conservatives here in the U.S.- we all have the same rights.
> There are no special rights for Christians or Jews, or straights or gays.
> There are just American rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Gays want official marriage, conervatives - no. If there are no special rights for them both, why they could not solve this conflict by simple voting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? You can't tell the difference between rights and opinions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you consider it as only "opinion"? It's "opinion" only from your point of view. Why don't you consider a Christian point of view, as well, as yours or gay's? Does the Christian have rights to consider this situation from THEIR point of view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is a right in the United States- that is a well established legal fact.
> 
> Those rights are not always immediately recognized- hence court cases that said that voters couldn't deny marriage to mixed race couples, or gay couples, or men who owed child support, or prisoners in jail.
> 
> No one is going to force any Christian to marry anyone he or she doesn't want to marry.
Click to expand...


Okay Syriusly

Now I'm asking Sneekin how do we apply this same structure
allowing marriage (including gays getting marriage) to be licensed by govt,
to Spiritual Healing and let that be an equal choice through govt?

How can we do the same where it is a secular choice as 'any other type
of mental health or medical treatment therapy or option'
and offer it as a free CHOICE ie NOT IMPOSED OR FORCED on anyone who doesn't consent,
where it is like the free choice to use marriage for gay couples for those who believe in that?


----------



## Syriusly

Sbiker said:


> [
> But I have serious doubts, living in homosexual families is really good for children. Much statistics, I've seen, usually said:
> 1. Homosexualist are in risk group of venereal diseases, including aids. Most of this diseases are dangerous for children.
> 2. Children in homosexual families are at high risk of sexual abuse and sexual violence.
> 3. What about psychology and gender orientation of growing children?
> 
> So, is it nesessary to open legal way to increase of unhappy children, to legalize SSM?



Let me address your post in two parts
1) Most of what you posted is just absolute bullshit.
2) None of that has anything to do with marriage.

Think this through. Nothing prevents any person in the United States from choosing to have a child. 

A woman who wants to get pregnant and can convince a man to donate sperm to her can get pregnant- likewise a man who can find a woman to act as his surrogate can get a woman pregnant.

Millions of gay couples have children together. 
Preventing them from marrying does not stop them from having their children- it doesn't mean that the state will rip those children away from the 'ebil gheys'- it only means that those children will not have legally married parents.

As Justice Kennedy observed in the Prop 8 case

*“There is an immediate legal injury *and that’s the voice of these children,” he said. “There’s some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think?”


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no rights of gays or rights of conservatives here in the U.S.- we all have the same rights.
> There are no special rights for Christians or Jews, or straights or gays.
> There are just American rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Gays want official marriage, conervatives - no. If there are no special rights for them both, why they could not solve this conflict by simple voting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? You can't tell the difference between rights and opinions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you consider it as only "opinion"? It's "opinion" only from your point of view. Why don't you consider a Christian point of view, as well, as yours or gay's? Does the Christian have rights to consider this situation from THEIR point of view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is a right in the United States- that is a well established legal fact.
> 
> Those rights are not always immediately recognized- hence court cases that said that voters couldn't deny marriage to mixed race couples, or gay couples, or men who owed child support, or prisoners in jail.
> 
> No one is going to force any Christian to marry anyone he or she doesn't want to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay Syriusly
> 
> Now I'm asking Sneekin how do we apply this same structure
> allowing marriage (including gays getting marriage) to be licensed by govt,
> to Spiritual Healing and let that be an equal choice through govt?
> 
> How can we do the same where it is a secular choice as 'any other type
> of mental health or medical treatment therapy or option'
> and offer it as a free CHOICE ie NOT IMPOSED OR FORCED on anyone who doesn't consent,
> where it is like the free choice to use marriage for gay couples for those who believe in that?
Click to expand...


I have no idea why you are bringing 'spiritual healing' into this discussion and have no interest in pursuing it.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....hate to tell you, but if I'm Jewish, my bible (My book of sacred writings) is just the Old Testament.  No Christianity for me.  If I'm Muslim - then it's the Qu'ran - which again doesn't have the New Testament, but most of the old testament.
> 
> The first amendment doesn't summarize the whole of law - if that were the case, we'd still have slavery, ban interracial marriages, no divorces, the list just goes on and on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I mean Sneekin
> A. is if we followed what was already in the First Amendment,
> ie free exercise of religion or free will for everyone
> [within the bounds of right of all people PEACEABLY to assemble]
> there wouldn't BE slavery or oppresion of any sort:
> All conflicts would be resolved if we practiced fre e speech
> press and right to petition to redress grievances.
> 
> B. and no I don't mean this voids the need for other laws
> like due process and equal protections, but that the SPIRIT
> of the Constitutional laws fulfills and includes those as well.
> Under free exercise, all these other laws can be cited as well
> as defenses to explain and petition for one's rights beliefs and interests to be accounted for.
> 
> so this INCLUDES citing Quran, Jewish or Christian principles, Buddhist teachings, etc.
> 
> C. As for the Bible this also INCLUDES Islam/Quran, Jewish laws,
> and all forms of natural laws. By Colossians, all authorities are governed
> under the same Lord or Law that Jesus represents as Universal JUSTICE for all.
> 
> Just because we express laws in different ways does not mean they are excluded.
> 
> They are all protected under Free exercise of religion, free choice or free will
> which is naturally self-existent as part of human nature.
> 
> And the Bible also calls for obedience and submission to civil authority
> and human institutions. So that includes respecting Constitutional law
> and equal inclusion and protection for people of all faiths under religious freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A.  Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution.  In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage.  In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage.   In some religions, slavery is allowed.  Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law.  Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
> B.  Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc.  Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church.  They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
> C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment.  I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says.   I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists).  I have no book of Colossians.  Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god.  They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said NO to all three.
> A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
> their right to petition to redress grievances.
> Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
> It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
> If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
> it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
> with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
> NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
> if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.
> 
> B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
> The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
> That is NOT what I am asking.
> 1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
> for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
> 2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
> where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage
> 
> C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
> at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!
> 
> Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
> how would you describe the equivalent process of
> * govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
> * govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing
> 
> If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
> or accept it,
> how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."
> 
> Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
> so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A.  So then you are wrong in your claims - I can't freely exercise my religion - violation of my first amendment rights.  As some Christians will tell you, Slavery is allowed under biblical law.  So I DEMAND to have a slave, using your argument.
> B.  Spiritual Healing has been ruled unconstitutional in certain situations.  The law will stay that way.  Read your case law governing Jehovah Witness and children.
> C.  There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE.  There is only CIVIL MARRIAGE.  It's not a choice, it cannot be agreed to or rejected by the government, as it doesn't exist.  Your religion can refuse to do SSM or Straight marriages under the 1st amendment.
> 
> Actually, the government said licensing of only straight couples was illegal.  They didn't include gay people, they removed the existing requirement that they be opposite sex.  Different from a legal perspective. 14th amendment - equal protection and due process.
> 
> Spiritual Healing is religious and violates the 1st amendment.  If your private insurance company doesn't receive federal funds, then your company can offer spiritual healing.  If it receives government funding (Medicaid, Medicare, etc), then it would violate the 1st amendment - because you are endorsing a religion over another.  You've claimed some people don't want to pay for certain procedures - well i certainly don't want to pay for someone handling snakes, rattling beads, speaking in tongues, or any of the hundreds of other forms of spiritual healing.
> 
> You can't set up a state recognized religion, so you can't set up spiritual healing that wouldn't impose your religion on me.  This is in direct opposition to your other argument,  because there is no gay marriage and straight marriage, but simply civil marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> 1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
> and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?
> 
> In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?
> 
> In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
> or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.
> 
> You can have
> * VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
> * or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.
> 
> These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
> The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
> servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.
> 
> 2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
> yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
> our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.
> 
> Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?
> 
> We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
> but if we live by caring for our neighbors
> equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
> it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
> to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.
Click to expand...

Emily, the OT allows for slavery, as do several other mainstream religions.  So now, you are claiming that I must completely follow your religion, which goes almost completely against my religion.  Your definition is NT law.   I don't believe in it. And yes, I'm referring to traditional slavery.  Many religions prohibit spiritual healing as well (including mine).  Why should I have to join your religion, just to have civil rights? We are not a theocracy, and you are now narrowing it down to you must be not only a christian, but a certain type of christian.  You do realize that some Christian faiths have more books than your bible, and some that have less than your bible.  There are a lot that have completely different translations - as in one case, where two people met, greeted each other and    (translations)    a)  kissed;  b) chastely kissed on the cheek;  c)  shook hands.  Some translations recognize several same sex relationships.  Other ministers, with NO knowledge of Greek or Aramaic claim it's a lie.  Are you aware that the word homosexual didn't appear in the bible until mid century - drum roll - last century.  That the Greek word for homosexual did not occur in all of the locations fundamentalist Christians claim, but only twice, and even then, it's believed to be mistranslated. So.....sorry Emily - it's another fail.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I mean Sneekin
> A. is if we followed what was already in the First Amendment,
> ie free exercise of religion or free will for everyone
> [within the bounds of right of all people PEACEABLY to assemble]
> there wouldn't BE slavery or oppresion of any sort:
> All conflicts would be resolved if we practiced fre e speech
> press and right to petition to redress grievances.
> 
> B. and no I don't mean this voids the need for other laws
> like due process and equal protections, but that the SPIRIT
> of the Constitutional laws fulfills and includes those as well.
> Under free exercise, all these other laws can be cited as well
> as defenses to explain and petition for one's rights beliefs and interests to be accounted for.
> 
> so this INCLUDES citing Quran, Jewish or Christian principles, Buddhist teachings, etc.
> 
> C. As for the Bible this also INCLUDES Islam/Quran, Jewish laws,
> and all forms of natural laws. By Colossians, all authorities are governed
> under the same Lord or Law that Jesus represents as Universal JUSTICE for all.
> 
> Just because we express laws in different ways does not mean they are excluded.
> 
> They are all protected under Free exercise of religion, free choice or free will
> which is naturally self-existent as part of human nature.
> 
> And the Bible also calls for obedience and submission to civil authority
> and human institutions. So that includes respecting Constitutional law
> and equal inclusion and protection for people of all faiths under religious freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> A.  Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution.  In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage.  In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage.   In some religions, slavery is allowed.  Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law.  Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
> B.  Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc.  Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church.  They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
> C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment.  I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says.   I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists).  I have no book of Colossians.  Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god.  They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said NO to all three.
> A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
> their right to petition to redress grievances.
> Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
> It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
> If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
> it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
> with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
> NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
> if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.
> 
> B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
> The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
> That is NOT what I am asking.
> 1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
> for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
> 2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
> where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage
> 
> C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
> at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!
> 
> Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
> how would you describe the equivalent process of
> * govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
> * govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing
> 
> If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
> or accept it,
> how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."
> 
> Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
> so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A.  So then you are wrong in your claims - I can't freely exercise my religion - violation of my first amendment rights.  As some Christians will tell you, Slavery is allowed under biblical law.  So I DEMAND to have a slave, using your argument.
> B.  Spiritual Healing has been ruled unconstitutional in certain situations.  The law will stay that way.  Read your case law governing Jehovah Witness and children.
> C.  There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE.  There is only CIVIL MARRIAGE.  It's not a choice, it cannot be agreed to or rejected by the government, as it doesn't exist.  Your religion can refuse to do SSM or Straight marriages under the 1st amendment.
> 
> Actually, the government said licensing of only straight couples was illegal.  They didn't include gay people, they removed the existing requirement that they be opposite sex.  Different from a legal perspective. 14th amendment - equal protection and due process.
> 
> Spiritual Healing is religious and violates the 1st amendment.  If your private insurance company doesn't receive federal funds, then your company can offer spiritual healing.  If it receives government funding (Medicaid, Medicare, etc), then it would violate the 1st amendment - because you are endorsing a religion over another.  You've claimed some people don't want to pay for certain procedures - well i certainly don't want to pay for someone handling snakes, rattling beads, speaking in tongues, or any of the hundreds of other forms of spiritual healing.
> 
> You can't set up a state recognized religion, so you can't set up spiritual healing that wouldn't impose your religion on me.  This is in direct opposition to your other argument,  because there is no gay marriage and straight marriage, but simply civil marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> 1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
> and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?
> 
> In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?
> 
> In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
> or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.
> 
> You can have
> * VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
> * or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.
> 
> These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
> The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
> servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.
> 
> 2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
> yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
> our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.
> 
> Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?
> 
> We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
> but if we live by caring for our neighbors
> equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
> it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
> to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, the OT allows for slavery, as do several other mainstream religions.  So now, you are claiming that I must completely follow your religion, which goes almost completely against my religion.  Your definition is NT law.   I don't believe in it. And yes, I'm referring to traditional slavery.  Many religions prohibit spiritual healing as well (including mine).  Why should I have to join your religion, just to have civil rights? We are not a theocracy, and you are now narrowing it down to you must be not only a christian, but a certain type of christian.  You do realize that some Christian faiths have more books than your bible, and some that have less than your bible.  There are a lot that have completely different translations - as in one case, where two people met, greeted each other and    (translations)    a)  kissed;  b) chastely kissed on the cheek;  c)  shook hands.  Some translations recognize several same sex relationships.  Other ministers, with NO knowledge of Greek or Aramaic claim it's a lie.  Are you aware that the word homosexual didn't appear in the bible until mid century - drum roll - last century.  That the Greek word for homosexual did not occur in all of the locations fundamentalist Christians claim, but only twice, and even then, it's believed to be mistranslated. So.....sorry Emily - it's another fail.
Click to expand...


Not at all Sneekin

by the Scriptures we do not force one person or the other,
but reach agre ement by resolving grievances or conflicts
in the spirit of Christ Jesus where we both agre e to follow as
universal authority over both of us and all people and relations.
see Matthew 18:15-20

I don't coerce anyone, but seek agreement on what is universal law and truth,
and that sets both people, and the relationship between us, free from conflict!

to be honest, the process is MUTUAL, where you will correct 
me as much as I offer the same to you, so we are equal neighbors.

If you are not a believer, and you ask me to depart and not share with you this way,
I am called to leave you alone.

But as long as I use the language and laws you ascribe to,
usually this method works to resolve the conflicts and reach
either agreement or neutral stalemate.

It is a mutual process of exchange, 
not forced by one person or the other or it doesn't work.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....hate to tell you, but if I'm Jewish, my bible (My book of sacred writings) is just the Old Testament.  No Christianity for me.  If I'm Muslim - then it's the Qu'ran - which again doesn't have the New Testament, but most of the old testament.
> 
> The first amendment doesn't summarize the whole of law - if that were the case, we'd still have slavery, ban interracial marriages, no divorces, the list just goes on and on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I mean Sneekin
> A. is if we followed what was already in the First Amendment,
> ie free exercise of religion or free will for everyone
> [within the bounds of right of all people PEACEABLY to assemble]
> there wouldn't BE slavery or oppresion of any sort:
> All conflicts would be resolved if we practiced fre e speech
> press and right to petition to redress grievances.
> 
> B. and no I don't mean this voids the need for other laws
> like due process and equal protections, but that the SPIRIT
> of the Constitutional laws fulfills and includes those as well.
> Under free exercise, all these other laws can be cited as well
> as defenses to explain and petition for one's rights beliefs and interests to be accounted for.
> 
> so this INCLUDES citing Quran, Jewish or Christian principles, Buddhist teachings, etc.
> 
> C. As for the Bible this also INCLUDES Islam/Quran, Jewish laws,
> and all forms of natural laws. By Colossians, all authorities are governed
> under the same Lord or Law that Jesus represents as Universal JUSTICE for all.
> 
> Just because we express laws in different ways does not mean they are excluded.
> 
> They are all protected under Free exercise of religion, free choice or free will
> which is naturally self-existent as part of human nature.
> 
> And the Bible also calls for obedience and submission to civil authority
> and human institutions. So that includes respecting Constitutional law
> and equal inclusion and protection for people of all faiths under religious freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A.  Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution.  In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage.  In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage.   In some religions, slavery is allowed.  Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law.  Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
> B.  Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc.  Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church.  They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
> C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment.  I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says.   I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists).  I have no book of Colossians.  Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god.  They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said NO to all three.
> A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
> their right to petition to redress grievances.
> Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
> It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
> If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
> it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
> with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
> NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
> if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.
> 
> B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
> The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
> That is NOT what I am asking.
> 1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
> for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
> 2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
> where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage
> 
> C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
> at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!
> 
> Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
> how would you describe the equivalent process of
> * govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
> * govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing
> 
> If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
> or accept it,
> how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."
> 
> Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
> so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A.  And as i told you, no slavery violates my rights.  My religion allows slavery to this day.  You VIOLATE MY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.  You are prohibiting me from the full performance of my religion.
> 
> B.  1) Spiritual healing is religious.  I don't care if it's equal choice, it violates the 1st amendment if it receives government funding
> B  2)  There is no such thing as gay marriage.   The Civil Marriage law was not opened up and added NOTHING as a CHOICE.  The law imposes NOTHING on ANYONE.  The Government isn't endorsing Gay Marriage, Straight Marriage.   It allows couples to get marriage, if THEY CHOOSE.  No endorsement at all, never has been.
> C)  A religion can reject gay marriage (religious marriage).    It can refuse to officiate a civil marriage between same sex partners.  You, as a US citizen cannot choose to agree or reject MARRIAGE except as an opinion.   No one is forced to change any beliefs.   You must comprehend that MARRIAGE is a RIGHT..  Can you explain to me how CIVIL MARRIAGE forces anyone to do anything?   You keep combining religious matrimony with civil marriage.  Quite a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sneekin
> 
> A. And I would tell you that you have the right to exercise slavery VOLUNTARILY
> with those who AGREE to it as you do. If you agree to be enslaved, such as for charity,
> and providing free health care at no cost to others, you are free to do so.
> but by the same Bible you claim endorses slavery,
> * it says to love one another as equal neighbors.
> * it says to obey human institutions and civil authority,
> so if laws say no involuntary servitude except as punishment for crime prescribed by law
> then you as a believer would accept this rebuke and correction.
> 
> B. as for spiritual healing
> I am asking for the same thing that applies for marriage
> 
> if people choose to endorse it or engage in it,
> it is by free choice and not imposed.
> 
> so how can this be done for spiritual healing
> as it is for marriage?
Click to expand...

A)  Voluntary slavery is contradictory - and where did I say I used YOUR bible?  My bible says none of what you put down.
B)  Spiritual healing, for the 10th time, violates the first amendment.  Marriage is a contract.  Spiritual healing can be just about any religious thing, such as snake handling, beatings (beat the demon), beads, rattles, feathers, prayers, speaking in tongues, prayer chains, etc.  Since it directly violates the US Constitution by receipt of federal funding.   

The same thing that applies for marriage?  The difference is Marriage is a CIVIL CONTRACT and you want to impose YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS into MY HEALTHCARE.  Marriage is upheld by the 14th, faith healing VIOLATES the first.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I mean Sneekin
> A. is if we followed what was already in the First Amendment,
> ie free exercise of religion or free will for everyone
> [within the bounds of right of all people PEACEABLY to assemble]
> there wouldn't BE slavery or oppresion of any sort:
> All conflicts would be resolved if we practiced fre e speech
> press and right to petition to redress grievances.
> 
> B. and no I don't mean this voids the need for other laws
> like due process and equal protections, but that the SPIRIT
> of the Constitutional laws fulfills and includes those as well.
> Under free exercise, all these other laws can be cited as well
> as defenses to explain and petition for one's rights beliefs and interests to be accounted for.
> 
> so this INCLUDES citing Quran, Jewish or Christian principles, Buddhist teachings, etc.
> 
> C. As for the Bible this also INCLUDES Islam/Quran, Jewish laws,
> and all forms of natural laws. By Colossians, all authorities are governed
> under the same Lord or Law that Jesus represents as Universal JUSTICE for all.
> 
> Just because we express laws in different ways does not mean they are excluded.
> 
> They are all protected under Free exercise of religion, free choice or free will
> which is naturally self-existent as part of human nature.
> 
> And the Bible also calls for obedience and submission to civil authority
> and human institutions. So that includes respecting Constitutional law
> and equal inclusion and protection for people of all faiths under religious freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> A.  Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution.  In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage.  In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage.   In some religions, slavery is allowed.  Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law.  Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
> B.  Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc.  Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church.  They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
> C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment.  I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says.   I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists).  I have no book of Colossians.  Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god.  They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said NO to all three.
> A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
> their right to petition to redress grievances.
> Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
> It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
> If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
> it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
> with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
> NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
> if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.
> 
> B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
> The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
> That is NOT what I am asking.
> 1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
> for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
> 2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
> where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage
> 
> C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
> at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!
> 
> Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
> how would you describe the equivalent process of
> * govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
> * govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing
> 
> If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
> or accept it,
> how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."
> 
> Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
> so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A.  And as i told you, no slavery violates my rights.  My religion allows slavery to this day.  You VIOLATE MY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.  You are prohibiting me from the full performance of my religion.
> 
> B.  1) Spiritual healing is religious.  I don't care if it's equal choice, it violates the 1st amendment if it receives government funding
> B  2)  There is no such thing as gay marriage.   The Civil Marriage law was not opened up and added NOTHING as a CHOICE.  The law imposes NOTHING on ANYONE.  The Government isn't endorsing Gay Marriage, Straight Marriage.   It allows couples to get marriage, if THEY CHOOSE.  No endorsement at all, never has been.
> C)  A religion can reject gay marriage (religious marriage).    It can refuse to officiate a civil marriage between same sex partners.  You, as a US citizen cannot choose to agree or reject MARRIAGE except as an opinion.   No one is forced to change any beliefs.   You must comprehend that MARRIAGE is a RIGHT..  Can you explain to me how CIVIL MARRIAGE forces anyone to do anything?   You keep combining religious matrimony with civil marriage.  Quite a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sneekin
> 
> A. And I would tell you that you have the right to exercise slavery VOLUNTARILY
> with those who AGREE to it as you do. If you agree to be enslaved, such as for charity,
> and providing free health care at no cost to others, you are free to do so.
> but by the same Bible you claim endorses slavery,
> * it says to love one another as equal neighbors.
> * it says to obey human institutions and civil authority,
> so if laws say no involuntary servitude except as punishment for crime prescribed by law
> then you as a believer would accept this rebuke and correction.
> 
> B. as for spiritual healing
> I am asking for the same thing that applies for marriage
> 
> if people choose to endorse it or engage in it,
> it is by free choice and not imposed.
> 
> so how can this be done for spiritual healing
> as it is for marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A)  Voluntary slavery is contradictory - and where did I say I used YOUR bible?  My bible says none of what you put down.
> B)  Spiritual healing, for the 10th time, violates the first amendment.  Marriage is a contract.  Spiritual healing can be just about any religious thing, such as snake handling, beatings (beat the demon), beads, rattles, feathers, prayers, speaking in tongues, prayer chains, etc.  Since it directly violates the US Constitution by receipt of federal funding.
> 
> The same thing that applies for marriage?  The difference is Marriage is a CIVIL CONTRACT and you want to impose YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS into MY HEALTHCARE.  Marriage is upheld by the 14th, faith healing VIOLATES the first.
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin
A. then I find out what your religion, belief or Bible does say.
And if you are using the First Amendment to practice and defend that,
then I show you the rest of the First Amendment, Bill of rights and laws in context
that come with that. Whatever laws you are invoking, I learn what they are
and rebuke you where you are violating your own principles you ascribe to.

When this is done properly, the person respects the correction
because it is given in their own terms. Like taking a set of 
math variables in a GIVEN problem, and using THOSE 
to either demonstrate consistency or inconsistency with ITSELF

B. As for spiritual healing, what if that is someone's way of
getting their equal health care provisions.

So if you are requiring people through ACA to go through
GOVT ENDORSED AND APPROVED ALTERNATIVES
then ACA REQUIRES that  *federal govt* endorse these choices
if people are to have them as "equal choices of health care"


----------



## emilynghiem

Here Sneekin how is this NOT federal govt
regulating or discriminating on the basis of RELIGION
to determine who is exempt and who is fined for not complying:

Are You Exempt From The Obamacare Insurance Penalty?

You are not subject to the penalty for 2014 if you qualify for any of the following exemptions

You are a member of a health care sharing ministry, which is a tax-exempt organization whose members share a common set of ethical or religious beliefs and have shared medical expenses in accordance with those beliefs continuously since at least December 31, 1999.


You are a member of a religious sect that has been in existence since December 31, 1950 and is recognized by the Social Security Administration as conscientiously opposed to accepting any insurance benefits.
NOTE: and NO I am NOT trying to diminish the definition of domestic violence.

Technically what I am going through constitutes LEGAL abuse or government abuse.
Where govt authority and public resources were abused to exclude and damage
an entire community, and in trying to cap or restore that community from damages,
I have become "enslaved" against my consent, to pay the costs using MY labor and income
to restore rights of citizens abridged or denied by govt induced damages until the restitution is resolved other ways.

The definitions of exemptions do NOT count legal abuse or govt abuse as a reason to be exempt.
But making me pay money ON TOP of restitution I am covering because govt failed to recognize
or pay these damages, is adding MORE burden and conditions on top of abuse I am already under.

so to deprive me of free choice and use of my own income and labor to pay fines or costs I didn't agree to,
is causing a FORM of involuntary servitude and *economic abuse* that is listed under domestic violence on the DOJ site
IF you count govt relations to be a relationship that is being abused this way!!!

Because Federal Govt IS INTRUDING into my personal life by taking my income (which I need to pay debts and damages
from PAST GOVT ABUSES), this IS affecting that personal relationship, so I DO count it as internalized abuse.

Sorry if that offends the traditional intended meaning of servitude and domestic abuse,
but that is the closest place in the given law that EXPLAINS the hardship I am under.

I can also argue that as a volunteer supporting the nonprofit volunteer efforts and organization
of Darrell Patterson who is an elected Precinct Chair for this community district,
I have be en forced to pay $300 a month to prevent loss of the Van he uses for elderly and youth.
I didn't agree to pay the whole amount, the original agre ement was that he raise the money,
but since he couldn't we then agreed to alternate where I pay 300 a month and he pays 300 the next.
That never happened.

Thus working a second job goes to pay for the VAN HE USES for HIS nonprofit group
under terms I never agreed to enslave myself to, but that's what happened.

so YES if that's what it takes to argue I have a hardship, I would argue
this is ECONOMIC ABUSE that meets the DOJ statement of
*withholding one's access to money*

Both Obama and Patterson are Democratic Party leaders who claim to
be against slavery. but I am arguing it causes A FORM OF involuntary servitude
to endorse these policies of ACA mandates REQUIRING me to pay
MORE than I agreed to, on top of already paying for a van of the Party Precinct Chair out of my income.

that is depriving me of my labor and income against my consent.
I am forced to go along with these terms to avoid worse consequences,
but I didn't agree to the terms that are imposed on me.
THUS INVOLUNTARY.

Now, if you would like an interesting example for your law students to investigate:
what is the best way to correct this problem I am saying infringes on my rights?

If I cannot find a lawyer, does that mean I have to endure this abuse
for lack of one? Whose fault is it: is it my fault for having beliefs that
are violated by ACA mandates, or is it Democrats fault for passing
and enforcing such mandates I am saying infringe on me without 
any due process to show I committed a crime and deserve to lose liberty!

Do I sue the Precinct Party chair for breach of contract?
If he has no money how does that help?
My condition on helping is that we work together to assess
and collect restitution owed for ALL the abuses going on in our district.
That is the agreement. Do I sue or petition him to take action
and contact Obama, or who can fix this problem of govt abuses costing us both money?

And what is the best way to Explain the need for corrections to
* Darrell Patterson and other Democrats
* Sheila Jackson Lee and Obama
Would involuntary servitude explain why this is wrongful and abusive?
Or what would you suggest?


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 
> There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
> about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
> to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
> to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.
> 
> Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
> A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
> catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
> with no time to eat or sleep in between.
> 
> ^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
> and were behind on both for about a month each and only
> have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
> that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?
> 
> If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
> to get you to acknowledge this?
> 
> B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
> have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.
> 
> Are you really going to
> 1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
> 2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?
> 
> WHY would you do that?
> Do you not believe me?
> Or  you don't care to consider there are other reasons?
> 
> ????
> Can you explain what you are really thinking
> and why you are projecting that onto me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying fuck that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquies
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. there is only one of me, and there are 4-5 of you.
> Do you think I have time to answer 10 posts by Sneekin, you and rightwinger?
> 
> 2. did you get my PM that I have two jobs, that i am behind on.
> Does that register in your head that I don't have time in betwe en my two jobs
> to even eat and sleep in a healthy manner?
> 
> Faun have you ever worked two jobs at the same time?
> Do you have any idea how strenous it is?
> 
> I can't even call my own mother back for we eks to catch up.
> I can't se e my nephews in California, I can barely se e my own boyfriend
> once a we ek if I am lucky.
> 
> Why would I spend more time online answering questions
> from you than I spend time with my boyfriend or talking with my family?
> 
> Are you that insulted that I don't have time to
> answer all your messages when I can't even call my own mother back on time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, stop whining. I asked you a simple question which could have been answered in 2 seconds with _"yes"_ or _"no."_
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARE YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN MOTHER???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF is wrong with you? I'm the one who suggested you spend less time here and more time with your mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.
> 
> I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?
> 
> Is this just your way of communicating?
> 
> If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!
> 
> If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you _thought_ you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a _"yes"_ or _"no"_ answer and neither were forthcoming from you.
> 
> Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....
> 
> Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.
> 
> That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's *but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.*
> 
> I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...
> 
> ___________________________​
> *Faun: *_do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?_
> 
> *emilynghiem: *_I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction. The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt._
> 
> ... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...
> 
> ___________________________​
> So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??
> 
> That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> Thanks for your answer but your answer is *EXACTLY* the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.
> 
> A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)
> 
> In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.
> 
> The government is not divorcing itself from marriage *precisely because of people like you* who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RE: In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> NO, I'm saying to AVOID that by either:
> A. if govt use marriage then ALL people get that
> (and I'm suggesting that to reach agreement on inclusion, to treat LGBT beliefs
> and Christian beliefs about spiritual healing prayer equally, neither imposing one while excluding the other)
> B. if people cannot agre e on that, but for example ALL agre e to civil contracts,
> then ALL people get that.
> C. as for your concern that if that were to happen and this leaves out Atheists who don't have
> a way to get married, I am saying to set it up -- by agreement BEFORE changing policies*. so if there needs to be separate CHOICE of funding for govt programs
> that deals with "social" benefits that not all people agree to the terms of, that can be done while
> setting up state alternatives to resolve ACA issues and requirements that are FACING this SAME ISSUE.
> 
> Sorry Faun if you don't like my full answer.
> I am trying to address these things in context.
> the solutions to one point (such as marriage issues) solve other problems as well (such as health care issues).
> 
> * NOTE to Faun: ACA required states alternatives to avoid penalty BEFORE setting these up. Did you complain about ACA being unconstitutional by requiring people to face fines for not choosing alternatives that weren't even allowed to be proposed to states yet much less set up?
Click to expand...

While you're promoting the government to get out of the marriage business, you say churches she still be performing marriages.

What you're seeking allows religious heterosexuals to marry the person of their choice; but no one else can.

Given that marriage is a fundamental right for all, religious and secular, straight and gay, why do you think it's ok to protect that right for folks like you, but not for folks like Syriusly, who is an atheist, and not for folks who are gay?


----------



## Faun

Emily... step away from your computer or mobile device and call your mother.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> A.  Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution.  In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage.  In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage.   In some religions, slavery is allowed.  Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law.  Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
> B.  Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc.  Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church.  They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
> C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment.  I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says.   I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists).  I have no book of Colossians.  Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god.  They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said NO to all three.
> A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
> their right to petition to redress grievances.
> Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
> It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
> If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
> it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
> with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
> NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
> if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.
> 
> B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
> The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
> That is NOT what I am asking.
> 1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
> for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
> 2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
> where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage
> 
> C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
> at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!
> 
> Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
> how would you describe the equivalent process of
> * govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
> * govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing
> 
> If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
> or accept it,
> how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."
> 
> Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
> so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A.  So then you are wrong in your claims - I can't freely exercise my religion - violation of my first amendment rights.  As some Christians will tell you, Slavery is allowed under biblical law.  So I DEMAND to have a slave, using your argument.
> B.  Spiritual Healing has been ruled unconstitutional in certain situations.  The law will stay that way.  Read your case law governing Jehovah Witness and children.
> C.  There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE.  There is only CIVIL MARRIAGE.  It's not a choice, it cannot be agreed to or rejected by the government, as it doesn't exist.  Your religion can refuse to do SSM or Straight marriages under the 1st amendment.
> 
> Actually, the government said licensing of only straight couples was illegal.  They didn't include gay people, they removed the existing requirement that they be opposite sex.  Different from a legal perspective. 14th amendment - equal protection and due process.
> 
> Spiritual Healing is religious and violates the 1st amendment.  If your private insurance company doesn't receive federal funds, then your company can offer spiritual healing.  If it receives government funding (Medicaid, Medicare, etc), then it would violate the 1st amendment - because you are endorsing a religion over another.  You've claimed some people don't want to pay for certain procedures - well i certainly don't want to pay for someone handling snakes, rattling beads, speaking in tongues, or any of the hundreds of other forms of spiritual healing.
> 
> You can't set up a state recognized religion, so you can't set up spiritual healing that wouldn't impose your religion on me.  This is in direct opposition to your other argument,  because there is no gay marriage and straight marriage, but simply civil marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> 1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
> and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?
> 
> In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?
> 
> In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
> or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.
> 
> You can have
> * VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
> * or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.
> 
> These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
> The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
> servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.
> 
> 2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
> yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
> our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.
> 
> Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?
> 
> We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
> but if we live by caring for our neighbors
> equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
> it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
> to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, the OT allows for slavery, as do several other mainstream religions.  So now, you are claiming that I must completely follow your religion, which goes almost completely against my religion.  Your definition is NT law.   I don't believe in it. And yes, I'm referring to traditional slavery.  Many religions prohibit spiritual healing as well (including mine).  Why should I have to join your religion, just to have civil rights? We are not a theocracy, and you are now narrowing it down to you must be not only a christian, but a certain type of christian.  You do realize that some Christian faiths have more books than your bible, and some that have less than your bible.  There are a lot that have completely different translations - as in one case, where two people met, greeted each other and    (translations)    a)  kissed;  b) chastely kissed on the cheek;  c)  shook hands.  Some translations recognize several same sex relationships.  Other ministers, with NO knowledge of Greek or Aramaic claim it's a lie.  Are you aware that the word homosexual didn't appear in the bible until mid century - drum roll - last century.  That the Greek word for homosexual did not occur in all of the locations fundamentalist Christians claim, but only twice, and even then, it's believed to be mistranslated. So.....sorry Emily - it's another fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all Sneekin
> 
> by the Scriptures we do not force one person or the other,
> but reach agre ement by resolving grievances or conflicts
> in the spirit of Christ Jesus where we both agre e to follow as
> universal authority over both of us and all people and relations.
> see Matthew 18:15-20
> 
> I don't coerce anyone, but seek agreement on what is universal law and truth,
> and that sets both people, and the relationship between us, free from conflict!
> 
> to be honest, the process is MUTUAL, where you will correct
> me as much as I offer the same to you, so we are equal neighbors.
> 
> If you are not a believer, and you ask me to depart and not share with you this way,
> I am called to leave you alone.
> 
> But as long as I use the language and laws you ascribe to,
> usually this method works to resolve the conflicts and reach
> either agreement or neutral stalemate.
> 
> It is a mutual process of exchange,
> not forced by one person or the other or it doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Emily - again you bring religion into it.  Enough.  Your scriptures say one thing, mine say something completely different -which is why we are not writing law to conform to your religion.  You can't ell a muslim to resolve grievances in the spirit of Christ Jesus - that's offensive. Checkmate. Stalemate.  Enough discussion.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> 
> There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
> about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
> to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
> to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.
> 
> Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
> A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
> catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
> with no time to eat or sleep in between.
> 
> ^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
> and were behind on both for about a month each and only
> have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
> that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?
> 
> If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
> to get you to acknowledge this?
> 
> B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
> have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.
> 
> Are you really going to
> 1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
> 2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?
> 
> WHY would you do that?
> Do you not believe me?
> Or  you don't care to consider there are other reasons?
> 
> ????
> Can you explain what you are really thinking
> and why you are projecting that onto me?
> 
> 
> 
> Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying fuck that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquies
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. there is only one of me, and there are 4-5 of you.
> Do you think I have time to answer 10 posts by Sneekin, you and rightwinger?
> 
> 2. did you get my PM that I have two jobs, that i am behind on.
> Does that register in your head that I don't have time in betwe en my two jobs
> to even eat and sleep in a healthy manner?
> 
> Faun have you ever worked two jobs at the same time?
> Do you have any idea how strenous it is?
> 
> I can't even call my own mother back for we eks to catch up.
> I can't se e my nephews in California, I can barely se e my own boyfriend
> once a we ek if I am lucky.
> 
> Why would I spend more time online answering questions
> from you than I spend time with my boyfriend or talking with my family?
> 
> Are you that insulted that I don't have time to
> answer all your messages when I can't even call my own mother back on time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, stop whining. I asked you a simple question which could have been answered in 2 seconds with _"yes"_ or _"no."_
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARE YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN MOTHER???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF is wrong with you? I'm the one who suggested you spend less time here and more time with your mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.
> 
> I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?
> 
> Is this just your way of communicating?
> 
> If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!
> 
> If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you _thought_ you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a _"yes"_ or _"no"_ answer and neither were forthcoming from you.
> 
> Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....
> 
> Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.
> 
> That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's *but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.*
> 
> I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...
> 
> ___________________________​
> *Faun: *_do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?_
> 
> *emilynghiem: *_I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction. The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt._
> 
> ... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...
> 
> ___________________________​
> So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??
> 
> That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> Thanks for your answer but your answer is *EXACTLY* the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.
> 
> A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)
> 
> In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.
> 
> The government is not divorcing itself from marriage *precisely because of people like you* who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RE: In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> NO, I'm saying to AVOID that by either:
> A. if govt use marriage then ALL people get that
> (and I'm suggesting that to reach agreement on inclusion, to treat LGBT beliefs
> and Christian beliefs about spiritual healing prayer equally, neither imposing one while excluding the other)
> B. if people cannot agre e on that, but for example ALL agre e to civil contracts,
> then ALL people get that.
> C. as for your concern that if that were to happen and this leaves out Atheists who don't have
> a way to get married, I am saying to set it up -- by agreement BEFORE changing policies*. so if there needs to be separate CHOICE of funding for govt programs
> that deals with "social" benefits that not all people agree to the terms of, that can be done while
> setting up state alternatives to resolve ACA issues and requirements that are FACING this SAME ISSUE.
> 
> Sorry Faun if you don't like my full answer.
> I am trying to address these things in context.
> the solutions to one point (such as marriage issues) solve other problems as well (such as health care issues).
> 
> * NOTE to Faun: ACA required states alternatives to avoid penalty BEFORE setting these up. Did you complain about ACA being unconstitutional by requiring people to face fines for not choosing alternatives that weren't even allowed to be proposed to states yet much less set up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While you're promoting the government to get out of the marriage business, you say churches she still be performing marriages.
> 
> What you're seeking allows religious heterosexuals to marry the person of their choice; but no one else can.
> 
> Given that marriage is a fundamental right for all, religious and secular, straight and gay, why do you think it's ok to protect that right for folks like you, but not for folks like Syriusly, who is an atheist, and not for folks who are gay?
Click to expand...


NOPE
1. first I am not saying to do all this, I am saying that if people agrees it solves the problem to be open to such solutions
by my standards, I only go by CONSENT
so if you do not consent to this, that is taken into account in the solution

2. second, the people set up alternatives and agreements BEFORE changing any laws
again I hold to that standard by CONSENT of the governed

Now Faun since I am answering your questions can you answer mine:
3. Do you agree to these same standards of NOT requiring people to go through 
options that aren't equally available for all people?

And if so, do you support the ACA mandates that require people to either
go through the govt approved and regulated choices for health care or insurance to avoid penalties,
or wait on STATE ALTERNATIVES to be created that also need to MEET GOVT approval.

if these choices HAVEN'T BEEN implemented yet,
do you agree with laws REQUIRING PEOPLE TO GO THROUGH THEM FOR HEALTH CARE?
OR ELSE FACE FINES?

Please answer that question ^
Thanks Faun


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> A.  Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution.  In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage.  In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage.   In some religions, slavery is allowed.  Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law.  Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
> B.  Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc.  Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church.  They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
> C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment.  I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says.   I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists).  I have no book of Colossians.  Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god.  They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said NO to all three.
> A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
> their right to petition to redress grievances.
> Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
> It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
> If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
> it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
> with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
> NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
> if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.
> 
> B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
> The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
> That is NOT what I am asking.
> 1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
> for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
> 2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
> where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage
> 
> C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
> at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!
> 
> Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
> how would you describe the equivalent process of
> * govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
> * govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing
> 
> If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
> or accept it,
> how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."
> 
> Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
> so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A.  And as i told you, no slavery violates my rights.  My religion allows slavery to this day.  You VIOLATE MY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.  You are prohibiting me from the full performance of my religion.
> 
> B.  1) Spiritual healing is religious.  I don't care if it's equal choice, it violates the 1st amendment if it receives government funding
> B  2)  There is no such thing as gay marriage.   The Civil Marriage law was not opened up and added NOTHING as a CHOICE.  The law imposes NOTHING on ANYONE.  The Government isn't endorsing Gay Marriage, Straight Marriage.   It allows couples to get marriage, if THEY CHOOSE.  No endorsement at all, never has been.
> C)  A religion can reject gay marriage (religious marriage).    It can refuse to officiate a civil marriage between same sex partners.  You, as a US citizen cannot choose to agree or reject MARRIAGE except as an opinion.   No one is forced to change any beliefs.   You must comprehend that MARRIAGE is a RIGHT..  Can you explain to me how CIVIL MARRIAGE forces anyone to do anything?   You keep combining religious matrimony with civil marriage.  Quite a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sneekin
> 
> A. And I would tell you that you have the right to exercise slavery VOLUNTARILY
> with those who AGREE to it as you do. If you agree to be enslaved, such as for charity,
> and providing free health care at no cost to others, you are free to do so.
> but by the same Bible you claim endorses slavery,
> * it says to love one another as equal neighbors.
> * it says to obey human institutions and civil authority,
> so if laws say no involuntary servitude except as punishment for crime prescribed by law
> then you as a believer would accept this rebuke and correction.
> 
> B. as for spiritual healing
> I am asking for the same thing that applies for marriage
> 
> if people choose to endorse it or engage in it,
> it is by free choice and not imposed.
> 
> so how can this be done for spiritual healing
> as it is for marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A)  Voluntary slavery is contradictory - and where did I say I used YOUR bible?  My bible says none of what you put down.
> B)  Spiritual healing, for the 10th time, violates the first amendment.  Marriage is a contract.  Spiritual healing can be just about any religious thing, such as snake handling, beatings (beat the demon), beads, rattles, feathers, prayers, speaking in tongues, prayer chains, etc.  Since it directly violates the US Constitution by receipt of federal funding.
> 
> The same thing that applies for marriage?  The difference is Marriage is a CIVIL CONTRACT and you want to impose YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS into MY HEALTHCARE.  Marriage is upheld by the 14th, faith healing VIOLATES the first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> A. then I find out what your religion, belief or Bible does say.
> And if you are using the First Amendment to practice and defend that,
> then I show you the rest of the First Amendment, Bill of rights and laws in context
> that come with that. Whatever laws you are invoking, I learn what they are
> and rebuke you where you are violating your own principles you ascribe to.
> 
> When this is done properly, the person respects the correction
> because it is given in their own terms. Like taking a set of
> math variables in a GIVEN problem, and using THOSE
> to either demonstrate consistency or inconsistency with ITSELF
> 
> B. As for spiritual healing, what if that is someone's way of
> getting their equal health care provisions.
> 
> So if you are requiring people through ACA to go through
> GOVT ENDORSED AND APPROVED ALTERNATIVES
> then ACA REQUIRES that  *federal govt* endorse these choices
> if people are to have them as "equal choices of health care"
Click to expand...

Imagine that - the ACA requires you to have insurance that actually does something and cover something.  Go figure.  I'm sorry - you elected your representatives.  They lost.  It's the law. Deal until you get your legislators can change the law.  This is NOT the forum to do it on.

My scriptures aren't even on the same shelf as my constitution - there's actually a physical separation - it helped my kids when they were younger to understand.  You can't impose your religious beliefs on spiritual healing and expect that a collective "you" will decide if my religion, belief or bible suits your needs, or if I have to change it.   The only law I'm invoking is separation of church and state.  You are hell bent on combining them with spiritual healing.  Enough. Stalemate, move on.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said NO to all three.
> A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
> their right to petition to redress grievances.
> Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
> It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
> If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
> it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
> with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
> NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
> if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.
> 
> B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
> The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
> That is NOT what I am asking.
> 1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
> for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
> 2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
> where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage
> 
> C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
> at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!
> 
> Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
> how would you describe the equivalent process of
> * govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
> * govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing
> 
> If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
> or accept it,
> how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."
> 
> Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
> so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???
> 
> 
> 
> A.  So then you are wrong in your claims - I can't freely exercise my religion - violation of my first amendment rights.  As some Christians will tell you, Slavery is allowed under biblical law.  So I DEMAND to have a slave, using your argument.
> B.  Spiritual Healing has been ruled unconstitutional in certain situations.  The law will stay that way.  Read your case law governing Jehovah Witness and children.
> C.  There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE.  There is only CIVIL MARRIAGE.  It's not a choice, it cannot be agreed to or rejected by the government, as it doesn't exist.  Your religion can refuse to do SSM or Straight marriages under the 1st amendment.
> 
> Actually, the government said licensing of only straight couples was illegal.  They didn't include gay people, they removed the existing requirement that they be opposite sex.  Different from a legal perspective. 14th amendment - equal protection and due process.
> 
> Spiritual Healing is religious and violates the 1st amendment.  If your private insurance company doesn't receive federal funds, then your company can offer spiritual healing.  If it receives government funding (Medicaid, Medicare, etc), then it would violate the 1st amendment - because you are endorsing a religion over another.  You've claimed some people don't want to pay for certain procedures - well i certainly don't want to pay for someone handling snakes, rattling beads, speaking in tongues, or any of the hundreds of other forms of spiritual healing.
> 
> You can't set up a state recognized religion, so you can't set up spiritual healing that wouldn't impose your religion on me.  This is in direct opposition to your other argument,  because there is no gay marriage and straight marriage, but simply civil marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> 1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
> and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?
> 
> In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?
> 
> In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
> or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.
> 
> You can have
> * VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
> * or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.
> 
> These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
> The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
> servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.
> 
> 2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
> yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
> our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.
> 
> Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?
> 
> We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
> but if we live by caring for our neighbors
> equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
> it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
> to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, the OT allows for slavery, as do several other mainstream religions.  So now, you are claiming that I must completely follow your religion, which goes almost completely against my religion.  Your definition is NT law.   I don't believe in it. And yes, I'm referring to traditional slavery.  Many religions prohibit spiritual healing as well (including mine).  Why should I have to join your religion, just to have civil rights? We are not a theocracy, and you are now narrowing it down to you must be not only a christian, but a certain type of christian.  You do realize that some Christian faiths have more books than your bible, and some that have less than your bible.  There are a lot that have completely different translations - as in one case, where two people met, greeted each other and    (translations)    a)  kissed;  b) chastely kissed on the cheek;  c)  shook hands.  Some translations recognize several same sex relationships.  Other ministers, with NO knowledge of Greek or Aramaic claim it's a lie.  Are you aware that the word homosexual didn't appear in the bible until mid century - drum roll - last century.  That the Greek word for homosexual did not occur in all of the locations fundamentalist Christians claim, but only twice, and even then, it's believed to be mistranslated. So.....sorry Emily - it's another fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all Sneekin
> 
> by the Scriptures we do not force one person or the other,
> but reach agre ement by resolving grievances or conflicts
> in the spirit of Christ Jesus where we both agre e to follow as
> universal authority over both of us and all people and relations.
> see Matthew 18:15-20
> 
> I don't coerce anyone, but seek agreement on what is universal law and truth,
> and that sets both people, and the relationship between us, free from conflict!
> 
> to be honest, the process is MUTUAL, where you will correct
> me as much as I offer the same to you, so we are equal neighbors.
> 
> If you are not a believer, and you ask me to depart and not share with you this way,
> I am called to leave you alone.
> 
> But as long as I use the language and laws you ascribe to,
> usually this method works to resolve the conflicts and reach
> either agreement or neutral stalemate.
> 
> It is a mutual process of exchange,
> not forced by one person or the other or it doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily - again you bring religion into it.  Enough.  Your scriptures say one thing, mine say something completely different -which is why we are not writing law to conform to your religion.  You can't ell a muslim to resolve grievances in the spirit of Christ Jesus - that's offensive. Checkmate. Stalemate.  Enough discussion.
Click to expand...


1. I AM trying to use YOUR terms beliefs or "religion" if that's what you call yours Sneekin
that's the only way I can communicate with you is by YOUR beliefs.
most people I know believe in invoking their Constitutional rights,
so I often use that as the default language to get on the same terms.
Once we agree what we call the things we do or don't believe in,
we can work out the rest with that system of terms we use in common.

2. and YES Muslims are also called to follow the Bible as sent by God.
The true Muslim faith calls for Jews Christians and Muslims all to live with
love and respect for other people of the Book as they are under these
laws too which come from God.

My friend Mustafaa of CAIR reads the Bible daily and relies on it
to communicate with Christians who have questions or rebukes for him,
where he asks the same of them. For those who actually follow their
own Bible, this works well. He works alongside other Christians and nontheists
in the peace and justice community. So if you get the spirit of the laws aligned
in agreement, anyone can get along whether religious or nontheist.

This works by fr e e choice, never by force.

So that's why I try to figure out what people's beliefs are naturally,
how they express it, and use THEIR laws and experiences to communicate
the same concepts and principles, which I find to be universal no matter
how uniquely and diversely each person expresses it their own ways!


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> A.  So then you are wrong in your claims - I can't freely exercise my religion - violation of my first amendment rights.  As some Christians will tell you, Slavery is allowed under biblical law.  So I DEMAND to have a slave, using your argument.
> B.  Spiritual Healing has been ruled unconstitutional in certain situations.  The law will stay that way.  Read your case law governing Jehovah Witness and children.
> C.  There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE.  There is only CIVIL MARRIAGE.  It's not a choice, it cannot be agreed to or rejected by the government, as it doesn't exist.  Your religion can refuse to do SSM or Straight marriages under the 1st amendment.
> 
> Actually, the government said licensing of only straight couples was illegal.  They didn't include gay people, they removed the existing requirement that they be opposite sex.  Different from a legal perspective. 14th amendment - equal protection and due process.
> 
> Spiritual Healing is religious and violates the 1st amendment.  If your private insurance company doesn't receive federal funds, then your company can offer spiritual healing.  If it receives government funding (Medicaid, Medicare, etc), then it would violate the 1st amendment - because you are endorsing a religion over another.  You've claimed some people don't want to pay for certain procedures - well i certainly don't want to pay for someone handling snakes, rattling beads, speaking in tongues, or any of the hundreds of other forms of spiritual healing.
> 
> You can't set up a state recognized religion, so you can't set up spiritual healing that wouldn't impose your religion on me.  This is in direct opposition to your other argument,  because there is no gay marriage and straight marriage, but simply civil marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> 1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
> and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?
> 
> In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?
> 
> In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
> or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.
> 
> You can have
> * VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
> * or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.
> 
> These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
> The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
> servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.
> 
> 2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
> yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
> our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.
> 
> Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?
> 
> We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
> but if we live by caring for our neighbors
> equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
> it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
> to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, the OT allows for slavery, as do several other mainstream religions.  So now, you are claiming that I must completely follow your religion, which goes almost completely against my religion.  Your definition is NT law.   I don't believe in it. And yes, I'm referring to traditional slavery.  Many religions prohibit spiritual healing as well (including mine).  Why should I have to join your religion, just to have civil rights? We are not a theocracy, and you are now narrowing it down to you must be not only a christian, but a certain type of christian.  You do realize that some Christian faiths have more books than your bible, and some that have less than your bible.  There are a lot that have completely different translations - as in one case, where two people met, greeted each other and    (translations)    a)  kissed;  b) chastely kissed on the cheek;  c)  shook hands.  Some translations recognize several same sex relationships.  Other ministers, with NO knowledge of Greek or Aramaic claim it's a lie.  Are you aware that the word homosexual didn't appear in the bible until mid century - drum roll - last century.  That the Greek word for homosexual did not occur in all of the locations fundamentalist Christians claim, but only twice, and even then, it's believed to be mistranslated. So.....sorry Emily - it's another fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all Sneekin
> 
> by the Scriptures we do not force one person or the other,
> but reach agre ement by resolving grievances or conflicts
> in the spirit of Christ Jesus where we both agre e to follow as
> universal authority over both of us and all people and relations.
> see Matthew 18:15-20
> 
> I don't coerce anyone, but seek agreement on what is universal law and truth,
> and that sets both people, and the relationship between us, free from conflict!
> 
> to be honest, the process is MUTUAL, where you will correct
> me as much as I offer the same to you, so we are equal neighbors.
> 
> If you are not a believer, and you ask me to depart and not share with you this way,
> I am called to leave you alone.
> 
> But as long as I use the language and laws you ascribe to,
> usually this method works to resolve the conflicts and reach
> either agreement or neutral stalemate.
> 
> It is a mutual process of exchange,
> not forced by one person or the other or it doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily - again you bring religion into it.  Enough.  Your scriptures say one thing, mine say something completely different -which is why we are not writing law to conform to your religion.  You can't ell a muslim to resolve grievances in the spirit of Christ Jesus - that's offensive. Checkmate. Stalemate.  Enough discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. I AM trying to use YOUR terms beliefs or "religion" if that's what you call yours Sneekin
> that's the only way I can communicate with you is by YOUR beliefs.
> most people I know believe in invoking their Constitutional rights,
> so I often use that as the default language to get on the same terms.
> Once we agree what we call the things we do or don't believe in,
> we can work out the rest with that system of terms we use in common.
> 
> 2. and YES Muslims are also called to follow the Bible as sent by God.
> The true Muslim faith calls for Jews Christians and Muslims all to live with
> love and respect for other people of the Book as they are under these
> laws too which come from God.
> 
> My friend Mustafaa of CAIR reads the Bible daily and relies on it
> to communicate with Christians who have questions or rebukes for him,
> where he asks the same of them. For those who actually follow their
> own Bible, this works well. He works alongside other Christians and nontheists
> in the peace and justice community. So if you get the spirit of the laws aligned
> in agreement, anyone can get along whether religious or nontheist.
> 
> This works by fr e e choice, never by force.
> 
> So that's why I try to figure out what people's beliefs are naturally,
> how they express it, and use THEIR laws and experiences to communicate
> the same concepts and principles, which I find to be universal no matter
> how uniquely and diversely each person expresses it their own ways!
Click to expand...

No - freedom from ALL religions.  Your religious beliefs are not my constitutional rights and won't be.  My religious beliefs are not to be factored into the law as well (and not).  

That may be Mustafaa's belief (followers of the book), but it's not all - and it doesn't cover all religions.  It doesn't cover the NT - which didn't exist to all 3 parties.  The book is the OT.  Followers of Abraham would be another name for them, as they are descended from a single religion (Judaism).  So, we are back to Jews who recognize slavery, etc, etc.  No shellfish, no pork, no mixing meat and dairy - the list goes on. Except, then Christians can't have their Lobster, Muslims can't have their meat be Halal, etc.This too would violate law.   Of course, much of this violates tenets of other faiths.  I've been on threads where people have stated that Catholics are cannibals - because they believe in transubstantiation - that bread and wine is converted to the actual body and blood of Christ.  by eating/drinking actual blood and flesh, one would be a cannibal.  Only a few religions believe in that concept any more (Christian), and non-Christians don't believe it at all.   This is why we don't have what you ask for.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> A.  So then you are wrong in your claims - I can't freely exercise my religion - violation of my first amendment rights.  As some Christians will tell you, Slavery is allowed under biblical law.  So I DEMAND to have a slave, using your argument.
> B.  Spiritual Healing has been ruled unconstitutional in certain situations.  The law will stay that way.  Read your case law governing Jehovah Witness and children.
> C.  There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE.  There is only CIVIL MARRIAGE.  It's not a choice, it cannot be agreed to or rejected by the government, as it doesn't exist.  Your religion can refuse to do SSM or Straight marriages under the 1st amendment.
> 
> Actually, the government said licensing of only straight couples was illegal.  They didn't include gay people, they removed the existing requirement that they be opposite sex.  Different from a legal perspective. 14th amendment - equal protection and due process.
> 
> Spiritual Healing is religious and violates the 1st amendment.  If your private insurance company doesn't receive federal funds, then your company can offer spiritual healing.  If it receives government funding (Medicaid, Medicare, etc), then it would violate the 1st amendment - because you are endorsing a religion over another.  You've claimed some people don't want to pay for certain procedures - well i certainly don't want to pay for someone handling snakes, rattling beads, speaking in tongues, or any of the hundreds of other forms of spiritual healing.
> 
> You can't set up a state recognized religion, so you can't set up spiritual healing that wouldn't impose your religion on me.  This is in direct opposition to your other argument,  because there is no gay marriage and straight marriage, but simply civil marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> 1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
> and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?
> 
> In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?
> 
> In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
> or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.
> 
> You can have
> * VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
> * or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.
> 
> These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
> The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
> servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.
> 
> 2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
> yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
> our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.
> 
> Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?
> 
> We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
> but if we live by caring for our neighbors
> equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
> it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
> to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, the OT allows for slavery, as do several other mainstream religions.  So now, you are claiming that I must completely follow your religion, which goes almost completely against my religion.  Your definition is NT law.   I don't believe in it. And yes, I'm referring to traditional slavery.  Many religions prohibit spiritual healing as well (including mine).  Why should I have to join your religion, just to have civil rights? We are not a theocracy, and you are now narrowing it down to you must be not only a christian, but a certain type of christian.  You do realize that some Christian faiths have more books than your bible, and some that have less than your bible.  There are a lot that have completely different translations - as in one case, where two people met, greeted each other and    (translations)    a)  kissed;  b) chastely kissed on the cheek;  c)  shook hands.  Some translations recognize several same sex relationships.  Other ministers, with NO knowledge of Greek or Aramaic claim it's a lie.  Are you aware that the word homosexual didn't appear in the bible until mid century - drum roll - last century.  That the Greek word for homosexual did not occur in all of the locations fundamentalist Christians claim, but only twice, and even then, it's believed to be mistranslated. So.....sorry Emily - it's another fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all Sneekin
> 
> by the Scriptures we do not force one person or the other,
> but reach agre ement by resolving grievances or conflicts
> in the spirit of Christ Jesus where we both agre e to follow as
> universal authority over both of us and all people and relations.
> see Matthew 18:15-20
> 
> I don't coerce anyone, but seek agreement on what is universal law and truth,
> and that sets both people, and the relationship between us, free from conflict!
> 
> to be honest, the process is MUTUAL, where you will correct
> me as much as I offer the same to you, so we are equal neighbors.
> 
> If you are not a believer, and you ask me to depart and not share with you this way,
> I am called to leave you alone.
> 
> But as long as I use the language and laws you ascribe to,
> usually this method works to resolve the conflicts and reach
> either agreement or neutral stalemate.
> 
> It is a mutual process of exchange,
> not forced by one person or the other or it doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily - again you bring religion into it.  Enough.  Your scriptures say one thing, mine say something completely different -which is why we are not writing law to conform to your religion.  You can't ell a muslim to resolve grievances in the spirit of Christ Jesus - that's offensive. Checkmate. Stalemate.  Enough discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. I AM trying to use YOUR terms beliefs or "religion" if that's what you call yours Sneekin
> that's the only way I can communicate with you is by YOUR beliefs.
> most people I know believe in invoking their Constitutional rights,
> so I often use that as the default language to get on the same terms.
> Once we agree what we call the things we do or don't believe in,
> we can work out the rest with that system of terms we use in common.
> 
> 2. and YES Muslims are also called to follow the Bible as sent by God.
> The true Muslim faith calls for Jews Christians and Muslims all to live with
> love and respect for other people of the Book as they are under these
> laws too which come from God.
> 
> My friend Mustafaa of CAIR reads the Bible daily and relies on it
> to communicate with Christians who have questions or rebukes for him,
> where he asks the same of them. For those who actually follow their
> own Bible, this works well. He works alongside other Christians and nontheists
> in the peace and justice community. So if you get the spirit of the laws aligned
> in agreement, anyone can get along whether religious or nontheist.
> 
> This works by fr e e choice, never by force.
> 
> So that's why I try to figure out what people's beliefs are naturally,
> how they express it, and use THEIR laws and experiences to communicate
> the same concepts and principles, which I find to be universal no matter
> how uniquely and diversely each person expresses it their own ways!
Click to expand...

Emily, normally I'm drawing parallels between the Qur'an and the Old Testament (with a smattering of NT).  But to clarify, there are interpretations by Muhammad that do not in any way follow what you consider to be the Christian bible.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> 1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
> and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?
> 
> In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?
> 
> In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
> or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.
> 
> You can have
> * VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
> * or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.
> 
> These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
> The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
> servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.
> 
> 2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
> yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
> our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.
> 
> Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?
> 
> We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
> but if we live by caring for our neighbors
> equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
> it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
> to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.
> 
> 
> 
> Emily, the OT allows for slavery, as do several other mainstream religions.  So now, you are claiming that I must completely follow your religion, which goes almost completely against my religion.  Your definition is NT law.   I don't believe in it. And yes, I'm referring to traditional slavery.  Many religions prohibit spiritual healing as well (including mine).  Why should I have to join your religion, just to have civil rights? We are not a theocracy, and you are now narrowing it down to you must be not only a christian, but a certain type of christian.  You do realize that some Christian faiths have more books than your bible, and some that have less than your bible.  There are a lot that have completely different translations - as in one case, where two people met, greeted each other and    (translations)    a)  kissed;  b) chastely kissed on the cheek;  c)  shook hands.  Some translations recognize several same sex relationships.  Other ministers, with NO knowledge of Greek or Aramaic claim it's a lie.  Are you aware that the word homosexual didn't appear in the bible until mid century - drum roll - last century.  That the Greek word for homosexual did not occur in all of the locations fundamentalist Christians claim, but only twice, and even then, it's believed to be mistranslated. So.....sorry Emily - it's another fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all Sneekin
> 
> by the Scriptures we do not force one person or the other,
> but reach agre ement by resolving grievances or conflicts
> in the spirit of Christ Jesus where we both agre e to follow as
> universal authority over both of us and all people and relations.
> see Matthew 18:15-20
> 
> I don't coerce anyone, but seek agreement on what is universal law and truth,
> and that sets both people, and the relationship between us, free from conflict!
> 
> to be honest, the process is MUTUAL, where you will correct
> me as much as I offer the same to you, so we are equal neighbors.
> 
> If you are not a believer, and you ask me to depart and not share with you this way,
> I am called to leave you alone.
> 
> But as long as I use the language and laws you ascribe to,
> usually this method works to resolve the conflicts and reach
> either agreement or neutral stalemate.
> 
> It is a mutual process of exchange,
> not forced by one person or the other or it doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily - again you bring religion into it.  Enough.  Your scriptures say one thing, mine say something completely different -which is why we are not writing law to conform to your religion.  You can't ell a muslim to resolve grievances in the spirit of Christ Jesus - that's offensive. Checkmate. Stalemate.  Enough discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. I AM trying to use YOUR terms beliefs or "religion" if that's what you call yours Sneekin
> that's the only way I can communicate with you is by YOUR beliefs.
> most people I know believe in invoking their Constitutional rights,
> so I often use that as the default language to get on the same terms.
> Once we agree what we call the things we do or don't believe in,
> we can work out the rest with that system of terms we use in common.
> 
> 2. and YES Muslims are also called to follow the Bible as sent by God.
> The true Muslim faith calls for Jews Christians and Muslims all to live with
> love and respect for other people of the Book as they are under these
> laws too which come from God.
> 
> My friend Mustafaa of CAIR reads the Bible daily and relies on it
> to communicate with Christians who have questions or rebukes for him,
> where he asks the same of them. For those who actually follow their
> own Bible, this works well. He works alongside other Christians and nontheists
> in the peace and justice community. So if you get the spirit of the laws aligned
> in agreement, anyone can get along whether religious or nontheist.
> 
> This works by fr e e choice, never by force.
> 
> So that's why I try to figure out what people's beliefs are naturally,
> how they express it, and use THEIR laws and experiences to communicate
> the same concepts and principles, which I find to be universal no matter
> how uniquely and diversely each person expresses it their own ways!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, normally I'm drawing parallels between the Qur'an and the Old Testament (with a smattering of NT).  But to clarify, there are interpretations by Muhammad that do not in any way follow what you consider to be the Christian bible.
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin
With most people I have used this method to communicate with,
they either follow some variation of the Biblical scriptural authority,
or they use natural laws as in Constitutitional language and concepts,
or some other system like Buddhism or their own words.
One friend used respect for Truth, respect for Freedom, and
respect for People or the Environment for the last one.
this still aligns with the same three levels of
individual, collective level, and relationship between the two.

so regardless what words or system people use to describe it,
it's going to follow some basic patterns and we can still align
and communicate what is within the rules and what is a violation
they are opposed to .

As for Freedom or free will, i frame that in context with
peace, where the balance between freedom and peace
is justice. so whatever terms or even religions people use
fall into those same areas.

I think the distinction you are trying to make is between 
* people who apply laws with Retributive Justice
and rely on judgment and punishment for enforcement
* people who approach them with Restorative Justice
and focus on corrections of wrongs and restoration of relations

so if people choose to go the retributive route,
they get policed by other people who take that route.

I am focused on how to work out policies cooperatively
by aligning people who take the Restorative route.

Those are the ones where I find we can communicate
to align our value systems and agree on universal standards in both systems,
even where we use different terms.

If people are bent on bullying and making war to force others by oppression,
they aren't on the level of communicating to prevent such conflicts.
I would start with the ones who ARE ready,
and then enlist the help of leaders who CAN connect with the
fundamental types and still form a consensus indirectly.

i would delegate that work to people who can do both.
They can negotiate and get the internal policies aligned
and they can also defend between competing groups externally.

Does that make sense.

the way I would reach those groups is through others
who are able to communicate on their level.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> 1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
> and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?
> 
> In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?
> 
> In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
> or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.
> 
> You can have
> * VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
> * or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.
> 
> These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
> The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
> servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.
> 
> 2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
> yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
> our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.
> 
> Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?
> 
> We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
> but if we live by caring for our neighbors
> equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
> it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
> to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.
> 
> 
> 
> Emily, the OT allows for slavery, as do several other mainstream religions.  So now, you are claiming that I must completely follow your religion, which goes almost completely against my religion.  Your definition is NT law.   I don't believe in it. And yes, I'm referring to traditional slavery.  Many religions prohibit spiritual healing as well (including mine).  Why should I have to join your religion, just to have civil rights? We are not a theocracy, and you are now narrowing it down to you must be not only a christian, but a certain type of christian.  You do realize that some Christian faiths have more books than your bible, and some that have less than your bible.  There are a lot that have completely different translations - as in one case, where two people met, greeted each other and    (translations)    a)  kissed;  b) chastely kissed on the cheek;  c)  shook hands.  Some translations recognize several same sex relationships.  Other ministers, with NO knowledge of Greek or Aramaic claim it's a lie.  Are you aware that the word homosexual didn't appear in the bible until mid century - drum roll - last century.  That the Greek word for homosexual did not occur in all of the locations fundamentalist Christians claim, but only twice, and even then, it's believed to be mistranslated. So.....sorry Emily - it's another fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all Sneekin
> 
> by the Scriptures we do not force one person or the other,
> but reach agre ement by resolving grievances or conflicts
> in the spirit of Christ Jesus where we both agre e to follow as
> universal authority over both of us and all people and relations.
> see Matthew 18:15-20
> 
> I don't coerce anyone, but seek agreement on what is universal law and truth,
> and that sets both people, and the relationship between us, free from conflict!
> 
> to be honest, the process is MUTUAL, where you will correct
> me as much as I offer the same to you, so we are equal neighbors.
> 
> If you are not a believer, and you ask me to depart and not share with you this way,
> I am called to leave you alone.
> 
> But as long as I use the language and laws you ascribe to,
> usually this method works to resolve the conflicts and reach
> either agreement or neutral stalemate.
> 
> It is a mutual process of exchange,
> not forced by one person or the other or it doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily - again you bring religion into it.  Enough.  Your scriptures say one thing, mine say something completely different -which is why we are not writing law to conform to your religion.  You can't ell a muslim to resolve grievances in the spirit of Christ Jesus - that's offensive. Checkmate. Stalemate.  Enough discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. I AM trying to use YOUR terms beliefs or "religion" if that's what you call yours Sneekin
> that's the only way I can communicate with you is by YOUR beliefs.
> most people I know believe in invoking their Constitutional rights,
> so I often use that as the default language to get on the same terms.
> Once we agree what we call the things we do or don't believe in,
> we can work out the rest with that system of terms we use in common.
> 
> 2. and YES Muslims are also called to follow the Bible as sent by God.
> The true Muslim faith calls for Jews Christians and Muslims all to live with
> love and respect for other people of the Book as they are under these
> laws too which come from God.
> 
> My friend Mustafaa of CAIR reads the Bible daily and relies on it
> to communicate with Christians who have questions or rebukes for him,
> where he asks the same of them. For those who actually follow their
> own Bible, this works well. He works alongside other Christians and nontheists
> in the peace and justice community. So if you get the spirit of the laws aligned
> in agreement, anyone can get along whether religious or nontheist.
> 
> This works by fr e e choice, never by force.
> 
> So that's why I try to figure out what people's beliefs are naturally,
> how they express it, and use THEIR laws and experiences to communicate
> the same concepts and principles, which I find to be universal no matter
> how uniquely and diversely each person expresses it their own ways!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No - freedom from ALL religions.  Your religious beliefs are not my constitutional rights and won't be.  My religious beliefs are not to be factored into the law as well (and not).
> 
> That may be Mustafaa's belief (followers of the book), but it's not all - and it doesn't cover all religions.  It doesn't cover the NT - which didn't exist to all 3 parties.  The book is the OT.  Followers of Abraham would be another name for them, as they are descended from a single religion (Judaism).  So, we are back to Jews who recognize slavery, etc, etc.  No shellfish, no pork, no mixing meat and dairy - the list goes on. Except, then Christians can't have their Lobster, Muslims can't have their meat be Halal, etc.This too would violate law.   Of course, much of this violates tenets of other faiths.  I've been on threads where people have stated that Catholics are cannibals - because they believe in transubstantiation - that bread and wine is converted to the actual body and blood of Christ.  by eating/drinking actual blood and flesh, one would be a cannibal.  Only a few religions believe in that concept any more (Christian), and non-Christians don't believe it at all.   This is why we don't have what you ask for.
Click to expand...


Right Sneekin

So why is it that you understand not to impose spiritual healing through govt, since it violates the beliefs of you and others 
but can't understand when health care mandates violate someone's BELIEFS and should not be REQUIRED by govt under penalty for noncompliance?

Is it only because you don't see religious freedom as
applying equally to political beliefs but only religious beliefs?


----------



## Mudda

Gay marriage is a constitutional right of equality.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> Emily... step away from your computer or mobile device and call your mother.



Thanks Faun
I can't even make it to Austin for her birthday because I'm so behind at work
and been sick on and off.

What I really want to
is to shift this whole Freedmen's Town project back into the hands of the
church and community leaders who WANT jobs and credit for rebuilding and restoring
programs the right way to be sustainable, not more dependence on govt
Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing

So whatever it takes to get this in the right hands, instead of me working two jobs
while the fundraising or organizing isn't getting done.
the nonprofits have the intent to pay back 60,000 in debts I covered for them,
but they are overworked unpaid volunteers also understaffed.
And just need the support to do the fundraising, which I have
been networking around to find help to promote the campus
plans, and create jobs for all of them instead of me paying bills until they find nonprofit sponsors.

Just 60K in nonprofit fundraising, and I could clear these credit cards
and not have to work two jobs and volunteer as a third unpaid job
trying to organize support around these campus plans:
http://www.campusplan.org

Then I will be free to see my family again, without that insane pressure.

That's what I really want for Christmas,
to get the RIGHT help for my friends
because this isn't working and never was the solution. It was supposed
to be temporary only and it has dragged out for years!

Hey Sneekin
Would your students be interested in a letter writing contest
to get the issues of legal abuse to the President and the need for restitution
in order to save a national historic Civil rights landmark?

Which theme do you think is more challenging
1. Addressing the left right political divide among the Black leadership preventing
Obama and Democrats from working with Carson and Republicans?
2. Addressing legal and corporate abuse of govt to oppress the
rights of underrepresented minority interests and communities
that have no support to defend our rights from violations?
3. Inviting Obama and Carson to visit Freedmen's Town
and see if Allen West and Sheila Jackson Lee can team up to
create jobs for Veterans and minority leaders to save this district as a campus
for training future leaders for govt office?

Since I have been trying to defend the overrun interests and censored restoration
plans of this FT community since 1995, and have been working two jobs since 2008
and can't get this resolved, I should be fired from this position I was never paid to take on anyway! Instead it has cost me over 60,000 that I am still paying at least 1000 a month to cover.

If I am going to ask help to raise 60K to get out from under these nonprofit debts,
all from govt abuses that cost nonprofit volunteers and organizations a heavy toll
in damages where the part I paid for was only for some of the emergencies these abuses
caused, I might as well raise money to hire someone to do this job right!

What would it cost a legal team to map out the damages assessment
and try to negotiate with Congressional and Executive level officials to cover those damages?

How much would have to be raised to hire a legal team to do this right,
even if it is a group of law students you are supervising? Thank you!


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily, the OT allows for slavery, as do several other mainstream religions.  So now, you are claiming that I must completely follow your religion, which goes almost completely against my religion.  Your definition is NT law.   I don't believe in it. And yes, I'm referring to traditional slavery.  Many religions prohibit spiritual healing as well (including mine).  Why should I have to join your religion, just to have civil rights? We are not a theocracy, and you are now narrowing it down to you must be not only a christian, but a certain type of christian.  You do realize that some Christian faiths have more books than your bible, and some that have less than your bible.  There are a lot that have completely different translations - as in one case, where two people met, greeted each other and    (translations)    a)  kissed;  b) chastely kissed on the cheek;  c)  shook hands.  Some translations recognize several same sex relationships.  Other ministers, with NO knowledge of Greek or Aramaic claim it's a lie.  Are you aware that the word homosexual didn't appear in the bible until mid century - drum roll - last century.  That the Greek word for homosexual did not occur in all of the locations fundamentalist Christians claim, but only twice, and even then, it's believed to be mistranslated. So.....sorry Emily - it's another fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all Sneekin
> 
> by the Scriptures we do not force one person or the other,
> but reach agre ement by resolving grievances or conflicts
> in the spirit of Christ Jesus where we both agre e to follow as
> universal authority over both of us and all people and relations.
> see Matthew 18:15-20
> 
> I don't coerce anyone, but seek agreement on what is universal law and truth,
> and that sets both people, and the relationship between us, free from conflict!
> 
> to be honest, the process is MUTUAL, where you will correct
> me as much as I offer the same to you, so we are equal neighbors.
> 
> If you are not a believer, and you ask me to depart and not share with you this way,
> I am called to leave you alone.
> 
> But as long as I use the language and laws you ascribe to,
> usually this method works to resolve the conflicts and reach
> either agreement or neutral stalemate.
> 
> It is a mutual process of exchange,
> not forced by one person or the other or it doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily - again you bring religion into it.  Enough.  Your scriptures say one thing, mine say something completely different -which is why we are not writing law to conform to your religion.  You can't ell a muslim to resolve grievances in the spirit of Christ Jesus - that's offensive. Checkmate. Stalemate.  Enough discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. I AM trying to use YOUR terms beliefs or "religion" if that's what you call yours Sneekin
> that's the only way I can communicate with you is by YOUR beliefs.
> most people I know believe in invoking their Constitutional rights,
> so I often use that as the default language to get on the same terms.
> Once we agree what we call the things we do or don't believe in,
> we can work out the rest with that system of terms we use in common.
> 
> 2. and YES Muslims are also called to follow the Bible as sent by God.
> The true Muslim faith calls for Jews Christians and Muslims all to live with
> love and respect for other people of the Book as they are under these
> laws too which come from God.
> 
> My friend Mustafaa of CAIR reads the Bible daily and relies on it
> to communicate with Christians who have questions or rebukes for him,
> where he asks the same of them. For those who actually follow their
> own Bible, this works well. He works alongside other Christians and nontheists
> in the peace and justice community. So if you get the spirit of the laws aligned
> in agreement, anyone can get along whether religious or nontheist.
> 
> This works by fr e e choice, never by force.
> 
> So that's why I try to figure out what people's beliefs are naturally,
> how they express it, and use THEIR laws and experiences to communicate
> the same concepts and principles, which I find to be universal no matter
> how uniquely and diversely each person expresses it their own ways!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No - freedom from ALL religions.  Your religious beliefs are not my constitutional rights and won't be.  My religious beliefs are not to be factored into the law as well (and not).
> 
> That may be Mustafaa's belief (followers of the book), but it's not all - and it doesn't cover all religions.  It doesn't cover the NT - which didn't exist to all 3 parties.  The book is the OT.  Followers of Abraham would be another name for them, as they are descended from a single religion (Judaism).  So, we are back to Jews who recognize slavery, etc, etc.  No shellfish, no pork, no mixing meat and dairy - the list goes on. Except, then Christians can't have their Lobster, Muslims can't have their meat be Halal, etc.This too would violate law.   Of course, much of this violates tenets of other faiths.  I've been on threads where people have stated that Catholics are cannibals - because they believe in transubstantiation - that bread and wine is converted to the actual body and blood of Christ.  by eating/drinking actual blood and flesh, one would be a cannibal.  Only a few religions believe in that concept any more (Christian), and non-Christians don't believe it at all.   This is why we don't have what you ask for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right Sneekin
> 
> So why is it that you understand not to impose spiritual healing through govt, since it violates the beliefs of you and others
> but can't understand when health care mandates violate someone's BELIEFS and should not be REQUIRED by govt under penalty for noncompliance?
> 
> Is it only because you don't see religious freedom as
> applying equally to political beliefs but only religious beliefs?
Click to expand...

Spiritual healing can't be imposed because of first amendment violations - period.

Healthcare (written in the mid-90's), then passed as Romneycare (and found legal) and then it became the PP/ACA.  This went to SCOTUS, who signed off on it.   It really makes no difference if it violates your personal beliefs - it doesn't violate any of your constitutional rights.  It was passed by a majority in the House and Senate.   It went through the entire democratic process.  It was discussed, etc.   It was signed into law.   

The real question is - why don't you understand that laws aren't written IAW your beliefs or consensus.  These bills went through a process.  You elected people to represent you in the federal government (people of your state).  They voted against it - however, it's a federal law, not violating any constitutional law, and it passed.  

Religious freedoms apply in certain situations, not all.  They have nothing to do with political beliefs, just religious beliefs.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Here Sneekin how is this NOT federal govt
> regulating or discriminating on the basis of RELIGION
> to determine who is exempt and who is fined for not complying:
> 
> Are You Exempt From The Obamacare Insurance Penalty?
> 
> You are not subject to the penalty for 2014 if you qualify for any of the following exemptions
> 
> You are a member of a health care sharing ministry, which is a tax-exempt organization whose members share a common set of ethical or religious beliefs and have shared medical expenses in accordance with those beliefs continuously since at least December 31, 1999.
> 
> 
> You are a member of a religious sect that has been in existence since December 31, 1950 and is recognized by the Social Security Administration as conscientiously opposed to accepting any insurance benefits.
> NOTE: and NO I am NOT trying to diminish the definition of domestic violence.
> 
> Technically what I am going through constitutes LEGAL abuse or government abuse.
> Where govt authority and public resources were abused to exclude and damage
> an entire community, and in trying to cap or restore that community from damages,
> I have become "enslaved" against my consent, to pay the costs using MY labor and income
> to restore rights of citizens abridged or denied by govt induced damages until the restitution is resolved other ways.
> I can also argue that as a volunteer supporting the nonprofit volunteer efforts and organization
> of Darrell Patterson who is an elected Precinct Chair for this community district,
> I have be en forced to pay $300 a month to prevent loss of the Van he uses for elderly and youth.
> I didn't agree to pay the whole amount, the original agre ement was that he raise the money,
> but since he couldn't we then agreed to alternate where I pay 300 a month and he pays 300 the next.
> That never happened.
> 
> Thus working a second job goes to pay for the VAN HE USES for HIS nonprofit group
> under terms I never agreed to enslave myself to, but that's what happened.



I am sure I will regret going down this rabbit hole.

How have you been forced to pay for Darrell Patterson's van?


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....hate to tell you, but if I'm Jewish, my bible (My book of sacred writings) is just the Old Testament.  No Christianity for me.  If I'm Muslim - then it's the Qu'ran - which again doesn't have the New Testament, but most of the old testament.
> 
> The first amendment doesn't summarize the whole of law - if that were the case, we'd still have slavery, ban interracial marriages, no divorces, the list just goes on and on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I mean Sneekin
> A. is if we followed what was already in the First Amendment,
> ie free exercise of religion or free will for everyone
> [within the bounds of right of all people PEACEABLY to assemble]
> there wouldn't BE slavery or oppresion of any sort:
> All conflicts would be resolved if we practiced fre e speech
> press and right to petition to redress grievances.
> 
> B. and no I don't mean this voids the need for other laws
> like due process and equal protections, but that the SPIRIT
> of the Constitutional laws fulfills and includes those as well.
> Under free exercise, all these other laws can be cited as well
> as defenses to explain and petition for one's rights beliefs and interests to be accounted for.
> 
> so this INCLUDES citing Quran, Jewish or Christian principles, Buddhist teachings, etc.
> 
> C. As for the Bible this also INCLUDES Islam/Quran, Jewish laws,
> and all forms of natural laws. By Colossians, all authorities are governed
> under the same Lord or Law that Jesus represents as Universal JUSTICE for all.
> 
> Just because we express laws in different ways does not mean they are excluded.
> 
> They are all protected under Free exercise of religion, free choice or free will
> which is naturally self-existent as part of human nature.
> 
> And the Bible also calls for obedience and submission to civil authority
> and human institutions. So that includes respecting Constitutional law
> and equal inclusion and protection for people of all faiths under religious freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A.  Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution.  In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage.  In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage.   In some religions, slavery is allowed.  Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law.  Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
> B.  Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc.  Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church.  They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
> C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment.  I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says.   I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists).  I have no book of Colossians.  Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god.  They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said NO to all three.
> A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
> their right to petition to redress grievances.
> Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
> It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
> If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
> it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
> with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
> NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
> if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.
> 
> B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
> The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
> That is NOT what I am asking.
> 1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
> for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
> 2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
> where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage
> 
> C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
> at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!
> 
> Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
> how would you describe the equivalent process of
> * govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
> * govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing
> 
> If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
> or accept it,
> how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."
> 
> Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
> so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A.  So then you are wrong in your claims - I can't freely exercise my religion - violation of my first amendment rights.  As some Christians will tell you, Slavery is allowed under biblical law.  So I DEMAND to have a slave, using your argument.
> B.  Spiritual Healing has been ruled unconstitutional in certain situations.  The law will stay that way.  Read your case law governing Jehovah Witness and children.
> C.  There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE.  There is only CIVIL MARRIAGE.  It's not a choice, it cannot be agreed to or rejected by the government, as it doesn't exist.  Your religion can refuse to do SSM or Straight marriages under the 1st amendment.
> 
> Actually, the government said licensing of only straight couples was illegal.  They didn't include gay people, they removed the existing requirement that they be opposite sex.  Different from a legal perspective. 14th amendment - equal protection and due process.
> 
> Spiritual Healing is religious and violates the 1st amendment.  If your private insurance company doesn't receive federal funds, then your company can offer spiritual healing.  If it receives government funding (Medicaid, Medicare, etc), then it would violate the 1st amendment - because you are endorsing a religion over another.  You've claimed some people don't want to pay for certain procedures - well i certainly don't want to pay for someone handling snakes, rattling beads, speaking in tongues, or any of the hundreds of other forms of spiritual healing.
> 
> You can't set up a state recognized religion, so you can't set up spiritual healing that wouldn't impose your religion on me.  This is in direct opposition to your other argument,  because there is no gay marriage and straight marriage, but simply civil marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> 1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
> and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?
> 
> In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?
> 
> In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
> or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.
> 
> You can have
> * VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
> * or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.
> 
> These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
> The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
> servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.
> 
> 2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
> yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
> our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.
> 
> Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?
> 
> We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
> but if we live by caring for our neighbors
> equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
> it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
> to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.
Click to expand...

I subscribe to the Old Testament, not the new one. Does that mean I can have a slave even though you can't?


----------



## Faun

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying fuck that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquies
> Oh, stop whining. I asked you a simple question which could have been answered in 2 seconds with _"yes"_ or _"no."_
> 
> WTF is wrong with you? I'm the one who suggested you spend less time here and more time with your mother.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.
> 
> I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?
> 
> Is this just your way of communicating?
> 
> If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!
> 
> If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you _thought_ you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a _"yes"_ or _"no"_ answer and neither were forthcoming from you.
> 
> Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....
> 
> Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.
> 
> That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's *but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.*
> 
> I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...
> 
> ___________________________​
> *Faun: *_do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?_
> 
> *emilynghiem: *_I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction. The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt._
> 
> ... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...
> 
> ___________________________​
> So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??
> 
> That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> Thanks for your answer but your answer is *EXACTLY* the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.
> 
> A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)
> 
> In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.
> 
> The government is not divorcing itself from marriage *precisely because of people like you* who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RE: In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> NO, I'm saying to AVOID that by either:
> A. if govt use marriage then ALL people get that
> (and I'm suggesting that to reach agreement on inclusion, to treat LGBT beliefs
> and Christian beliefs about spiritual healing prayer equally, neither imposing one while excluding the other)
> B. if people cannot agre e on that, but for example ALL agre e to civil contracts,
> then ALL people get that.
> C. as for your concern that if that were to happen and this leaves out Atheists who don't have
> a way to get married, I am saying to set it up -- by agreement BEFORE changing policies*. so if there needs to be separate CHOICE of funding for govt programs
> that deals with "social" benefits that not all people agree to the terms of, that can be done while
> setting up state alternatives to resolve ACA issues and requirements that are FACING this SAME ISSUE.
> 
> Sorry Faun if you don't like my full answer.
> I am trying to address these things in context.
> the solutions to one point (such as marriage issues) solve other problems as well (such as health care issues).
> 
> * NOTE to Faun: ACA required states alternatives to avoid penalty BEFORE setting these up. Did you complain about ACA being unconstitutional by requiring people to face fines for not choosing alternatives that weren't even allowed to be proposed to states yet much less set up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While you're promoting the government to get out of the marriage business, you say churches she still be performing marriages.
> 
> What you're seeking allows religious heterosexuals to marry the person of their choice; but no one else can.
> 
> Given that marriage is a fundamental right for all, religious and secular, straight and gay, why do you think it's ok to protect that right for folks like you, but not for folks like Syriusly, who is an atheist, and not for folks who are gay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NOPE
> 1. first I am not saying to do all this, I am saying that if people agrees it solves the problem to be open to such solutions
> by my standards, I only go by CONSENT
> so if you do not consent to this, that is taken into account in the solution
> 
> 2. second, the people set up alternatives and agreements BEFORE changing any laws
> again I hold to that standard by CONSENT of the governed
> 
> Now Faun since I am answering your questions can you answer mine:
> 3. Do you agree to these same standards of NOT requiring people to go through
> options that aren't equally available for all people?
> 
> And if so, do you support the ACA mandates that require people to either
> go through the govt approved and regulated choices for health care or insurance to avoid penalties,
> or wait on STATE ALTERNATIVES to be created that also need to MEET GOVT approval.
> 
> if these choices HAVEN'T BEEN implemented yet,
> do you agree with laws REQUIRING PEOPLE TO GO THROUGH THEM FOR HEALTH CARE?
> OR ELSE FACE FINES?
> 
> Please answer that question ^
> Thanks Faun
Click to expand...

You say, "nope," but your position said, "yes, yes, yes!"

You said you believe churches should marry folks but that the government shouldn't. If such a disaster ever occurred,  it would mean exactly that -- religious heterosexual would be about the only people who could get married on the U.S.. At least freely and to the person of their choice.

You may not comprehend this,  but it's because of people like you that the government is in the business of marriage; as well as securing all other rights as well.

As far as your question... no, I don't like the mandate. But then, it's a conservative concept that has always sounded stupid to me and I'm in favor of a national healthcare system.


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here Sneekin how is this NOT federal govt
> regulating or discriminating on the basis of RELIGION
> to determine who is exempt and who is fined for not complying:
> 
> Are You Exempt From The Obamacare Insurance Penalty?
> 
> You are not subject to the penalty for 2014 if you qualify for any of the following exemptions
> 
> You are a member of a health care sharing ministry, which is a tax-exempt organization whose members share a common set of ethical or religious beliefs and have shared medical expenses in accordance with those beliefs continuously since at least December 31, 1999.
> 
> 
> You are a member of a religious sect that has been in existence since December 31, 1950 and is recognized by the Social Security Administration as conscientiously opposed to accepting any insurance benefits.
> NOTE: and NO I am NOT trying to diminish the definition of domestic violence.
> 
> Technically what I am going through constitutes LEGAL abuse or government abuse.
> Where govt authority and public resources were abused to exclude and damage
> an entire community, and in trying to cap or restore that community from damages,
> I have become "enslaved" against my consent, to pay the costs using MY labor and income
> to restore rights of citizens abridged or denied by govt induced damages until the restitution is resolved other ways.
> I can also argue that as a volunteer supporting the nonprofit volunteer efforts and organization
> of Darrell Patterson who is an elected Precinct Chair for this community district,
> I have be en forced to pay $300 a month to prevent loss of the Van he uses for elderly and youth.
> I didn't agree to pay the whole amount, the original agre ement was that he raise the money,
> but since he couldn't we then agreed to alternate where I pay 300 a month and he pays 300 the next.
> That never happened.
> 
> Thus working a second job goes to pay for the VAN HE USES for HIS nonprofit group
> under terms I never agreed to enslave myself to, but that's what happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure I will regret going down this rabbit hole.
> 
> How have you been forced to pay for Darrell Patterson's van?
Click to expand...


In order to save it from total loss, the only way I could afford to buy it out from his predatory payday loan
was to buy it using my autoloan credit with USAA.  We used the car loan to transfer
a previous loan he never paid that was sitting on my credit cards, and he needed the other cash to bail out
some rent and other expenses. So we transferred those debts to a car loan of 14,000 or 14,400?.

The deal was we would do fundraising to pay off this money for his nonprofit (that would have paid off the car loan)
But he was so strapped he had told me he couldn't pay the 300 a month so he asked
if I would cover every other month, so we compromised (but then he never paid that either.)
He is also working and volunteering at the same time and never did the fundraising.
(He also incurred a 26,000 debt on some other property that had to be paid or he'd lose that from the
nonprofit that was supposed to be managing it. And then he got diagnosed with leukemia and couldn't work at all.)

So in order to save the van and my credit, I have had to pay the 300 by each month deadline, until we do the fundraising to pay
back the full amount. Because I don't really have that money, it is coming out of money I need for rent and other expenses,
so it has technically been transferred to other credit card accounts that are running up interest instead of really paying it off.

He did not even understand the debt is still 14,000, because it has merely been transferred from one debt to another.
He thinks it was paid or at least  half of it, but he never paid for these, so they didn't just disappear!

He does not understand that since the first loans I covered for him never got paid, they were sitting on credit.
And I only transferred them to the van and then to pay THAT back they got transferred back onto credit again.

So the 300 a month wasn't really getting paid either, it was merely being exchanged for charges on credit cards and
going there until it is paid off.

I had even offered to do a fundraiser to help one of his VET volunteers buy the van
to continue using it for the nonprofit. He didn't understand that either.
I said if he is doing nothing to raise the money to pay the cost, then if a VET can raise the money
and buy it, let's do it that way.

As long as it's under my name and I have to pay, then he is going to be pressured to focus on
paying the courts 26,000 to save property the nonprofit could lose, and the van is secondary.

Gladys House who originally managed that property under the nonprofit begged for him to
step down and let her come back in and save the property from getting seized.
But he insisted on being in charge, and fighting the court over the decision to use units
to house him and another volunteer instead of renting them as affordable housing;
so the courts retracted the tax exempt status and that's why they ordered the nonprofit to pay
26,000 in back taxes or lose the property.

He is more tied up with going through chemo and trying to raise 26K to save the apts
for the community, and the van is the least of his issues because I was able to work
two jobs and borrow money to keep paying for it.

It was easier to him to keep letting me do that, to keep paying out of my own means,
 rather than ask for help to raise the money for that in addition to the mess with the property.

That's also why he wasn't free to help raise money for either the Youth Center
that was supposed to be built, or raise money to save the other historic houses.

The men in the district would not respect or listen to the women trying to save the properties.
They want to be in charge and the district is almost gone while they wait on God or govt to save them!
All I can think to do is try to organize support around the campus plans to save the ENTIRE district
and hope that brings in the right people that he WOULD respect and listen to.

At this point only if President Obama or Ben Carson with HUD came down would he listen.
I think it has to be the MEN leaders because Gladys also works 2-3 jobs to save the community
and they won't listen to her.  The men expect to be in charge, and all the work women do doesn't count.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I mean Sneekin
> A. is if we followed what was already in the First Amendment,
> ie free exercise of religion or free will for everyone
> [within the bounds of right of all people PEACEABLY to assemble]
> there wouldn't BE slavery or oppresion of any sort:
> All conflicts would be resolved if we practiced fre e speech
> press and right to petition to redress grievances.
> 
> B. and no I don't mean this voids the need for other laws
> like due process and equal protections, but that the SPIRIT
> of the Constitutional laws fulfills and includes those as well.
> Under free exercise, all these other laws can be cited as well
> as defenses to explain and petition for one's rights beliefs and interests to be accounted for.
> 
> so this INCLUDES citing Quran, Jewish or Christian principles, Buddhist teachings, etc.
> 
> C. As for the Bible this also INCLUDES Islam/Quran, Jewish laws,
> and all forms of natural laws. By Colossians, all authorities are governed
> under the same Lord or Law that Jesus represents as Universal JUSTICE for all.
> 
> Just because we express laws in different ways does not mean they are excluded.
> 
> They are all protected under Free exercise of religion, free choice or free will
> which is naturally self-existent as part of human nature.
> 
> And the Bible also calls for obedience and submission to civil authority
> and human institutions. So that includes respecting Constitutional law
> and equal inclusion and protection for people of all faiths under religious freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> A.  Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution.  In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage.  In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage.   In some religions, slavery is allowed.  Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law.  Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
> B.  Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc.  Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church.  They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
> C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment.  I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says.   I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists).  I have no book of Colossians.  Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god.  They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said NO to all three.
> A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
> their right to petition to redress grievances.
> Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
> It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
> If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
> it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
> with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
> NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
> if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.
> 
> B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
> The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
> That is NOT what I am asking.
> 1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
> for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
> 2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
> where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage
> 
> C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
> at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!
> 
> Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
> how would you describe the equivalent process of
> * govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
> * govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing
> 
> If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
> or accept it,
> how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."
> 
> Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
> so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A.  So then you are wrong in your claims - I can't freely exercise my religion - violation of my first amendment rights.  As some Christians will tell you, Slavery is allowed under biblical law.  So I DEMAND to have a slave, using your argument.
> B.  Spiritual Healing has been ruled unconstitutional in certain situations.  The law will stay that way.  Read your case law governing Jehovah Witness and children.
> C.  There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE.  There is only CIVIL MARRIAGE.  It's not a choice, it cannot be agreed to or rejected by the government, as it doesn't exist.  Your religion can refuse to do SSM or Straight marriages under the 1st amendment.
> 
> Actually, the government said licensing of only straight couples was illegal.  They didn't include gay people, they removed the existing requirement that they be opposite sex.  Different from a legal perspective. 14th amendment - equal protection and due process.
> 
> Spiritual Healing is religious and violates the 1st amendment.  If your private insurance company doesn't receive federal funds, then your company can offer spiritual healing.  If it receives government funding (Medicaid, Medicare, etc), then it would violate the 1st amendment - because you are endorsing a religion over another.  You've claimed some people don't want to pay for certain procedures - well i certainly don't want to pay for someone handling snakes, rattling beads, speaking in tongues, or any of the hundreds of other forms of spiritual healing.
> 
> You can't set up a state recognized religion, so you can't set up spiritual healing that wouldn't impose your religion on me.  This is in direct opposition to your other argument,  because there is no gay marriage and straight marriage, but simply civil marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> 1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
> and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?
> 
> In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?
> 
> In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
> or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.
> 
> You can have
> * VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
> * or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.
> 
> These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
> The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
> servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.
> 
> 2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
> yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
> our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.
> 
> Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?
> 
> We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
> but if we live by caring for our neighbors
> equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
> it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
> to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I subscribe to the Old Testament, not the new one. Does that mean I can have a slave even though you can't?
Click to expand...


Dear Faun by religious freedom you can follow and exercise your faith
along with others who consent to the same. So if you AG R E E to "enslave" each other,
such as declaring health care a right, where everyone has to work for free to provide
health care to the collective, then that is your choice so it is VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.

Your ACA calls for either voluntary servitude if you agree to those terms.
Or involuntary if you don't agree with it.

Other people don't agree with imposing servitude, so we don't believe
in any such right to pass mandates like that and force servitude on others.

But apparently you believe in this if you have no problem with ACA
requiring people to pay their income from their labor under terms we don't consent to or believe in!


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> A.  Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution.  In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage.  In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage.   In some religions, slavery is allowed.  Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law.  Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
> B.  Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc.  Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church.  They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
> C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment.  I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says.   I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists).  I have no book of Colossians.  Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god.  They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said NO to all three.
> A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
> their right to petition to redress grievances.
> Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
> It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
> If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
> it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
> with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
> NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
> if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.
> 
> B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
> The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
> That is NOT what I am asking.
> 1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
> for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
> 2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
> where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage
> 
> C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
> at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!
> 
> Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
> how would you describe the equivalent process of
> * govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
> * govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing
> 
> If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
> or accept it,
> how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."
> 
> Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
> so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A.  So then you are wrong in your claims - I can't freely exercise my religion - violation of my first amendment rights.  As some Christians will tell you, Slavery is allowed under biblical law.  So I DEMAND to have a slave, using your argument.
> B.  Spiritual Healing has been ruled unconstitutional in certain situations.  The law will stay that way.  Read your case law governing Jehovah Witness and children.
> C.  There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE.  There is only CIVIL MARRIAGE.  It's not a choice, it cannot be agreed to or rejected by the government, as it doesn't exist.  Your religion can refuse to do SSM or Straight marriages under the 1st amendment.
> 
> Actually, the government said licensing of only straight couples was illegal.  They didn't include gay people, they removed the existing requirement that they be opposite sex.  Different from a legal perspective. 14th amendment - equal protection and due process.
> 
> Spiritual Healing is religious and violates the 1st amendment.  If your private insurance company doesn't receive federal funds, then your company can offer spiritual healing.  If it receives government funding (Medicaid, Medicare, etc), then it would violate the 1st amendment - because you are endorsing a religion over another.  You've claimed some people don't want to pay for certain procedures - well i certainly don't want to pay for someone handling snakes, rattling beads, speaking in tongues, or any of the hundreds of other forms of spiritual healing.
> 
> You can't set up a state recognized religion, so you can't set up spiritual healing that wouldn't impose your religion on me.  This is in direct opposition to your other argument,  because there is no gay marriage and straight marriage, but simply civil marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> 1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
> and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?
> 
> In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?
> 
> In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
> or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.
> 
> You can have
> * VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
> * or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.
> 
> These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
> The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
> servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.
> 
> 2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
> yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
> our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.
> 
> Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?
> 
> We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
> but if we live by caring for our neighbors
> equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
> it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
> to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I subscribe to the Old Testament, not the new one. Does that mean I can have a slave even though you can't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun by religious freedom you can follow and exercise your faith
> along with others who consent to the same. So if you AG R E E to "enslave" each other,
> such as declaring health care a right, where everyone has to work for free to provide
> health care to the collective, then that is your choice so it is VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.
> 
> Your ACA calls for either voluntary servitude if you agree to those terms.
> Or involuntary if you don't agree with it.
> 
> Other people don't agree with imposing servitude, so we don't believe
> in any such right to pass mandates like that and force servitude on others.
> 
> But apparently you believe in this if you have no problem with ACA
> requiring people to pay their income from their labor under terms we don't consent to or believe in!
Click to expand...

Have you contacted your State's Attorney General, so he can file another frivolous lawsuit, this one claiming that the ACA imposes servitude on you?

You aren't using the proper translation of the OT.  Try reading the Greek, you'll get a better understanding.  That, and put your NT out of your mind.   Slavery that you refer to was not performed by consent.  Neither is your incorrect analogy claiming the PP/ACA is VOLUNTARY or INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.  Your representatives from Texas (Ted Cruz, Gohmert for starters - I try to ignore TX as they have too many pending lawsuits for various civil rights violations) voted against the PP/ACA, and they lost the vote, where it was signed into law.   But I guess you claim all your taxes are involuntary servitude as well?  Good luck - when your interstate system goes to hell in TX, and you refuse to pay your taxes, you'll be putting tolls on your road and paying by the mile.   You'll have plenty of dirt roads.  Don't you realize that once your taxes are paid, it's not your money?  Your taxes must be cut to get reduction - you can't arbitrarily refuse, without actions taken against you.  If you had the knowledge to run a budget the size of the federal government, you might grasp the magnitude of the job.  As a student, I assisted on a military munitions budget.  At my level, there were 8 years, down to the individual budget, detailed to engineering costs, above the line and below the line costs, assembly, and components.  This was done for every munitions item purchased over an 8 year period, done 4 times a year.  Every expense was justified.  It went forward to congressmen, then the various committees, who rolled numbers (our backup data) up to the number of billions required for all munitions over 8 years.   For the military, do the same for materiel purchases, clothing, electronics, tanks/jeeps/etc,  costs for military housing, construction, Corp of Engineers work, ad nauseum.   That is just one branch, and a small portion of line items that make the budget.   Multiply this by every branch of the service.  Now, you have the DoD budget, which will also include subs, ships, planes, helicopters, spare parts, etc.  When the President sees this, he sees "X" dollars for DoD.  The congressional committee sees more detail, the branches more detail, the Program Executive Offices sees finer grain detail (we need x bombs, "Y" missiles, "Z" bullets, "B" tanks, etc.  Worker bees know down to how many grains of black powder is needed, and who can manufacture.   Now multiply this by every other Branch of the government, to see how your taxes are spread.   You don't have a clue how your money is used - because the appropriations committee has to determine how to tax your income (cash income) and spread it out over the various line items in the budget.  (cash outlay).  The money isn't yours once collected.  Corporate and income taxes are General revenues. Those general revenues are spent - determined by Congress and the President.  Not you.  Your payroll taxes go into a trust fund (ie,  Social Security and Medicare).  

The U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8) grants Congress the power to collect taxes. Nowadays, more than 100 million American households file a federal tax return each year, and those income taxes make up the federal government's single largest revenue source.  If you read the constitutionn, you will see that nowhere does it allow you to withhold your tax because you think it's voluntary servitude.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> [bQUOTE="emilynghiem, post: 15988737, member: 22295"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said NO to all three.
> A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
> their right to petition to redress grievances.
> Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
> It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
> If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
> it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
> with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
> NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
> if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.
> 
> B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
> The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
> That is NOT what I am asking.
> 1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
> for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
> 2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
> where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage
> 
> C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
> at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!
> 
> Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
> how would you describe the equivalent process of
> * govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
> * govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing
> 
> If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
> or accept it,
> how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."
> 
> Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
> so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???
> 
> 
> 
> A.  So then you are wrong in your claims - I can't freely exercise my religion - violation of my first amendment rights.  As some Christians will tell you, Slavery is allowed under biblical law.  So I DEMAND to have a slave, using your argument.
> B.  Spiritual Healing has been ruled unconstitutional in certain situations.  The law will stay that way.  Read your case law governing Jehovah Witness and children.
> C.  There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE.  There is only CIVIL MARRIAGE.  It's not a choice, it cannot be agreed to or rejected by the government, as it doesn't exist.  Your religion can refuse to do SSM or Straight marriages under the 1st amendment.
> 
> Actually, the government said licensing of only straight couples was illegal.  They didn't include gay people, they removed the existing requirement that they be opposite sex.  Different from a legal perspective. 14th amendment - equal protection and due process.
> 
> Spiritual Healing is religious and violates the 1st amendment.  If your private insurance company doesn't receive federal funds, then your company can offer spiritual healing.  If it receives government funding (Medicaid, Medicare, etc), then it would violate the 1st amendment - because you are endorsing a religion over another.  You've claimed some people don't want to pay for certain procedures - well i certainly don't want to pay for someone handling snakes, rattling beads, speaking in tongues, or any of the hundreds of other forms of spiritual healing.
> 
> You can't set up a state recognized religion, so you can't set up spiritual healing that wouldn't impose your religion on me.  This is in direct opposition to your other argument,  because there is no gay marriage and straight marriage, but simply civil marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> 1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
> and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?
> 
> In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?
> 
> In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
> or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.
> 
> You can have
> * VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
> * or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.
> 
> These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
> The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
> servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.
> 
> 2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
> yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
> our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.
> 
> Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?
> 
> We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
> but if we live by caring for our neighbors
> equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
> it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
> to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I subscribe to the Old Testament, not the new one. Does that mean I can have a slave even though you can't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun by religious freedom you can follow and exercise your faith
> along with others who consent to the same. So if you AG R E E to "enslave" each other,
> such as declaring health care a right, where everyone has to work for free to provide
> health care to the collective, then that is your choice so it is VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.
> 
> Your ACA calls for either voluntary servitude if you agree to those terms.
> Or involuntary if you don't agree with it.
> 
> Other people don't agree with imposing servitude, so we don't believe
> in any such right to pass mandates like that and force servitude on others.
> 
> But apparently you believe in this if you have no problem with ACA
> requiring people to pay their income from their labor under terms we don't consent to or believe in!
Click to expand...

Have you contacted your State's Attorney General, so he can file another frivolous lawsuit, this one claiming that the ACA imposes servitude on you?

You aren't using the proper translation of the OT.  Try reading the Greek, you'll get a better understanding.  That, and put your NT out of your mind.   Slavery that you refer to was not performed by consent.  Neither is your incorrect analogy claiming the PP/ACA is VOLUNTARY or INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.  Your representatives from Texas (Ted Cruz, Gohmert for starters - I try to ignore TX as they have too many pending lawsuits for various civil rights violations) voted against the PP/ACA, and they lost the vote, where it was signed into law.   But I guess you claim all your taxes are involuntary servitude as well?  Good luck - when your interstate system goes to hell in TX, and you refuse to pay your taxes, you'll be putting tolls on your road and paying by the mile.   You'll have plenty of dirt roads.  Don't you realize that once your taxes are paid, it's not your money?  Your taxes must be cut to get reduction - you can't arbitrarily refuse, without actions taken against you.  If you had the knowledge to run a budget the size of the federal government, you might grasp the magnitude of the job.  As a student, I assisted on a military munitions budget.  At my level, there were 8 years, down to the individual budget, detailed to engineering costs, above the line and below the line costs, assembly, and components.  This was done for every munitions item purchased over an 8 year period, done 4 times a year.  Every expense was justified.  It went forward to congressmen, then the various committees, who rolled numbers (our backup data) up to the number of billions required for all munitions over 8 years.   For the military, do the same for materiel purchases, clothing, electronics, tanks/jeeps/etc,  costs for military housing, construction, Corp of Engineers work, ad nauseum.   That is just one branch, and a small portion of line items that make the budget.   Multiply this by every branch of the service.  Now, you have the DoD budget, which will also include subs, ships, planes, helicopters, spare parts, etc.  When the President sees this, he sees "X" dollars for DoD.  The congressional committee sees more detail, the branches more detail, the Program Executive Offices sees finer grain detail (we need x bombs, "Y" missiles, "Z" bullets, "B" tanks, etc.  Worker bees know down to how many grains of black powder is needed, and who can manufacture.   Now multiply this by every other Branch of the government, to see how your taxes are spread.   You don't have a clue how your money is used - because the appropriations committee has to determine how to tax your income (cash income) and spread it out over the various line items in the budget.  (cash outlay).  The money isn't yours once collected.  Corporate and income taxes are General revenues. Those general revenues are spent - determined by Congress and the President.  Not you.  Your payroll taxes go into a trust fund (ie,  Social Security and Medicare).

The U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8) grants Congress the power to collect taxes. Nowadays, more than 100 million American households file a federal tax return each year, and those income taxes make up the federal government's single largest revenue source.  If you read the constitutionn, you will see that nowhere does it allow you to withhold your tax because you think it's voluntary servitude.[/QUOTE]
Dear Sneekin Whoa Whoa Whoa

I did NOT say ALL taxes are involuntary.
In fact I believe the Main Justification that makes the IRS constitutional is people DO consent to use it! Otherwise without consent it has been argued it's unconstitutional.

What I'm talking about is specifically
A. Forcing me to Pay for health share membership or insurance, which I did not consent to as a taxpayer, to be exempted from either fines or federal regulated exchange registration I deem unconstitutional by violating beliefs in free choice, civil liberties and due process, and rights reserved to people or states (unless the hardship exemption is approved by counting these deprivation of income to be economic abuse under domestic violence)
B. The Democratic Precinct Chair imposing a 300 a month debt that I did not agree to pay out of my income. You can count that as breach of contract but it's still imposing Involuntary Servitude until he and other Black church civic and govt. Leaders unite and reorganize resources and funding to save the national historic district of Freedmens Town instead of borrowing from me and taking it out of my income, where I did not consent to lose this income from my labor to pay debts UNLESS the Black leaders unite to pay it back!

So if they all Unite to pay it back, then I consent to LEND the money from income and labor to buy that time to organize.

If NOT, then this is Involuntary seizure of my income and labor I did not consent to.

Is that more specific?

And yes I understand this is not the typical use of the terms Involuntary servitude, but that is the most clear way I have seen to describe what is wrong with ACA mandates that deprive liberty income and labor from taxpaying citizens, like me, without due process to prove what crimes were committed that merit loss of freedom.

Rand Paul described it that way.
Avatar4321 was the first person I read explain it this way.
We have equal rights to our beliefs and representation as you and others who don't see it the same way. Govt cannot be abused to impose your beliefs and interpretations while denying and penalizing us for our equal beliefs when we have committed no crimes!

That's fine if you believe it's not involuntary servitude, but what gives you or Govt the right to impose your beliefs on others to whom this is a complete violation of Constitutional rights freedoms and principles.

At the very least, as you and I both believe in not imposing faith based beliefs through Govt, we should agree to offer equal CHOICES but not to impose them under Mandates or Fines.

And yes, if this is how people think, and cannot treat political beliefs equally as religious beliefs, then I would join in petitioning the AG to sue for restraining orders until all such contested Mandates are revised as *Optional Choices* to respect equal political beliefs of taxpayers who have committed no crimes that justify deprivation of liberty and free choice of how to pay and provide for health care.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here Sneekin how is this NOT federal govt
> regulating or discriminating on the basis of RELIGION
> to determine who is exempt and who is fined for not complying:
> 
> Are You Exempt From The Obamacare Insurance Penalty?
> 
> You are not subject to the penalty for 2014 if you qualify for any of the following exemptions
> 
> You are a member of a health care sharing ministry, which is a tax-exempt organization whose members share a common set of ethical or religious beliefs and have shared medical expenses in accordance with those beliefs continuously since at least December 31, 1999.
> 
> 
> You are a member of a religious sect that has been in existence since December 31, 1950 and is recognized by the Social Security Administration as conscientiously opposed to accepting any insurance benefits.
> NOTE: and NO I am NOT trying to diminish the definition of domestic violence.
> 
> Technically what I am going through constitutes LEGAL abuse or government abuse.
> Where govt authority and public resources were abused to exclude and damage
> an entire community, and in trying to cap or restore that community from damages,
> I have become "enslaved" against my consent, to pay the costs using MY labor and income
> to restore rights of citizens abridged or denied by govt induced damages until the restitution is resolved other ways.
> I can also argue that as a volunteer supporting the nonprofit volunteer efforts and organization
> of Darrell Patterson who is an elected Precinct Chair for this community district,
> I have be en forced to pay $300 a month to prevent loss of the Van he uses for elderly and youth.
> I didn't agree to pay the whole amount, the original agre ement was that he raise the money,
> but since he couldn't we then agreed to alternate where I pay 300 a month and he pays 300 the next.
> That never happened.
> 
> Thus working a second job goes to pay for the VAN HE USES for HIS nonprofit group
> under terms I never agreed to enslave myself to, but that's what happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure I will regret going down this rabbit hole.
> 
> How have you been forced to pay for Darrell Patterson's van?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order to save it from total loss, the only way I could afford to buy it out from his predatory payday loan
> was to buy it using my autoloan credit with USAA.  We used the car loan to transfer
> a previous loan he never paid that was sitting on my credit cards, and he needed the other cash to bail out
> some rent and other expenses. So we transferred those debts to a car loan of 14,000 or 14,400?..
Click to expand...


Okay- what i don't understand is why you have ever lent any money to any of these people.  Or why you agreed to pay for this van- or were you forced?

This seems to be a far bigger personal issue for you than any of this other crap.

Personally it seems to me that you might have been taken advantage of.  Have you looked into any legal clinics who might be able to look at your case and see if they can help you? 

Again- it seems to me that your posts here might be an escape from dealing and confronting the ugly mess that you are in- and I suspect that perhaps your good intentions allowed you to be taken advantage of. 

Check out this link- and I sincerely wish you the best to try to dig out of this mess. 

Community Legal Resources | Dallas Bar Association


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> [bQUOTE="emilynghiem, post: 15988737, member: 22295"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said NO to all three.
> A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
> their right to petition to redress grievances.
> Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
> It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
> If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
> it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
> with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
> NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
> if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.
> 
> B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
> The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
> That is NOT what I am asking.
> 1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
> for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
> 2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
> where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage
> 
> C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
> at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!
> 
> Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
> how would you describe the equivalent process of
> * govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
> * govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing
> 
> If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
> or accept it,
> how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."
> 
> Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
> so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???
> 
> 
> 
> A.  So then you are wrong in your claims - I can't freely exercise my religion - violation of my first amendment rights.  As some Christians will tell you, Slavery is allowed under biblical law.  So I DEMAND to have a slave, using your argument.
> B.  Spiritual Healing has been ruled unconstitutional in certain situations.  The law will stay that way.  Read your case law governing Jehovah Witness and children.
> C.  There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE.  There is only CIVIL MARRIAGE.  It's not a choice, it cannot be agreed to or rejected by the government, as it doesn't exist.  Your religion can refuse to do SSM or Straight marriages under the 1st amendment.
> 
> Actually, the government said licensing of only straight couples was illegal.  They didn't include gay people, they removed the existing requirement that they be opposite sex.  Different from a legal perspective. 14th amendment - equal protection and due process.
> 
> Spiritual Healing is religious and violates the 1st amendment.  If your private insurance company doesn't receive federal funds, then your company can offer spiritual healing.  If it receives government funding (Medicaid, Medicare, etc), then it would violate the 1st amendment - because you are endorsing a religion over another.  You've claimed some people don't want to pay for certain procedures - well i certainly don't want to pay for someone handling snakes, rattling beads, speaking in tongues, or any of the hundreds of other forms of spiritual healing.
> 
> You can't set up a state recognized religion, so you can't set up spiritual healing that wouldn't impose your religion on me.  This is in direct opposition to your other argument,  because there is no gay marriage and straight marriage, but simply civil marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> 1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
> and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?
> 
> In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?
> 
> In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
> or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.
> 
> You can have
> * VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
> * or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.
> 
> These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
> The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
> servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.
> 
> 2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
> yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
> our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.
> 
> Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?
> 
> We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
> but if we live by caring for our neighbors
> equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
> it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
> to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I subscribe to the Old Testament, not the new one. Does that mean I can have a slave even though you can't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun by religious freedom you can follow and exercise your faith
> along with others who consent to the same. So if you AG R E E to "enslave" each other,
> such as declaring health care a right, where everyone has to work for free to provide
> health care to the collective, then that is your choice so it is VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.
> 
> Your ACA calls for either voluntary servitude if you agree to those terms.
> Or involuntary if you don't agree with it.
> 
> Other people don't agree with imposing servitude, so we don't believe
> in any such right to pass mandates like that and force servitude on others.
> 
> But apparently you believe in this if you have no problem with ACA
> requiring people to pay their income from their labor under terms we don't consent to or believe in!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you contacted your State's Attorney General, so he can file another frivolous lawsuit, this one claiming that the ACA imposes servitude on you?
> 
> You aren't using the proper translation of the OT.  Try reading the Greek, you'll get a better understanding.  That, and put your NT out of your mind.   Slavery that you refer to was not performed by consent.  Neither is your incorrect analogy claiming the PP/ACA is VOLUNTARY or INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.  Your representatives from Texas (Ted Cruz, Gohmert for starters - I try to ignore TX as they have too many pending lawsuits for various civil rights violations) voted against the PP/ACA, and they lost the vote, where it was signed into law.   But I guess you claim all your taxes are involuntary servitude as well?  Good luck - when your interstate system goes to hell in TX, and you refuse to pay your taxes, you'll be putting tolls on your road and paying by the mile.   You'll have plenty of dirt roads.  Don't you realize that once your taxes are paid, it's not your money?  Your taxes must be cut to get reduction - you can't arbitrarily refuse, without actions taken against you.  If you had the knowledge to run a budget the size of the federal government, you might grasp the magnitude of the job.  As a student, I assisted on a military munitions budget.  At my level, there were 8 years, down to the individual budget, detailed to engineering costs, above the line and below the line costs, assembly, and components.  This was done for every munitions item purchased over an 8 year period, done 4 times a year.  Every expense was justified.  It went forward to congressmen, then the various committees, who rolled numbers (our backup data) up to the number of billions required for all munitions over 8 years.   For the military, do the same for materiel purchases, clothing, electronics, tanks/jeeps/etc,  costs for military housing, construction, Corp of Engineers work, ad nauseum.   That is just one branch, and a small portion of line items that make the budget.   Multiply this by every branch of the service.  Now, you have the DoD budget, which will also include subs, ships, planes, helicopters, spare parts, etc.  When the President sees this, he sees "X" dollars for DoD.  The congressional committee sees more detail, the branches more detail, the Program Executive Offices sees finer grain detail (we need x bombs, "Y" missiles, "Z" bullets, "B" tanks, etc.  Worker bees know down to how many grains of black powder is needed, and who can manufacture.   Now multiply this by every other Branch of the government, to see how your taxes are spread.   You don't have a clue how your money is used - because the appropriations committee has to determine how to tax your income (cash income) and spread it out over the various line items in the budget.  (cash outlay).  The money isn't yours once collected.  Corporate and income taxes are General revenues. Those general revenues are spent - determined by Congress and the President.  Not you.  Your payroll taxes go into a trust fund (ie,  Social Security and Medicare).
> 
> The U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8) grants Congress the power to collect taxes. Nowadays, more than 100 million American households file a federal tax return each year, and those income taxes make up the federal government's single largest revenue source.  If you read the constitutionn, you will see that nowhere does it allow you to withhold your tax because you think it's voluntary servitude.
Click to expand...

Dear Sneekin Whoa Whoa Whoa

I did NOT say ALL taxes are involuntary.
In fact I believe the Main Justification that makes the IRS constitutional is people DO consent to use it! Otherwise without consent it has been argued it's unconstitutional.

What I'm talking about is specifically
A. Forcing me to Pay for health share membership or insurance, which I did not consent to as a taxpayer, to be exempted from either fines or federal regulated exchange registration I deem unconstitutional by violating beliefs in free choice, civil liberties and due process, and rights reserved to people or states (unless the hardship exemption is approved by counting these deprivation of income to be economic abuse under domestic violence)
B. The Democratic Precinct Chair imposing a 300 a month debt that I did not agree to pay out of my income. You can count that as breach of contract but it's still imposing Involuntary Servitude until he and other Black church civic and govt. Leaders unite and reorganize resources and funding to save the national historic district of Freedmens Town instead of borrowing from me and taking it out of my income, where I did not consent to lose this income from my labor to pay debts UNLESS the Black leaders unite to pay it back!

So if they all Unite to pay it back, then I consent to LEND the money from income and labor to buy that time to organize.

If NOT, then this is Involuntary seizure of my income and labor I did not consent to.

Is that more specific?

And yes I understand this is not the typical use of the terms Involuntary servitude, but that is the most clear way I have seen to describe what is wrong with ACA mandates that deprive liberty income and labor from taxpaying citizens, like me, without due process to prove what crimes were committed that merit loss of freedom.

Rand Paul described it that way.
Avatar4321 was the first person I read explain it this way.
We have equal rights to our beliefs and representation as you and others who don't see it the same way. Govt cannot be abused to impose your beliefs and interpretations while denying and penalizing us for our equal beliefs when we have committed no crimes!

That's fine if you believe it's not involuntary servitude, but what gives you or Govt the right to impose your beliefs on others to whom this is a complete violation of Constitutional rights freedoms and principles.

At the very least, as you and I both believe in not imposing faith based beliefs through Govt, we should agree to offer equal CHOICES but not to impose them under Mandates or Fines.

And yes, if this is how people think, and cannot treat political beliefs equally as religious beliefs, then I would join in petitioning the AG to sue for restraining orders until all such contested Mandates are revised as *Optional Choices* to respect equal political beliefs of taxpayers who have committed no crimes that justify deprivation of liberty and free choice of how to pay and provide for health care.[/QUOTE]


*EMILY:*
You need to wave goodbye to the boat.  YOU don't get to choose what is done with the money after it's collected in taxes.   You don't get to decide on the ACA.  That was already decided, went to court - YOU LOST.   It's constitutional.  End of Discussion.  When you can stop paying taxes as a taxpayer, let me know until then, or until the ACA is ended, by law YOU MUST. YOU personally have no vote in the matter - for the 10th time -YOU ELECT REPRESENTATIVES.  THEY VOTED ON IT.  Tell me, Emily, what happens when you have no health care (by your own choice) and you have a heart attack or a stroke - and no way to pay the bill.  Current law says you can go to a hospital and get treated.  Written off the hospital's taxes.   You are paying that premium because the rest of us are sick and tired of paying "your" bills.   Short of rescinding that law (would never happen) and letting "you all" just die in the street, the government found that you need to pay your own bills.   The paltry sum people pay for health care along with requirements from the ACA entitle EVERYONE to get checked for these serious conditions, getting a yearly physical, tests, most vaccinations - which will now be paid for instead of ME paying "your" bill.  You may not want to pay it - but I don't want to pay your bills, and year after year, I pay more in taxes, doctor visits (copays), and ANY form of medical treatment. In essence I'm paying for me and you prior to the ACA.   Since the ACA went into effect, my insurance dropped literally 50 percent.  All years following COMBINED, my insurance went up less than 25 dollars.   So yes, call it what you want - I'm not paying your bill without having a voice.  And if I have to pay for treatment because you are poor, I don't have an issue - provided you go and see a doctor and get treated (total cost, DR + Drug) is 100-150.  Let it go to Pneumonia because you are too freaking lazy to pay for insurance, and it can cost upwards of 5000-10000.  I'm not paying your bills. Pay for your insurance and get treated. 

Petition away - they deserve a good laugh.   It's not anything you can do, Emily.   It's NOT OPTIONAL. WE DON'T PAY YOUR BILLS, PAY YOUR OWN. WE WILL EVEN PAY FOR THE POOR.  You personally have a vote - you have representatives to do it for you.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Sneekin

A. Representatives represent me when these issues are resolved.
They are not getting represented yet, sorry!
Yes, I will go through govt to resolve them
but I have to be able to EXPLAIN them first.

I posted the letter to Ted Cruz office outlining even 3 of the grievances 
that can be documented: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10952408/

This has been going on until I find the PEOPLE to REDRESS those grievances.
[Of the people I've found who respect what it takes to represent me, most of
them are OUTSIDE GOVT. We have to form teams to connect with people
INSIDE govt to create the process that WILL represent these issues for resolution purposes!]

Not everyone can deal with this. And the ones who can are NOT ALL in govt positions!

Thanks for trying but it takes SPECIFIC people.
And then I can form a team with Congresswoman Lee to resolve these issues.
And if we can do it FT, we can use that same model for other issues
that HAVEN'T BEEN RESOLVED using the given legal or govt system as is.

B. So in general
NO the system of redressing grievances by assessing restitution owed
and crediting the taxmoney back to taxpayers
HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET

I am teaming up with Jon Roland of the Libertarians and Constitution Society in Austin
and Ted Weisgal with the Diversity outreach of KPFT public radio
to try to organize some kind of party representation that can redress grievances.

The PROCESS that WOULD represent me in protecting the right
to petition to redress grievances by consensus and noncoercion
as the standard HASN'T BEEN proposed, offered or applied yet.

Thank you for helping to sort out the preliminary prep part.

At some point I will reach out to all law schools especially
anyone teaching Constitutional laws and ethics, to join the effort.

If it is really based on Consensus and Inclusion then everyone
will be able to use it to resolve their issues locally or nationally,

Thanks!


----------



## emilynghiem

P.S. Faun and Sneekin
A. I took your advice and rested.
I even missed a call from my mother to catch up on sleep!

Thanks for your concern; the most pressing issue is to
delegate these problems to the people who have asked to
organize the plans by radio outreach, and speed up the process
of getting all of these off of me and my paychecks to carry which have run out.
Govt should have redressed these grievances UP FRONT, and I was only
acting as emergency measures to cap and do damage control
until this gets resolved correctly, without depending on my "slave labor"
to pay the costs of govt abuses that went on for longer than we could afford.

The more people I find willing to take this on correctly, the less stress on me,
and the more I can talk like normal with my family and friends insetad of arguing
how long is this situation going to impair me.

Sneekin as a teacher in law, you should know that legal abuse happens.
Because not all people can afford equal legal defense, big corporations that
can afford to sue cities if they don't get to develop have more voice and "REPRESENTATION"
in govt than people with no money trying to defend historic preservation interests that
aren't counted in the equation like development is that determines property value and taxes.
Unless there is MONEY to buy out the property, people don't have equal rights and protections.
You should know this as a law professor, or what are you teaching your students?

Key Note: The reason I am proposing a privatized system through govt is to accommodate  restitution involving govt but which has to be funded voluntarily where Statutes have run and cannot be mandated by law. The Federal Reserve is partially private involving banks; I'm saying to set up other accounts through the Fed for voluntary restitution to be paid to redress grievances that exceed the capacity of govt.  If we don't find a way to redress grievances that go beyond govt jurisdiction, then corporations that destroy communities and evidence of wrongdoing mean that affected citizens go without equal protection and right to redress grievances. Suing after the fact doesn't restore the damages lost, and these damages cannot always be proven in advance to prevent corporations from taking action to cause them; so rights are being violated that cannot always be restored using the given system. So that is one area that I have been proposing solutions for. It make take executive orders from Govt at state or federal levels, but those should be by consensus of the people or that can be argued as unconstitutional. Either way, this requires consensus to be formed either inside or outside govt, before means can be set up to Represent that consensus.

P.S. Sneekin

B. the same way you are saying "spiritual healing" can be done in private without implementing the CHOICE through govt,
you and Faun and Syriusly are saying it's not fair to treat marriages that way, but ALL people should be able to go through govt
to get MARRIED NOT JUST TO GET LICENSED FOR CIVIL CONTRACTS BUT TO DO THE ACTUAL CEREMONY

so I am saying treat these options the same!

If you are  ENDORSING federal govt CONTROLLING AND REGULATING ALL CHOICES OF HEALTH CARE
then Spiritual Healing as one of those choices would  HAVE to get endorsed and approved by govt as an option.

If you are saying this remains private, then GET HEALTH CARE OUT OF GOVT.
And so should personal means of marriage be left in private.

What are we going to do then?
Keep the FACILITIES public, but ALLOW people to bring in their OWN staff and services
to conduct their OWN services for spiritual healing, marriage, etc. so that this isn't endorsed by govt???

C. also Syriusly and Faun
I totally sympathize with what you are saying about not taking marriage away from others.
I cannot even get married under the given choices that don't accommodate me either!

These have not been set up yet, that could handle marrying one person who doesn't
believe in going through church and the other who doesn't believe in going through the state.

I think by the time I set up a system that would work for this situation,
then anyone would be accommodated equally!


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> I subscribe to the Old Testament, not the new one. Does that mean I can have a slave even though you can't?



Dear Faun 
did I answer this question already or short enough for you?

If YOU follow the OT, you and OTHERS who follow the SAME faith,
can practice that with each other. It's called BARTER or VOLUNTEER services.
If YOU and OTHERS agree to work for each other for FREE.
YES it's your RIGHT to practice your FREE exercise of religion.
however, if anyone COMPLAINS they are ABUSED or COERCED
that's NOT "free exercise of religion" by FORCED.
so if they don't agree to be "enslaved" or volunteer for free,
they DON"T agree to that faith in that practice.
So you'd have to find volunteers who AGREE and yes you can practice that freely!

And the same rule applies to all people of all faiths and practices.
It has to be voluntary compliance, not FORCED faith or it's religious abuse
and violate the religious freedom and due process of people not to be
deprived of liberty. Those are natural laws that apply to all human nature,
free will and right to defend one's will consent and beliefs. So people of
all religions or none at all are still under laws that govern human nature in general.


----------



## emilynghiem

Faun said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then
> Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.
> 
> I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?
> 
> Is this just your way of communicating?
> 
> If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!
> 
> If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun
> 
> 
> 
> Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you _thought_ you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a _"yes"_ or _"no"_ answer and neither were forthcoming from you.
> 
> Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....
> 
> Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.
> 
> That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's *but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.*
> 
> I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...
> 
> ___________________________​
> *Faun: *_do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?_
> 
> *emilynghiem: *_I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction. The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt._
> 
> ... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...
> 
> ___________________________​
> So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??
> 
> That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> Thanks for your answer but your answer is *EXACTLY* the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.
> 
> A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)
> 
> In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.
> 
> The government is not divorcing itself from marriage *precisely because of people like you* who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RE: In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> NO, I'm saying to AVOID that by either:
> A. if govt use marriage then ALL people get that
> (and I'm suggesting that to reach agreement on inclusion, to treat LGBT beliefs
> and Christian beliefs about spiritual healing prayer equally, neither imposing one while excluding the other)
> B. if people cannot agre e on that, but for example ALL agre e to civil contracts,
> then ALL people get that.
> C. as for your concern that if that were to happen and this leaves out Atheists who don't have
> a way to get married, I am saying to set it up -- by agreement BEFORE changing policies*. so if there needs to be separate CHOICE of funding for govt programs
> that deals with "social" benefits that not all people agree to the terms of, that can be done while
> setting up state alternatives to resolve ACA issues and requirements that are FACING this SAME ISSUE.
> 
> Sorry Faun if you don't like my full answer.
> I am trying to address these things in context.
> the solutions to one point (such as marriage issues) solve other problems as well (such as health care issues).
> 
> * NOTE to Faun: ACA required states alternatives to avoid penalty BEFORE setting these up. Did you complain about ACA being unconstitutional by requiring people to face fines for not choosing alternatives that weren't even allowed to be proposed to states yet much less set up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While you're promoting the government to get out of the marriage business, you say churches she still be performing marriages.
> 
> What you're seeking allows religious heterosexuals to marry the person of their choice; but no one else can.
> 
> Given that marriage is a fundamental right for all, religious and secular, straight and gay, why do you think it's ok to protect that right for folks like you, but not for folks like Syriusly, who is an atheist, and not for folks who are gay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NOPE
> 1. first I am not saying to do all this, I am saying that if people agrees it solves the problem to be open to such solutions
> by my standards, I only go by CONSENT
> so if you do not consent to this, that is taken into account in the solution
> 
> 2. second, the people set up alternatives and agreements BEFORE changing any laws
> again I hold to that standard by CONSENT of the governed
> 
> Now Faun since I am answering your questions can you answer mine:
> 3. Do you agree to these same standards of NOT requiring people to go through
> options that aren't equally available for all people?
> 
> And if so, do you support the ACA mandates that require people to either
> go through the govt approved and regulated choices for health care or insurance to avoid penalties,
> or wait on STATE ALTERNATIVES to be created that also need to MEET GOVT approval.
> 
> if these choices HAVEN'T BEEN implemented yet,
> do you agree with laws REQUIRING PEOPLE TO GO THROUGH THEM FOR HEALTH CARE?
> OR ELSE FACE FINES?
> 
> Please answer that question ^
> Thanks Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say, "nope," but your position said, "yes, yes, yes!"
> 
> You said you believe churches should marry folks but that the government shouldn't. If such a disaster ever occurred,  it would mean exactly that -- religious heterosexual would be about the only people who could get married on the U.S.. At least freely and to the person of their choice.
> 
> You may not comprehend this,  but it's because of people like you that the government is in the business of marriage; as well as securing all other rights as well.
> 
> As far as your question... no, I don't like the mandate. But then, it's a conservative concept that has always sounded stupid to me and I'm in favor of a national healthcare system.
Click to expand...


Dear Faun
I believe govt should accommodate ALL These beliefs equally
1. people who want to go through church to marry
2. people who want to go through govt
3. people who want both, or neither, or some other way
So how do we set up a system that allows any combination of these
without imposing on anyone with different beliefs?

Just because I believe the problem is solved by everyone setting up private means FIRST,
before setting up public means second, based on where all the public agrees accommodates
everyone equally of all beliefs,
doesn't mean people like you agree.
Obviously you believe you don't have equal access unless this is set up THROUGH govt
FIRST, and then set up the private alternatives SECOND which you feel accommodates everyone. Not everyone agrees with that either!

So how do we accommodate YOUR belief where it doesn't impose on the equal
consent and beliefs of others that govt is supposed to represent?

If you are insisting that it be done through govt,
how are you different from people insisting right to life has to be recognized as a
CHOICE through govt and can't just be exercised privately outside?

And what about people who want Spiritual Healing as a CHOICE through govt as a recognized
exemption to avoid penalties -- how can that be recognized as a CHOICE
without imposing on others who see that as a violation for govt to include that.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> Spiritual healing can't be imposed because of first amendment violations - period.
> 
> Healthcare (written in the mid-90's), then passed as Romneycare (and found legal) and then it became the PP/ACA.  This went to SCOTUS, who signed off on it.   It really makes no difference if it violates your personal beliefs - it doesn't violate any of your constitutional rights.  It was passed by a majority in the House and Senate.   It went through the entire democratic process.  It was discussed, etc.   It was signed into law.
> 
> The real question is - why don't you understand that laws aren't written IAW your beliefs or consensus.  These bills went through a process.  You elected people to represent you in the federal government (people of your state).  They voted against it - however, it's a federal law, not violating any constitutional law, and it passed.
> 
> Religious freedoms apply in certain situations, not all.  They have nothing to do with political beliefs, just religious beliefs.



Sneekin
0. I am NOT talking about IMPOSING spiritual healing which is NOT possible for two reasons
A. like you and I agree, it is against govt principles = UNLAWFUL
That's NOT what I am proposing at ALL
B. AND IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY PERIOD
Whatever YOU are talking about "forcing" anything is
like the *polar opposite difference* between RAPE which is forced and ILLEGAL,
and consensual sex which is legal and cannot be regulated by govt much less forced.

So whatever thinking you have in your mind,
forced abusive "reparative therapy" is like RAPE
while
spiritual healing is EVEN MORE sensitive than sexual intercourse
because it has to be COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY AND WANTED
in order to work. If the person does not want the changes to happen,
if they are not ready, it will not work. it can NEVER be forced.

And yes, the people who go through it to remove intense DEMONIC
obsessions out of their control, report that the process "feels like rape"
It is THAT sensitive where it can only be done if people agree to the full process
which can be VERY difficult, like going through chemo or having a baby. Very painful.

1. I'm talking about offering it as a CHOICE.
You said offering the choice of marriage to gay couples isn't imposing that belief on others.
So why can't the same be done for spiritual healing as a FREE CHOICE.
NOT FORCING IT ON ANYONE AS WE AGREE THAT GAY MARRIAGE CAN'T BE FORCED ON ANYONE.

3. You are free to only recognize "religious beliefs" under the First Amendment.
I don't limit it to that BECAUSE I find it would discriminate against
people with other types of beliefs deserving of equal protections.
So by my standards on NOT discriminating on the basis of CREED,
I recognize beliefs equally both for or against gay marriage, marriage rights,
health care rights through govt, states rights and civil liberties not deprived without due process, etc. etc.

I find that approach ACCOMMODATES yours, but not vice versa.
So in order to include all people and beliefs equally
I take the more INCLUSIVE approach that doesn't leave any beliefs or people out.

I believe mediation and consensus requires starting from NEUTRAL
and universally including ALL beliefs first, then working out agreements on laws from there.

Sneekin I find this approach NECESSARY
for equal representation and protection of laws.
while starting with a skewed base that already leaves people
out of negotiations to being with, is going to prevent democratic
process from reaching a consensus. Legally I recommend it to govt
to set up means of mediation that accommodate this level of process.


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> I have no idea why you are bringing 'spiritual healing' into this discussion and have no interest in pursuing it.



Dear Syriusly Sneekin also Faun and rightwinger
I AM going back and thanking your msg  with info as these are ALL helpful.
I am missing pages and responses, so please bear with me, if I can't catch them all when I'm rushing.

Syriusly the reason it helps to compare with spiritual healing
Sneekin fe els the same way about "offering the CHOICE of spiritual healing through govt"
as opponents feel about offering marriage through govt to gay couples.

So I am trying to compare how do we ACCOMMODATE those choices
without govt imposing them on others?

If we can figure it out for spiritual healing we can figure it out for marriage.
Sneekin does not see how offering the choice of marriage to gay people is imposing.
And I don't see how offering the choice of spiritual healing is imposing.
If we can understand the reaction and imposition in the other case, we can understand both sides
and why they object as they do!


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok Sneekin is this a better example:
> I believe in defending both prochoice and prolife equally.
> That makes me neither all one or all the other, but a third special case of defending both.
> 
> I believe this requires laws to be based on consensus between people of the other beliefs.
> so both are included represented and protected equally.
> Not everyone believes in this or that it is possible,
> thus all three are political beliefs by my approach.
> 
> I have a unique perspective that all abortion can be prevented 100% by free choice,
> as prolife advocates already operate completely by free choice not force of law,
> so that we CAN meet the standards of both prolife by eliminating abortion this way,
> and of free choice by not banning or punishing abortion in order to achieve the prolife goals.
> 
> (If you define prolife as only the belief that abortion should be illegal or banned,
> then you exclude me, and you call me prochoice only; but what makes me different
> is I DON'T believe prochoice can be imposed without consent of prolife or it's
> a form of discrimination for political expedience.)
> 
> One condition by which I would agree to prolife bans on abortion
> is if prochoice people AGREE to those laws by consensus.
> so consensus is the standard I support to defend beliefs
> of both prochoice and prolife, recognizing that prochoice
> can accommodate prolife inclusively but not vice versa
> unless there is a consensus on law by free choice.
> 
> I apply this same standard to beliefs on marriage as well.
> So that makes me different, with some traits of both sides,
> but without the belief that it is fair to impose one without the consent of the other.
> 
> NOTE: I honestly believe that if govt were to incorporate mediation to include
> my beliefs, this would also help protect the other two beliefs from infringement
> from each other. So that's why I push three times as hard to defend consensus
> and conflict resolution as a more Constitutionally inclusive standard; not only would
> it allow my beliefs to be exercised more freely, without constant harassment and
> threats of censorship, but it would help stop harassment and threats to people of
> the other views at the same time.
> 
> And the same system would help with all other issues like the marriage
> and gun rights issues, that people get so defensive about out of fear
> the other party will try to push their beliefs at the expense of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Makes no sense..
> 
> Now...in 50 words or less....PLEASE
> 
> How do you pass laws that are both pro-life and pro-choice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's an example rightwinger
> 
> A. What if we agree not to ban abortion but
> create a special level of law on state levels for Health and Safety
> which communities may choose to OPT INTO freely such as
> by school district, civic association for neighborhood communities, or whole cities
> if all residents happen to agree on terms.
> 
> Then people might agree that Relationship Abuse counts as a health code threat or violation
> (and also Drug abuse or addiction without Criminalizing it or penalizing it)
> and needs to be addressed by mandatory counseling by BOTH partners if a complaint is reported of abuse.
> 
> So it could be agreed upon that an act
> resulting in unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted child, unwanted abortion,
> etc. counts as Relationship Abuse and is subject to counseling to correct the problem.
> 
> so this can be applied to "ban sex that leads to unwanted abortion"
> as a form of abuse, if people agreed to terms and definitions and process.
> 
> It is not antichoice but saying in cases where abortion is not a wanted choice,
> both partners should be protected from that situation where something is being forced.
> 
> We are not banning the abortion in ways that affect the woman more than the man,
> but banning acts of coercion or abuse that otherwise would result in abortion,a
> and holding BOTH partners responsible for not abusing the relationship or sex,
> where it causes mental emotional or physical coercion or stress on one or both partners.
> 
> B. if that doesn't work I also suggest separating funding
> by taxes where prolife people can match dollars going to Planned Parenthood
> with the same amount going to the Nurturing Network which isn't affiliated with
> anything to do with abortion.
> 
> If the left wants right to health care through govt,
> why not separate two tracks and let the right have right to life through govt.
> Let both tracks fund the programs they believe in,
> and let taxpayers CHOOSE which track to fund.
> Anyone can participate in nonprofits or govt programs of both tracks,
> but just separate the taxes where people are fully and equally represented.
> 
> That is both prochoice and prolife!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 300 words and you still didn't answer a simple question. Let me rephrase...
> 
> The problem with abortion is there can be no consensus. There is no middle ground. Dividing up communities into smaller and smaller segments will still not reach the consensus you desire. If you can't get consensus on abortion in families how can you get it by town?
> 
> Those who want to ban abortion want it banned for EVERYONE
> How do you reconcile that?
Click to expand...


Dear rightwinger 
1. if there cannot be a consensus then both sides should agree to separate,
and where that isn't fully possible, they should agree to mutual concessions where BOTH sides agree that is the best that can be done.
that would be fair to both.

2. What I tell my prolife friends is they themselves are PROOF
that abortion can be prevented and ended WITHOUT BANNING IT.
Because THEY don't require it to be banned by law for THEM to
do what they do, which is purely through offering better CHOICES
and education to PREVENT abortion. That's enough to wipe it out.
One prolife advocate I spoke with doesn't think this is possible but
believe in promoting better birth control as the solution. Great!
So let's work together on that instead of working against each other.
If we use all resources to focus on where we AGREE will prevent abortion,
that's better than wasting resources fighting where we disagree.

So of all the prolife people I've talked with, the real reason they don't
think the laws are enough is that the prochoice people keep rejecting
their efforts to stop abortion, so they think these people are pro ABORTION instead of prochoice.
If prochoice people work WITH prolife to prevent abortion as much as possible,
they wouldn't feel the need to ban it to stop it.

3. for the hardcore people who don't want govt legalizing it in any form,
that's where I recommend to separate those taxpayers funding and let
them pay under a health care track that is prolife with no abortion.
And same with people who are against death penalty and costs of war,
and want health care, let them separate tracks and pay for life not death!

So separation is possible where people have strong beliefs as conscientious objectors.
I don't think that will divide people any more than we already are along political or religious beliefs,
 but will have the opposite effect and allow people to unite, when they can all have their
own way and don't have to compete to force everyone to pay for policies they don't believe in.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you _thought_ you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a _"yes"_ or _"no"_ answer and neither were forthcoming from you.
> 
> Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....
> 
> Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.
> 
> That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's *but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.*
> 
> I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...
> 
> ___________________________​
> *Faun: *_do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?_
> 
> *emilynghiem: *_I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction. The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt._
> 
> ... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...
> 
> ___________________________​
> So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??
> 
> That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> Thanks for your answer but your answer is *EXACTLY* the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.
> 
> A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)
> 
> In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.
> 
> The government is not divorcing itself from marriage *precisely because of people like you* who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RE: In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> NO, I'm saying to AVOID that by either:
> A. if govt use marriage then ALL people get that
> (and I'm suggesting that to reach agreement on inclusion, to treat LGBT beliefs
> and Christian beliefs about spiritual healing prayer equally, neither imposing one while excluding the other)
> B. if people cannot agre e on that, but for example ALL agre e to civil contracts,
> then ALL people get that.
> C. as for your concern that if that were to happen and this leaves out Atheists who don't have
> a way to get married, I am saying to set it up -- by agreement BEFORE changing policies*. so if there needs to be separate CHOICE of funding for govt programs
> that deals with "social" benefits that not all people agree to the terms of, that can be done while
> setting up state alternatives to resolve ACA issues and requirements that are FACING this SAME ISSUE.
> 
> Sorry Faun if you don't like my full answer.
> I am trying to address these things in context.
> the solutions to one point (such as marriage issues) solve other problems as well (such as health care issues).
> 
> * NOTE to Faun: ACA required states alternatives to avoid penalty BEFORE setting these up. Did you complain about ACA being unconstitutional by requiring people to face fines for not choosing alternatives that weren't even allowed to be proposed to states yet much less set up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While you're promoting the government to get out of the marriage business, you say churches she still be performing marriages.
> 
> What you're seeking allows religious heterosexuals to marry the person of their choice; but no one else can.
> 
> Given that marriage is a fundamental right for all, religious and secular, straight and gay, why do you think it's ok to protect that right for folks like you, but not for folks like Syriusly, who is an atheist, and not for folks who are gay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NOPE
> 1. first I am not saying to do all this, I am saying that if people agrees it solves the problem to be open to such solutions
> by my standards, I only go by CONSENT
> so if you do not consent to this, that is taken into account in the solution
> 
> 2. second, the people set up alternatives and agreements BEFORE changing any laws
> again I hold to that standard by CONSENT of the governed
> 
> Now Faun since I am answering your questions can you answer mine:
> 3. Do you agree to these same standards of NOT requiring people to go through
> options that aren't equally available for all people?
> 
> And if so, do you support the ACA mandates that require people to either
> go through the govt approved and regulated choices for health care or insurance to avoid penalties,
> or wait on STATE ALTERNATIVES to be created that also need to MEET GOVT approval.
> 
> if these choices HAVEN'T BEEN implemented yet,
> do you agree with laws REQUIRING PEOPLE TO GO THROUGH THEM FOR HEALTH CARE?
> OR ELSE FACE FINES?
> 
> Please answer that question ^
> Thanks Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say, "nope," but your position said, "yes, yes, yes!"
> 
> You said you believe churches should marry folks but that the government shouldn't. If such a disaster ever occurred,  it would mean exactly that -- religious heterosexual would be about the only people who could get married on the U.S.. At least freely and to the person of their choice.
> 
> You may not comprehend this,  but it's because of people like you that the government is in the business of marriage; as well as securing all other rights as well.
> 
> As far as your question... no, I don't like the mandate. But then, it's a conservative concept that has always sounded stupid to me and I'm in favor of a national healthcare system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> I believe govt should accommodate ALL These beliefs equally
> 1. people who want to go through church to marry
> 2. people who want to go through govt
> 3. people who want both, or neither, or some other way
> So how do we set up a system that allows any combination of these
> without imposing on anyone with different beliefs?
Click to expand...


Our system does accommodate exactly that
1- if a couple wants to marry through a church- then they can be married through a church. 
2- if a couple wants to marry, but not through a church- then they can be married outside a church.
3- if a couple wants both- then they can do both. 
4.- if a couple wants neither- well then they are not married- and our system accommodates that also.

Whatever any of those couples do- do not impose on the beliefs of anyone else?

Why would a Jewish couple marrying in a synogogue be imposing on the beliefs of a Christian who doesn't believe in the Jewish faith?


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Sneekin
> 
> A. Representatives represent me when these issues are resolved.
> They are not getting represented yet, sorry!
> Yes, I will go through govt to resolve them
> but I have to be able to EXPLAIN them first.
> 
> I posted the letter to Ted Cruz office outlining even 3 of the grievances
> that can be documented: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10952408/
> 
> This has been going on until I find the PEOPLE to REDRESS those grievances.
> [Of the people I've found who respect what it takes to represent me, most of
> them are OUTSIDE GOVT. We have to form teams to connect with people
> INSIDE govt to create the process that WILL represent these issues for resolution purposes!]
> 
> Not everyone can deal with this. And the ones who can are NOT ALL in govt positions!
> 
> Thanks for trying but it takes SPECIFIC people.
> And then I can form a team with Congresswoman Lee to resolve these issues.
> And if we can do it FT, we can use that same model for other issues
> that HAVEN'T BEEN RESOLVED using the given legal or govt system as is.
> 
> B. So in general
> NO the system of redressing grievances by assessing restitution owed
> and crediting the taxmoney back to taxpayers
> HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET
> 
> I am teaming up with Jon Roland of the Libertarians and Constitution Society in Austin
> and Ted Weisgal with the Diversity outreach of KPFT public radio
> to try to organize some kind of party representation that can redress grievances.
> 
> The PROCESS that WOULD represent me in protecting the right
> to petition to redress grievances by consensus and noncoercion
> as the standard HASN'T BEEN proposed, offered or applied yet.
> 
> Thank you for helping to sort out the preliminary prep part.
> 
> At some point I will reach out to all law schools especially
> anyone teaching Constitutional laws and ethics, to join the effort.
> 
> If it is really based on Consensus and Inclusion then everyone
> will be able to use it to resolve their issues locally or nationally,
> 
> Thanks!


*Emily,*
I don't think you grasp how government works.  Your representatives  are elected,  then they represent you.  Even using your example - we need some way for people like you, who opt out of health insurance, to quit bankrupting the rest of us - we used a republican plan, the ACA, written by the Heritage think tank in the mid 90's.  Romney implemented it, Obama implemented it, after a majority of Congress *APPROVED* it.  You can't explain it, because I think you don't grasp the facts.  They represented you.  PP/ACA was implemented it, even though you don't like it.   Like it or not, you were represented.  Your next step is to contact your representatives, and see what can be done to shift the burden of paying for the lazy people (people who work who don't care that they rip the rest of us off).  One will assume under the Trump regime, it will be overturned, and the rest of us will push to make sure if you don't pay for insurance because you just don't want to, can now be denied no matter what your health issues are.  The majority of health care dollars are going against deadbeats who work and refuse to pay for coverage, and those that sign up for insurance weeks before a major surgery.  

If you are banking on Cruz, that will be even a bigger joke.   

While I can agree with you in part in concept only, the fact is, cheap people like you ruin it for the rest of us.   My birth mother died in her mid 30's from a lung disease.   It was in the early days of health insurance, but my father made sure insurance was paid before groceries were bought - which was good.  My mother had congestive heart failure, treatment for TB, a double masectomy, all before the age of 35.  She was being treated for TB, treated in a trial with a drug that was hailed as a cure - unfortunately, she was allergic to the (now commonplace) and went into Anaphylactic shock.  She ended up on oxygen, filling up with fluid, and died days later.   So......even then, costs were thousands of dollars.   Nowadays, costs would be probably half a million.   Insurance?  Would pay for it.  You refuse insurance?   You expect ME to pay for it?  That's NOT a viable solution, Emily.  

Good luck grieving a law that's in full force and effect.  That's really funny,  since we grieve and arbitrate perceptions / conclusions that laws have been violated.  The ACA is LAW.  Good luck. We, the people don't get to grieve every dreamed up misconception we have.  There are checks and balances.  And if the ACA is overturned - do I get to now grieve and file suit against you or anyone else that now refuses to pay for insurance and then gets sick?  I'll be first in line if that was doable. After all, you said I should get to grieve and get redress - so maybe I should file now against you people that refuse to purchase insurance.   Live in a nice house?  I'll take it.  Nice car?  keep up the payments, I'll just drive off in your car.   After all, an xbox, car, house, video game is more important to you people than actual good health.  And if you have children, I would even claim child abuse, playing games while your child goes from a simple sneeze to hospitalization and respiratory infections.  I guess people shouldn't be allowed to have children unless they are able to care for their kids.  Not having insurance when you can afford it should be grounds for no marriage and no children - mandatory birth  control, perhaps?


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I mean Sneekin
> A. is if we followed what was already in the First Amendment,
> ie free exercise of religion or free will for everyone
> [within the bounds of right of all people PEACEABLY to assemble]
> there wouldn't BE slavery or oppresion of any sort:
> All conflicts would be resolved if we practiced fre e speech
> press and right to petition to redress grievances.
> 
> B. and no I don't mean this voids the need for other laws
> like due process and equal protections, but that the SPIRIT
> of the Constitutional laws fulfills and includes those as well.
> Under free exercise, all these other laws can be cited as well
> as defenses to explain and petition for one's rights beliefs and interests to be accounted for.
> 
> so this INCLUDES citing Quran, Jewish or Christian principles, Buddhist teachings, etc.
> 
> C. As for the Bible this also INCLUDES Islam/Quran, Jewish laws,
> and all forms of natural laws. By Colossians, all authorities are governed
> under the same Lord or Law that Jesus represents as Universal JUSTICE for all.
> 
> Just because we express laws in different ways does not mean they are excluded.
> 
> They are all protected under Free exercise of religion, free choice or free will
> which is naturally self-existent as part of human nature.
> 
> And the Bible also calls for obedience and submission to civil authority
> and human institutions. So that includes respecting Constitutional law
> and equal inclusion and protection for people of all faiths under religious freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> A.  Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution.  In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage.  In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage.   In some religions, slavery is allowed.  Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law.  Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
> B.  Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc.  Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church.  They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
> C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment.  I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says.   I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists).  I have no book of Colossians.  Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god.  They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said NO to all three.
> A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
> their right to petition to redress grievances.
> Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
> It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
> If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
> it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
> with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
> NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
> if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.
> 
> B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
> The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
> That is NOT what I am asking.
> 1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
> for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
> 2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
> where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage
> 
> C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
> at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!
> 
> Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
> how would you describe the equivalent process of
> * govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
> * govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing
> 
> If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
> or accept it,
> how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."
> 
> Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
> so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A.  So then you are wrong in your claims - I can't freely exercise my religion - violation of my first amendment rights.  As some Christians will tell you, Slavery is allowed under biblical law.  So I DEMAND to have a slave, using your argument.
> B.  Spiritual Healing has been ruled unconstitutional in certain situations.  The law will stay that way.  Read your case law governing Jehovah Witness and children.
> C.  There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE.  There is only CIVIL MARRIAGE.  It's not a choice, it cannot be agreed to or rejected by the government, as it doesn't exist.  Your religion can refuse to do SSM or Straight marriages under the 1st amendment.
> 
> Actually, the government said licensing of only straight couples was illegal.  They didn't include gay people, they removed the existing requirement that they be opposite sex.  Different from a legal perspective. 14th amendment - equal protection and due process.
> 
> Spiritual Healing is religious and violates the 1st amendment.  If your private insurance company doesn't receive federal funds, then your company can offer spiritual healing.  If it receives government funding (Medicaid, Medicare, etc), then it would violate the 1st amendment - because you are endorsing a religion over another.  You've claimed some people don't want to pay for certain procedures - well i certainly don't want to pay for someone handling snakes, rattling beads, speaking in tongues, or any of the hundreds of other forms of spiritual healing.
> 
> You can't set up a state recognized religion, so you can't set up spiritual healing that wouldn't impose your religion on me.  This is in direct opposition to your other argument,  because there is no gay marriage and straight marriage, but simply civil marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> 1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
> and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?
> 
> In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?
> 
> In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
> or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.
> 
> You can have
> * VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
> * or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.
> 
> These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
> The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
> servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.
> 
> 2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
> yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
> our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.
> 
> Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?
> 
> We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
> but if we live by caring for our neighbors
> equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
> it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
> to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily, the OT allows for slavery, as do several other mainstream religions.  So now, you are claiming that I must completely follow your religion, which goes almost completely against my religion.  Your definition is NT law.   I don't believe in it. And yes, I'm referring to traditional slavery.  Many religions prohibit spiritual healing as well (including mine).  Why should I have to join your religion, just to have civil rights? We are not a theocracy, and you are now narrowing it down to you must be not only a christian, but a certain type of christian.  You do realize that some Christian faiths have more books than your bible, and some that have less than your bible.  There are a lot that have completely different translations - as in one case, where two people met, greeted each other and    (translations)    a)  kissed;  b) chastely kissed on the cheek;  c)  shook hands.  Some translations recognize several same sex relationships.  Other ministers, with NO knowledge of Greek or Aramaic claim it's a lie.  Are you aware that the word homosexual didn't appear in the bible until mid century - drum roll - last century.  That the Greek word for homosexual did not occur in all of the locations fundamentalist Christians claim, but only twice, and even then, it's believed to be mistranslated. So.....sorry Emily - it's another fail.
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin

1. If you only follow OT law that allows for slavery
and don't follow anything else, then how are you going to claim
religious freedom under the Constitution that isn't in the OT?

Clearly you are invoking other laws OUT_SIDE _if you are defending your own religion
by the Constitution.

2. by natural laws, whatever religion you are using,
I use that to rebuke you by. 

3. and for Christians using different laws or interpretations,
again, for each person I use THEIR system THEY use.
so for each person on earth, and in history, each may have
their OWN principles or standards they answer to.

The atheist answers to their own standards of proof or logic
which may differ from other atheists or secular humanists with
as many variations as there are people who are each unique.

By natural laws, if you are consistent using your own system
then there is no conflict.

I find it is only when we cannot forgive and correct our own
conflicts then we project them on each other and say the problem is the other person.

It is usually a case of removing splinters and beams from our own
eyes at the same time we help a neighbor do the same.
The biases are  usually mutual, and I find it take equal give and take
between both people to resolve any conflict they find between them.

People are generally equal. With strengths and weaknesses in different
areas that check and balance each other, where we help each other out.


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> NO, I'm saying to AVOID that by either:
> A. if govt use marriage then ALL people get that
> (and I'm suggesting that to reach agreement on inclusion, to treat LGBT beliefs
> and Christian beliefs about spiritual healing prayer equally, neither imposing one while excluding the other)
> B. if people cannot agre e on that, but for example ALL agre e to civil contracts,
> then ALL people get that.
> C. as for your concern that if that were to happen and this leaves out Atheists who don't have
> a way to get married, I am saying to set it up -- by agreement BEFORE changing policies*. so if there needs to be separate CHOICE of funding for govt programs
> that deals with "social" benefits that not all people agree to the terms of, that can be done while
> setting up state alternatives to resolve ACA issues and requirements that are FACING this SAME ISSUE.
> 
> Sorry Faun if you don't like my full answer.
> I am trying to address these things in context.
> the solutions to one point (such as marriage issues) solve other problems as well (such as health care issues).
> 
> * NOTE to Faun: ACA required states alternatives to avoid penalty BEFORE setting these up. Did you complain about ACA being unconstitutional by requiring people to face fines for not choosing alternatives that weren't even allowed to be proposed to states yet much less set up?
> 
> 
> 
> While you're promoting the government to get out of the marriage business, you say churches she still be performing marriages.
> 
> What you're seeking allows religious heterosexuals to marry the person of their choice; but no one else can.
> 
> Given that marriage is a fundamental right for all, religious and secular, straight and gay, why do you think it's ok to protect that right for folks like you, but not for folks like Syriusly, who is an atheist, and not for folks who are gay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NOPE
> 1. first I am not saying to do all this, I am saying that if people agrees it solves the problem to be open to such solutions
> by my standards, I only go by CONSENT
> so if you do not consent to this, that is taken into account in the solution
> 
> 2. second, the people set up alternatives and agreements BEFORE changing any laws
> again I hold to that standard by CONSENT of the governed
> 
> Now Faun since I am answering your questions can you answer mine:
> 3. Do you agree to these same standards of NOT requiring people to go through
> options that aren't equally available for all people?
> 
> And if so, do you support the ACA mandates that require people to either
> go through the govt approved and regulated choices for health care or insurance to avoid penalties,
> or wait on STATE ALTERNATIVES to be created that also need to MEET GOVT approval.
> 
> if these choices HAVEN'T BEEN implemented yet,
> do you agree with laws REQUIRING PEOPLE TO GO THROUGH THEM FOR HEALTH CARE?
> OR ELSE FACE FINES?
> 
> Please answer that question ^
> Thanks Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say, "nope," but your position said, "yes, yes, yes!"
> 
> You said you believe churches should marry folks but that the government shouldn't. If such a disaster ever occurred,  it would mean exactly that -- religious heterosexual would be about the only people who could get married on the U.S.. At least freely and to the person of their choice.
> 
> You may not comprehend this,  but it's because of people like you that the government is in the business of marriage; as well as securing all other rights as well.
> 
> As far as your question... no, I don't like the mandate. But then, it's a conservative concept that has always sounded stupid to me and I'm in favor of a national healthcare system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> I believe govt should accommodate ALL These beliefs equally
> 1. people who want to go through church to marry
> 2. people who want to go through govt
> 3. people who want both, or neither, or some other way
> So how do we set up a system that allows any combination of these
> without imposing on anyone with different beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our system does accommodate exactly that
> 1- if a couple wants to marry through a church- then they can be married through a church.
> 2- if a couple wants to marry, but not through a church- then they can be married outside a church.
> 3- if a couple wants both- then they can do both.
> 4.- if a couple wants neither- well then they are not married- and our system accommodates that also.
> 
> Whatever any of those couples do- do not impose on the beliefs of anyone else?
> 
> Why would a Jewish couple marrying in a synogogue be imposing on the beliefs of a Christian who doesn't believe in the Jewish faith?
Click to expand...


Dear Syriusly
There is disagreement on terms of using govt to marry people.
Faun said it isn't enough for govt to just do civil contracts but actual marriages.

The people who are arguing that gay marriage violates beliefs
have no problem with atheists marrying through govt, or people of different races, but do not
believe in govt endorsing same sex couples.

So there is conflict in beliefs regarding terms of marriage by which govt can conduct these.

The difference with private institutions is they don't have to be agreed upon by the public.
But Faun was saing it's not fair to require all people to go through private means
because not all people have access to these.

so would the same people objecting to same sex couples marrying through govt
be willing to help set up private means by which all people can access the same
WITHOUT going through govt which represents everyone, if that is the cause of objection.

The other option I proposed is to offer a concession:
A. if the objectors tolerate the use of govt to conduct same sex marriages which violate their beliefs even though this isn't imposed directly
B. would they accept the equivalent concession of allowing spiritual healing prayer
as a choice through govt health care so all people can access that as a free CHOICE
that isn't imposed directly

I believe many people might consider this equal concession where both sides
give and take to the same degree, instead of trying to ban the other from govt.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> A. Representatives represent me when these issues are resolved.
> They are not getting represented yet, sorry!
> Yes, I will go through govt to resolve them
> but I have to be able to EXPLAIN them first.
> 
> I posted the letter to Ted Cruz office outlining even 3 of the grievances
> that can be documented: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10952408/
> 
> This has been going on until I find the PEOPLE to REDRESS those grievances.
> [Of the people I've found who respect what it takes to represent me, most of
> them are OUTSIDE GOVT. We have to form teams to connect with people
> INSIDE govt to create the process that WILL represent these issues for resolution purposes!]
> 
> Not everyone can deal with this. And the ones who can are NOT ALL in govt positions!
> 
> Thanks for trying but it takes SPECIFIC people.
> And then I can form a team with Congresswoman Lee to resolve these issues.
> And if we can do it FT, we can use that same model for other issues
> that HAVEN'T BEEN RESOLVED using the given legal or govt system as is.
> 
> B. So in general
> NO the system of redressing grievances by assessing restitution owed
> and crediting the taxmoney back to taxpayers
> HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET
> 
> I am teaming up with Jon Roland of the Libertarians and Constitution Society in Austin
> and Ted Weisgal with the Diversity outreach of KPFT public radio
> to try to organize some kind of party representation that can redress grievances.
> 
> The PROCESS that WOULD represent me in protecting the right
> to petition to redress grievances by consensus and noncoercion
> as the standard HASN'T BEEN proposed, offered or applied yet.
> 
> Thank you for helping to sort out the preliminary prep part.
> 
> At some point I will reach out to all law schools especially
> anyone teaching Constitutional laws and ethics, to join the effort.
> 
> If it is really based on Consensus and Inclusion then everyone
> will be able to use it to resolve their issues locally or nationally,
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> *Emily,*
> I don't think you grasp how government works.  Your representatives  are elected,  then they represent you.  Even using your example - we need some way for people like you, who opt out of health insurance, to quit bankrupting the rest of us - we used a republican plan, the ACA, written by the Heritage think tank in the mid 90's.  Romney implemented it, Obama implemented it, after a majority of Congress *APPROVED* it.  You can't explain it, because I think you don't grasp the facts.  They represented you.  PP/ACA was implemented it, even though you don't like it.   Like it or not, you were represented.  Your next step is to contact your representatives, and see what can be done to shift the burden of paying for the lazy people (people who work who don't care that they rip the rest of us off).  One will assume under the Trump regime, it will be overturned, and the rest of us will push to make sure if you don't pay for insurance because you just don't want to, can now be denied no matter what your health issues are.  The majority of health care dollars are going against deadbeats who work and refuse to pay for coverage, and those that sign up for insurance weeks before a major surgery.
> 
> If you are banking on Cruz, that will be even a bigger joke.
> 
> While I can agree with you in part in concept only, the fact is, cheap people like you ruin it for the rest of us.   My birth mother died in her mid 30's from a lung disease.   It was in the early days of health insurance, but my father made sure insurance was paid before groceries were bought - which was good.  My mother had congestive heart failure, treatment for TB, a double masectomy, all before the age of 35.  She was being treated for TB, treated in a trial with a drug that was hailed as a cure - unfortunately, she was allergic to the (now commonplace) and went into Anaphylactic shock.  She ended up on oxygen, filling up with fluid, and died days later.   So......even then, costs were thousands of dollars.   Nowadays, costs would be probably half a million.   Insurance?  Would pay for it.  You refuse insurance?   You expect ME to pay for it?  That's NOT a viable solution, Emily.
> 
> Good luck grieving a law that's in full force and effect.  That's really funny,  since we grieve and arbitrate perceptions / conclusions that laws have been violated.  The ACA is LAW.  Good luck. We, the people don't get to grieve every dreamed up misconception we have.  There are checks and balances.  And if the ACA is overturned - do I get to now grieve and file suit against you or anyone else that now refuses to pay for insurance and then gets sick?  I'll be first in line if that was doable. After all, you said I should get to grieve and get redress - so maybe I should file now against you people that refuse to purchase insurance.   Live in a nice house?  I'll take it.  Nice car?  keep up the payments, I'll just drive off in your car.   After all, an xbox, car, house, video game is more important to you people than actual good health.  And if you have children, I would even claim child abuse, playing games while your child goes from a simple sneeze to hospitalization and respiratory infections.  I guess people shouldn't be allowed to have children unless they are able to care for their kids.  Not having insurance when you can afford it should be grounds for no marriage and no children - mandatory birth  control, perhaps?
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin
0. first of all, slavery used to be enforced by courts and recognized by law.
but that was abolished. so just because ACA was passed does not mean it
cannot be changed. DOMA was also changed after it was passed.

A. RE: ACA
The reps in Congress (legislative)
and the President (executive) who voted yes and passed it were
*ALL DEMOCRATS.*

*The Republicans voted NO..*

The Texas Democratic Party platform openly states
*"We BELIEVE health care is a right not a privilege"
Thus it is clearly a political BELIEF.*

*So essentially the Democrats in Congress and the President used or abused
their positions in govt to establish a NATIONAL BELIEF system
that all citizens are required to follow or be fined by federal govt.*

B. Now YOU believe that by democratic process, the votes and process
are legit and legal and thus they have the right to pass and enforce this.

C. by my beliefs about equal protection of political beliefs,
NO, this is a violation of Constitutional ethics* by putting PARTY
before oath of office to defend the Constitution which includes
equal protection of the law for ALL CITIZENS not just ones of the
dominating voting party. I argue this is DISCRIMINATION BY CREED.

* www.ethics-commission.net
Any person in Government service should:

"I. Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country *above loyalty* *to* persons, *party*, or Government department.

"II. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and *never be a party to their evasion*.

*I argue that Obama and Democrats in Congress violated the First Amendment to the Constitution by imposing and enforcing a law that was KNOWN to contain such a strong bias in beliefs toward the "right to health care" in violation of "state rights" that all the Republicans who believe in states rights voted NO; these beliefs were NOT treated equally under this law, and therefore all the Congress members pushing it abused their offices to conspire to VIOLATE equal civil rights and liberties of other citizens, discriminated against BY CREED in violation of 14th Amendment equal protections of law. The votes in Congress stand as PROOF of this well established BIAS, and yet all those Congress members continued to endorse this law anyway. *

D. I further argue the Supreme Court was equally split close to 50/50
so that the decision to approve ACA as constitutional still shows
a split, it reflect the same 50/50 split in Congress that shows the
people of the nation are divided close to 50/50 on this.
[Please see previous explanation that the ACA was passed through Congress as a PUBLIC HEALTH BILL NOT A TAX which would have failed; but approved through Court as a TAX BILL though it was never voted on as that; thus ACA did NOT pass through both Congress and Court as the same bill, but the interpretation made it a different bill that didn't finish the full process.
In order to correct this, either it has to be kicked back to Congress to pass as a tax bill,
and/or people have to agree to pass a Constitutional Amendment giving federal govt this authority that otherwise belongs to states. I also recommend to states to divide health care policy and taxes by party policy, so that taxpayers may still have a choice whether to go through state or federal levels to access and manage the plan of their choosing as represented by their party.] 

so to represent all people equally according to their beliefs,
that's why I argue to make the mandates OPTIONAL,
allow both the existing ACA as a choice for you and others who
support it and/or take responsibility for funding it until it is reformed
closer to singlepayer or whatever those Democrats are representing
for their constituency; and let the Republicans and free market advocates
opt into and develop their own track based on the proposed revisions without mandates.

That would represent more of the public
and give equal free choice to fund the policy consistent
with the beliefs of the main groups lobbying for one policy or another.

E. Lastly, I do not believe in imposing this option but believe in free choice by consent
of the people. So let me PROPOSE to divide it by party and set up systems of
representation and resources mgmt where both parties can manage their own
membership and policies that support their values beliefs taxation and representation.

I happen to believe that offering this system would allow BOTH the sides
to implement and develop their policies equally and freely, instead of compromising
one or the other or both by fighting for one policy to be imposed for all people.

Given the 50/50 split in beliefs along party lines, I don't think that is possible
without separating the choices and offering them both for taxpayers to choose.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> While you're promoting the government to get out of the marriage business, you say churches she still be performing marriages.
> 
> What you're seeking allows religious heterosexuals to marry the person of their choice; but no one else can.
> 
> Given that marriage is a fundamental right for all, religious and secular, straight and gay, why do you think it's ok to protect that right for folks like you, but not for folks like Syriusly, who is an atheist, and not for folks who are gay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOPE
> 1. first I am not saying to do all this, I am saying that if people agrees it solves the problem to be open to such solutions
> by my standards, I only go by CONSENT
> so if you do not consent to this, that is taken into account in the solution
> 
> 2. second, the people set up alternatives and agreements BEFORE changing any laws
> again I hold to that standard by CONSENT of the governed
> 
> Now Faun since I am answering your questions can you answer mine:
> 3. Do you agree to these same standards of NOT requiring people to go through
> options that aren't equally available for all people?
> 
> And if so, do you support the ACA mandates that require people to either
> go through the govt approved and regulated choices for health care or insurance to avoid penalties,
> or wait on STATE ALTERNATIVES to be created that also need to MEET GOVT approval.
> 
> if these choices HAVEN'T BEEN implemented yet,
> do you agree with laws REQUIRING PEOPLE TO GO THROUGH THEM FOR HEALTH CARE?
> OR ELSE FACE FINES?
> 
> Please answer that question ^
> Thanks Faun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say, "nope," but your position said, "yes, yes, yes!"
> 
> You said you believe churches should marry folks but that the government shouldn't. If such a disaster ever occurred,  it would mean exactly that -- religious heterosexual would be about the only people who could get married on the U.S.. At least freely and to the person of their choice.
> 
> You may not comprehend this,  but it's because of people like you that the government is in the business of marriage; as well as securing all other rights as well.
> 
> As far as your question... no, I don't like the mandate. But then, it's a conservative concept that has always sounded stupid to me and I'm in favor of a national healthcare system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> I believe govt should accommodate ALL These beliefs equally
> 1. people who want to go through church to marry
> 2. people who want to go through govt
> 3. people who want both, or neither, or some other way
> So how do we set up a system that allows any combination of these
> without imposing on anyone with different beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our system does accommodate exactly that
> 1- if a couple wants to marry through a church- then they can be married through a church.
> 2- if a couple wants to marry, but not through a church- then they can be married outside a church.
> 3- if a couple wants both- then they can do both.
> 4.- if a couple wants neither- well then they are not married- and our system accommodates that also.
> 
> Whatever any of those couples do- do not impose on the beliefs of anyone else?
> 
> Why would a Jewish couple marrying in a synogogue be imposing on the beliefs of a Christian who doesn't believe in the Jewish faith?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Syriusly
> There is disagreement on terms of using govt to marry people.
> Faun said it isn't enough for govt to just do civil contracts but actual marriages.
> 
> The people who are arguing that gay marriage violates beliefs
> have no problem with atheists marrying through govt, or people of different races, but do not
> believe in govt endorsing same sex couples..
Click to expand...


Emily the same people who object to 'gay marriage' also objected to legal alternative (equal but different) arrangements such as civil partnerships- when the good Christians of Georgia passed the law to ban gay marriage, they also passed a law to ban any recognition of any civil partnerships.

And of course there are people to this day who object to mixed race couples marrying- in church or out of church.

None of us have any right to an alternative to marriage- but we do have a right to marriage. 
My wife and I are married- and if anyone has an issue with that- that is their problem- not ours.
If anyone has problems with my wonderful friend who married his partner a year, that is their problem not my friends.

It is not possible to find a compromise that EVERYONE will agree to. 

But it is possible to extend legal marriage to everyone- and now we have.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> P.S. Faun and Sneekin
> A. I took your advice and rested.
> I even missed a call from my mother to catch up on sleep!
> 
> Thanks for your concern; the most pressing issue is to
> delegate these problems to the people who have asked to
> organize the plans by radio outreach, and speed up the process
> of getting all of these off of me and my paychecks to carry which have run out.
> Govt should have redressed these grievances UP FRONT, and I was only
> acting as emergency measures to cap and do damage control
> until this gets resolved correctly, without depending on my "slave labor"
> to pay the costs of govt abuses that went on for longer than we could afford.
> 
> The more people I find willing to take this on correctly, the less stress on me,
> and the more I can talk like normal with my family and friends insetad of arguing
> how long is this situation going to impair me.
> 
> Sneekin as a teacher in law, you should know that legal abuse happens.
> Because not all people can afford equal legal defense, big corporations that
> can afford to sue cities if they don't get to develop have more voice and "REPRESENTATION"
> in govt than people with no money trying to defend historic preservation interests that
> aren't counted in the equation like development is that determines property value and taxes.
> Unless there is MONEY to buy out the property, people don't have equal rights and protections.
> You should know this as a law professor, or what are you teaching your students?
> 
> Key Note: The reason I am proposing a privatized system through govt is to accommodate  restitution involving govt but which has to be funded voluntarily where Statutes have run and cannot be mandated by law. The Federal Reserve is partially private involving banks; I'm saying to set up other accounts through the Fed for voluntary restitution to be paid to redress grievances that exceed the capacity of govt.  If we don't find a way to redress grievances that go beyond govt jurisdiction, then corporations that destroy communities and evidence of wrongdoing mean that affected citizens go without equal protection and right to redress grievances. Suing after the fact doesn't restore the damages lost, and these damages cannot always be proven in advance to prevent corporations from taking action to cause them; so rights are being violated that cannot always be restored using the given system. So that is one area that I have been proposing solutions for. It make take executive orders from Govt at state or federal levels, but those should be by consensus of the people or that can be argued as unconstitutional. Either way, this requires consensus to be formed either inside or outside govt, before means can be set up to Represent that consensus.
> 
> P.S. Sneekin
> 
> B. the same way you are saying "spiritual healing" can be done in private without implementing the CHOICE through govt,
> you and Faun and Syriusly are saying it's not fair to treat marriages that way, but ALL people should be able to go through govt
> to get MARRIED NOT JUST TO GET LICENSED FOR CIVIL CONTRACTS BUT TO DO THE ACTUAL CEREMONY
> 
> so I am saying treat these options the same!
> 
> If you are  ENDORSING federal govt CONTROLLING AND REGULATING ALL CHOICES OF HEALTH CARE
> then Spiritual Healing as one of those choices would  HAVE to get endorsed and approved by govt as an option.
> 
> If you are saying this remains private, then GET HEALTH CARE OUT OF GOVT.
> And so should personal means of marriage be left in private.
> 
> What are we going to do then?
> Keep the FACILITIES public, but ALLOW people to bring in their OWN staff and services
> to conduct their OWN services for spiritual healing, marriage, etc. so that this isn't endorsed by govt???
> 
> C. also Syriusly and Faun
> I totally sympathize with what you are saying about not taking marriage away from others.
> I cannot even get married under the given choices that don't accommodate me either!
> 
> These have not been set up yet, that could handle marrying one person who doesn't
> believe in going through church and the other who doesn't believe in going through the state.
> 
> I think by the time I set up a system that would work for this situation,
> then anyone would be accommodated equally!


_*Emily,*_

My previous response covers most of your comments (HINT: YOU ARE NOT CORRECT) - You can't grieve when you have nothing to grieve (even though you can't grieve the ACA, you could grieve something not paid by the ACA, if the ACA stated something would be paid (ie, yearly physical, free).

No one, not even Obama or Romney said government needs to control Health Care (although single payer works in most every 1st world nation).   If you already had insurance, and it covered the bare minimums, you wouldn't be signing up for anything.  I've never signed up for anything, and if the ACA would be around for the next 40 years, I wouldn't be going to the exchanges.  That being said, the handling of snakes, rattling beads, praying over people, or beating children because one thinks they are possessed is NOT medicine, and is NOT health care.   It is *RELIGION*.  Can't you grasp that?  First amendment violation - it won't be covered by any FEDERALLY BACKED INSURANCE - that is quite a few insurances - and leaves a bare minimum, usually self insured smaller business like Hobby Lobby, who refuse BC pills when medically required for other than Birth Control purposes.  I personally don't find it very Christian for someone making a little over minimum wage, that's a devout Catholic, be told by a business like Hobby Lobby that they would rather that woman die than cover the pill.  And contrary to foolishness put out by right to life groups and Ted Cruz, birth control isn't 10.00 a month.   For a woman in Texas and other states trying to ban PP, a doctor's visit, required yearly in most states,  can run 200.00.   Birth control pills, without insurance, cost up to 120 a month depending on brand, composition, etc.  Even cheaper ones can be 40-50 a month around here, a metro area of slightly over 1/4 Million, if one doesn't go to PP.  

BTW, referencing my previous letter - we lived right outside of Chicago, and had access to the top Hospitals and centers in the US.


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> A. Representatives represent me when these issues are resolved.
> They are not getting represented yet, sorry!
> Yes, I will go through govt to resolve them
> but I have to be able to EXPLAIN them first.
> 
> I posted the letter to Ted Cruz office outlining even 3 of the grievances
> that can be documented: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10952408/
> 
> This has been going on until I find the PEOPLE to REDRESS those grievances.
> [Of the people I've found who respect what it takes to represent me, most of
> them are OUTSIDE GOVT. We have to form teams to connect with people
> INSIDE govt to create the process that WILL represent these issues for resolution purposes!]
> 
> Not everyone can deal with this. And the ones who can are NOT ALL in govt positions!
> 
> Thanks for trying but it takes SPECIFIC people.
> And then I can form a team with Congresswoman Lee to resolve these issues.
> And if we can do it FT, we can use that same model for other issues
> that HAVEN'T BEEN RESOLVED using the given legal or govt system as is.
> 
> B. So in general
> NO the system of redressing grievances by assessing restitution owed
> and crediting the taxmoney back to taxpayers
> HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET
> 
> I am teaming up with Jon Roland of the Libertarians and Constitution Society in Austin
> and Ted Weisgal with the Diversity outreach of KPFT public radio
> to try to organize some kind of party representation that can redress grievances.
> 
> The PROCESS that WOULD represent me in protecting the right
> to petition to redress grievances by consensus and noncoercion
> as the standard HASN'T BEEN proposed, offered or applied yet.
> 
> Thank you for helping to sort out the preliminary prep part.
> 
> At some point I will reach out to all law schools especially
> anyone teaching Constitutional laws and ethics, to join the effort.
> 
> If it is really based on Consensus and Inclusion then everyone
> will be able to use it to resolve their issues locally or nationally,
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> *Emily,*
> I don't think you grasp how government works.  Your representatives  are elected,  then they represent you.  Even using your example - we need some way for people like you, who opt out of health insurance, to quit bankrupting the rest of us - we used a republican plan, the ACA, written by the Heritage think tank in the mid 90's.  Romney implemented it, Obama implemented it, after a majority of Congress *APPROVED* it.  You can't explain it, because I think you don't grasp the facts.  They represented you.  PP/ACA was implemented it, even though you don't like it.   Like it or not, you were represented.  Your next step is to contact your representatives, and see what can be done to shift the burden of paying for the lazy people (people who work who don't care that they rip the rest of us off).  One will assume under the Trump regime, it will be overturned, and the rest of us will push to make sure if you don't pay for insurance because you just don't want to, can now be denied no matter what your health issues are.  The majority of health care dollars are going against deadbeats who work and refuse to pay for coverage, and those that sign up for insurance weeks before a major surgery.
> 
> If you are banking on Cruz, that will be even a bigger joke.
> 
> While I can agree with you in part in concept only, the fact is, cheap people like you ruin it for the rest of us.   My birth mother died in her mid 30's from a lung disease.   It was in the early days of health insurance, but my father made sure insurance was paid before groceries were bought - which was good.  My mother had congestive heart failure, treatment for TB, a double masectomy, all before the age of 35.  She was being treated for TB, treated in a trial with a drug that was hailed as a cure - unfortunately, she was allergic to the (now commonplace) and went into Anaphylactic shock.  She ended up on oxygen, filling up with fluid, and died days later.   So......even then, costs were thousands of dollars.   Nowadays, costs would be probably half a million.   Insurance?  Would pay for it.  You refuse insurance?   You expect ME to pay for it?  That's NOT a viable solution, Emily.
> 
> Good luck grieving a law that's in full force and effect.  That's really funny,  since we grieve and arbitrate perceptions / conclusions that laws have been violated.  The ACA is LAW.  Good luck. We, the people don't get to grieve every dreamed up misconception we have.  There are checks and balances.  And if the ACA is overturned - do I get to now grieve and file suit against you or anyone else that now refuses to pay for insurance and then gets sick?  I'll be first in line if that was doable. After all, you said I should get to grieve and get redress - so maybe I should file now against you people that refuse to purchase insurance.   Live in a nice house?  I'll take it.  Nice car?  keep up the payments, I'll just drive off in your car.   After all, an xbox, car, house, video game is more important to you people than actual good health.  And if you have children, I would even claim child abuse, playing games while your child goes from a simple sneeze to hospitalization and respiratory infections.  I guess people shouldn't be allowed to have children unless they are able to care for their kids.  Not having insurance when you can afford it should be grounds for no marriage and no children - mandatory birth  control, perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> A. The reps in Congress (legislative)
> and the President (executive) who voted yes and passed it were
> ALL DEMOCRATS.
> 
> The Republicans voted NO..
> 
> The Texs Democratic Party platform openly sat
Click to expand...


Emily, 

In the next Congress, you can expect to see laws passed by the majority Republicans without a single Democrat voting yes. 

That is how our system works- we are a representational Democracy- when the majority of Congress can vote in a law- that becomes the law for all of us. 

I am sure I won't like some of the laws passed by the Republican Congress- but I won't be pretending that they didn't do it legally.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> A. Representatives represent me when these issues are resolved.
> They are not getting represented yet, sorry!
> Yes, I will go through govt to resolve them
> but I have to be able to EXPLAIN them first.
> 
> I posted the letter to Ted Cruz office outlining even 3 of the grievances
> that can be documented: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10952408/
> 
> This has been going on until I find the PEOPLE to REDRESS those grievances.
> [Of the people I've found who respect what it takes to represent me, most of
> them are OUTSIDE GOVT. We have to form teams to connect with people
> INSIDE govt to create the process that WILL represent these issues for resolution purposes!]
> 
> Not everyone can deal with this. And the ones who can are NOT ALL in govt positions!
> 
> Thanks for trying but it takes SPECIFIC people.
> And then I can form a team with Congresswoman Lee to resolve these issues.
> And if we can do it FT, we can use that same model for other issues
> that HAVEN'T BEEN RESOLVED using the given legal or govt system as is.
> 
> B. So in general
> NO the system of redressing grievances by assessing restitution owed
> and crediting the taxmoney back to taxpayers
> HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET
> 
> I am teaming up with Jon Roland of the Libertarians and Constitution Society in Austin
> and Ted Weisgal with the Diversity outreach of KPFT public radio
> to try to organize some kind of party representation that can redress grievances.
> 
> The PROCESS that WOULD represent me in protecting the right
> to petition to redress grievances by consensus and noncoercion
> as the standard HASN'T BEEN proposed, offered or applied yet.
> 
> Thank you for helping to sort out the preliminary prep part.
> 
> At some point I will reach out to all law schools especially
> anyone teaching Constitutional laws and ethics, to join the effort.
> 
> If it is really based on Consensus and Inclusion then everyone
> will be able to use it to resolve their issues locally or nationally,
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> *Emily,*
> I don't think you grasp how government works.  Your representatives  are elected,  then they represent you.  Even using your example - we need some way for people like you, who opt out of health insurance, to quit bankrupting the rest of us - we used a republican plan, the ACA, written by the Heritage think tank in the mid 90's.  Romney implemented it, Obama implemented it, after a majority of Congress *APPROVED* it.  You can't explain it, because I think you don't grasp the facts.  They represented you.  PP/ACA was implemented it, even though you don't like it.   Like it or not, you were represented.  Your next step is to contact your representatives, and see what can be done to shift the burden of paying for the lazy people (people who work who don't care that they rip the rest of us off).  One will assume under the Trump regime, it will be overturned, and the rest of us will push to make sure if you don't pay for insurance because you just don't want to, can now be denied no matter what your health issues are.  The majority of health care dollars are going against deadbeats who work and refuse to pay for coverage, and those that sign up for insurance weeks before a major surgery.
> 
> If you are banking on Cruz, that will be even a bigger joke.
> 
> While I can agree with you in part in concept only, the fact is, cheap people like you ruin it for the rest of us.   My birth mother died in her mid 30's from a lung disease.   It was in the early days of health insurance, but my father made sure insurance was paid before groceries were bought - which was good.  My mother had congestive heart failure, treatment for TB, a double masectomy, all before the age of 35.  She was being treated for TB, treated in a trial with a drug that was hailed as a cure - unfortunately, she was allergic to the (now commonplace) and went into Anaphylactic shock.  She ended up on oxygen, filling up with fluid, and died days later.   So......even then, costs were thousands of dollars.   Nowadays, costs would be probably half a million.   Insurance?  Would pay for it.  You refuse insurance?   You expect ME to pay for it?  That's NOT a viable solution, Emily.
> 
> Good luck grieving a law that's in full force and effect.  That's really funny,  since we grieve and arbitrate perceptions / conclusions that laws have been violated.  The ACA is LAW.  Good luck. We, the people don't get to grieve every dreamed up misconception we have.  There are checks and balances.  And if the ACA is overturned - do I get to now grieve and file suit against you or anyone else that now refuses to pay for insurance and then gets sick?  I'll be first in line if that was doable. After all, you said I should get to grieve and get redress - so maybe I should file now against you people that refuse to purchase insurance.   Live in a nice house?  I'll take it.  Nice car?  keep up the payments, I'll just drive off in your car.   After all, an xbox, car, house, video game is more important to you people than actual good health.  And if you have children, I would even claim child abuse, playing games while your child goes from a simple sneeze to hospitalization and respiratory infections.  I guess people shouldn't be allowed to have children unless they are able to care for their kids.  Not having insurance when you can afford it should be grounds for no marriage and no children - mandatory birth  control, perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> A. The reps in Congress (legislative)
> and the President (executive) who voted yes and passed it were
> ALL DEMOCRATS.
> 
> The Republicans voted NO..
> 
> The Texs Democratic Party platform openly sat
Click to expand...

Emily - you were also a Democrat (or at least not Republicans, who tried to vote down the ACA).  You are being a hypocrite now.

a)  You need to learn what the branches of government do.  Congress has to propose the law, debate, make changes, and vote.  It passes by a majority or fails by a majority.  

b) The president either signs into law or vetoes  after it's been passed (PERIOD).   

c)  Only then can the courts get involved.  They were involved.   You don't have a leg to stand on.  

Political affiliation has NOTHING to do with anything - most bills are partisan - does that make them any less valid?  Republicans are trying to make a national FADA.   If it passes, it would be partisan.  Does it make it less of a law?  No.  Do people have recourse?   Yes - the courts.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok Sneekin is this a better example:
> I believe in defending both prochoice and prolife equally.
> That makes me neither all one or all the other, but a third special case of defending both.
> 
> I believe this requires laws to be based on consensus between people of the other beliefs.
> so both are included represented and protected equally.
> Not everyone believes in this or that it is possible,
> thus all three are political beliefs by my approach.
> 
> I have a unique perspective that all abortion can be prevented 100% by free choice,
> as prolife advocates already operate completely by free choice not force of law,
> so that we CAN meet the standards of both prolife by eliminating abortion this way,
> and of free choice by not banning or punishing abortion in order to achieve the prolife goals.
> 
> (If you define prolife as only the belief that abortion should be illegal or banned,
> then you exclude me, and you call me prochoice only; but what makes me different
> is I DON'T believe prochoice can be imposed without consent of prolife or it's
> a form of discrimination for political expedience.)
> 
> One condition by which I would agree to prolife bans on abortion
> is if prochoice people AGREE to those laws by consensus.
> so consensus is the standard I support to defend beliefs
> of both prochoice and prolife, recognizing that prochoice
> can accommodate prolife inclusively but not vice versa
> unless there is a consensus on law by free choice.
> 
> I apply this same standard to beliefs on marriage as well.
> So that makes me different, with some traits of both sides,
> but without the belief that it is fair to impose one without the consent of the other.
> 
> NOTE: I honestly believe that if govt were to incorporate mediation to include
> my beliefs, this would also help protect the other two beliefs from infringement
> from each other. So that's why I push three times as hard to defend consensus
> and conflict resolution as a more Constitutionally inclusive standard; not only would
> it allow my beliefs to be exercised more freely, without constant harassment and
> threats of censorship, but it would help stop harassment and threats to people of
> the other views at the same time.
> 
> And the same system would help with all other issues like the marriage
> and gun rights issues, that people get so defensive about out of fear
> the other party will try to push their beliefs at the expense of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Makes no sense..
> 
> Now...in 50 words or less....PLEASE
> 
> How do you pass laws that are both pro-life and pro-choice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's an example rightwinger
> 
> A. What if we agree not to ban abortion but
> create a special level of law on state levels for Health and Safety
> which communities may choose to OPT INTO freely such as
> by school district, civic association for neighborhood communities, or whole cities
> if all residents happen to agree on terms.
> 
> Then people might agree that Relationship Abuse counts as a health code threat or violation
> (and also Drug abuse or addiction without Criminalizing it or penalizing it)
> and needs to be addressed by mandatory counseling by BOTH partners if a complaint is reported of abuse.
> 
> So it could be agreed upon that an act
> resulting in unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted child, unwanted abortion,
> etc. counts as Relationship Abuse and is subject to counseling to correct the problem.
> 
> so this can be applied to "ban sex that leads to unwanted abortion"
> as a form of abuse, if people agreed to terms and definitions and process.
> 
> It is not antichoice but saying in cases where abortion is not a wanted choice,
> both partners should be protected from that situation where something is being forced.
> 
> We are not banning the abortion in ways that affect the woman more than the man,
> but banning acts of coercion or abuse that otherwise would result in abortion,a
> and holding BOTH partners responsible for not abusing the relationship or sex,
> where it causes mental emotional or physical coercion or stress on one or both partners.
> 
> B. if that doesn't work I also suggest separating funding
> by taxes where prolife people can match dollars going to Planned Parenthood
> with the same amount going to the Nurturing Network which isn't affiliated with
> anything to do with abortion.
> 
> If the left wants right to health care through govt,
> why not separate two tracks and let the right have right to life through govt.
> Let both tracks fund the programs they believe in,
> and let taxpayers CHOOSE which track to fund.
> Anyone can participate in nonprofits or govt programs of both tracks,
> but just separate the taxes where people are fully and equally represented.
> 
> That is both prochoice and prolife!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 300 words and you still didn't answer a simple question. Let me rephrase...
> 
> The problem with abortion is there can be no consensus. There is no middle ground. Dividing up communities into smaller and smaller segments will still not reach the consensus you desire. If you can't get consensus on abortion in families how can you get it by town?
> 
> Those who want to ban abortion want it banned for EVERYONE
> How do you reconcile that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> 1. if there cannot be a consensus then both sides should agree to separate,
> and where that isn't fully possible, they should agree to mutual concessions where BOTH sides agree that is the best that can be done.
> that would be fair to both.
> 
> 2. What I tell my prolife friends is they themselves are PROOF
> that abortion can be prevented and ended WITHOUT BANNING IT.
> Because THEY don't require it to be banned by law for THEM to
> do what they do, which is purely through offering better CHOICES
> and education to PREVENT abortion. That's enough to wipe it out.
> One prolife advocate I spoke with doesn't think this is possible but
> believe in promoting better birth control as the solution. Great!
> So let's work together on that instead of working against each other.
> If we use all resources to focus on where we AGREE will prevent abortion,
> that's better than wasting resources fighting where we disagree.
> 
> So of all the prolife people I've talked with, the real reason they don't
> think the laws are enough is that the prochoice people keep rejecting
> their efforts to stop abortion, so they think these people are pro ABORTION instead of prochoice.
> If prochoice people work WITH prolife to prevent abortion as much as possible,
> they wouldn't feel the need to ban it to stop it.
> 
> 3. for the hardcore people who don't want govt legalizing it in any form,
> that's where I recommend to separate those taxpayers funding and let
> them pay under a health care track that is prolife with no abortion.
> And same with people who are against death penalty and costs of war,
> and want health care, let them separate tracks and pay for life not death!
> 
> So separation is possible where people have strong beliefs as conscientious objectors.
> I don't think that will divide people any more than we already are along political or religious beliefs,
> but will have the opposite effect and allow people to unite, when they can all have their
> own way and don't have to compete to force everyone to pay for policies they don't believe in.
Click to expand...

*Emily,*

I'm hoping this helps all of the religious nuts and those people thinking they have a right to consensus on every governmental issue. 

Watch this video .  The lyrics are here:  Schoolhouse Rock:I'm Just A Bill

This is a "cute" way of putting it down into very simple terms, how involved the process is.  In a democracy you may get a vote, but as you see, we are not one, otherwise, Hillary Clinton would be president - she won the popular vote, Trump appears to have the Electoral College votes - but they haven't voted yet). 

We are a Republic - *US definition: Rule by elected individuals representing the citizen body and exercising power according to the rule of law.
*
Post Script:  DOMA wasn't changed.  Parts have been struck down as illegal/invalid.   Nothing, however, changed - it was INVALIDATED.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok Sneekin is this a better example:
> I believe in defending both prochoice and prolife equally.
> That makes me neither all one or all the other, but a third special case of defending both.
> 
> I believe this requires laws to be based on consensus between people of the other beliefs.
> so both are included represented and protected equally.
> Not everyone believes in this or that it is possible,
> thus all three are political beliefs by my approach.
> 
> I have a unique perspective that all abortion can be prevented 100% by free choice,
> as prolife advocates already operate completely by free choice not force of law,
> so that we CAN meet the standards of both prolife by eliminating abortion this way,
> and of free choice by not banning or punishing abortion in order to achieve the prolife goals.
> 
> (If you define prolife as only the belief that abortion should be illegal or banned,
> then you exclude me, and you call me prochoice only; but what makes me different
> is I DON'T believe prochoice can be imposed without consent of prolife or it's
> a form of discrimination for political expedience.)
> 
> One condition by which I would agree to prolife bans on abortion
> is if prochoice people AGREE to those laws by consensus.
> so consensus is the standard I support to defend beliefs
> of both prochoice and prolife, recognizing that prochoice
> can accommodate prolife inclusively but not vice versa
> unless there is a consensus on law by free choice.
> 
> I apply this same standard to beliefs on marriage as well.
> So that makes me different, with some traits of both sides,
> but without the belief that it is fair to impose one without the consent of the other.
> 
> NOTE: I honestly believe that if govt were to incorporate mediation to include
> my beliefs, this would also help protect the other two beliefs from infringement
> from each other. So that's why I push three times as hard to defend consensus
> and conflict resolution as a more Constitutionally inclusive standard; not only would
> it allow my beliefs to be exercised more freely, without constant harassment and
> threats of censorship, but it would help stop harassment and threats to people of
> the other views at the same time.
> 
> And the same system would help with all other issues like the marriage
> and gun rights issues, that people get so defensive about out of fear
> the other party will try to push their beliefs at the expense of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Makes no sense..
> 
> Now...in 50 words or less....PLEASE
> 
> How do you pass laws that are both pro-life and pro-choice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's an example rightwinger
> 
> A. What if we agree not to ban abortion but
> create a special level of law on state levels for Health and Safety
> which communities may choose to OPT INTO freely such as
> by school district, civic association for neighborhood communities, or whole cities
> if all residents happen to agree on terms.
> 
> Then people might agree that Relationship Abuse counts as a health code threat or violation
> (and also Drug abuse or addiction without Criminalizing it or penalizing it)
> and needs to be addressed by mandatory counseling by BOTH partners if a complaint is reported of abuse.
> 
> So it could be agreed upon that an act
> resulting in unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted child, unwanted abortion,
> etc. counts as Relationship Abuse and is subject to counseling to correct the problem.
> 
> so this can be applied to "ban sex that leads to unwanted abortion"
> as a form of abuse, if people agreed to terms and definitions and process.
> 
> It is not antichoice but saying in cases where abortion is not a wanted choice,
> both partners should be protected from that situation where something is being forced.
> 
> We are not banning the abortion in ways that affect the woman more than the man,
> but banning acts of coercion or abuse that otherwise would result in abortion,a
> and holding BOTH partners responsible for not abusing the relationship or sex,
> where it causes mental emotional or physical coercion or stress on one or both partners.
> 
> B. if that doesn't work I also suggest separating funding
> by taxes where prolife people can match dollars going to Planned Parenthood
> with the same amount going to the Nurturing Network which isn't affiliated with
> anything to do with abortion.
> 
> If the left wants right to health care through govt,
> why not separate two tracks and let the right have right to life through govt.
> Let both tracks fund the programs they believe in,
> and let taxpayers CHOOSE which track to fund.
> Anyone can participate in nonprofits or govt programs of both tracks,
> but just separate the taxes where people are fully and equally represented.
> 
> That is both prochoice and prolife!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 300 words and you still didn't answer a simple question. Let me rephrase...
> 
> The problem with abortion is there can be no consensus. There is no middle ground. Dividing up communities into smaller and smaller segments will still not reach the consensus you desire. If you can't get consensus on abortion in families how can you get it by town?
> 
> Those who want to ban abortion want it banned for EVERYONE
> How do you reconcile that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> 1. if there cannot be a consensus then both sides should agree to separate,
> and where that isn't fully possible, they should agree to mutual concessions where BOTH sides agree that is the best that can be done.
> that would be fair to both.
> 
> 2. What I tell my prolife friends is they themselves are PROOF
> that abortion can be prevented and ended WITHOUT BANNING IT.
> Because THEY don't require it to be banned by law for THEM to
> do what they do, which is purely through offering better CHOICES
> and education to PREVENT abortion. That's enough to wipe it out.
> One prolife advocate I spoke with doesn't think this is possible but
> believe in promoting better birth control as the solution. Great!
> So let's work together on that instead of working against each other.
> If we use all resources to focus on where we AGREE will prevent abortion,
> that's better than wasting resources fighting where we disagree.
> 
> So of all the prolife people I've talked with, the real reason they don't
> think the laws are enough is that the prochoice people keep rejecting
> their efforts to stop abortion, so they think these people are pro ABORTION instead of prochoice.
> If prochoice people work WITH prolife to prevent abortion as much as possible,
> they wouldn't feel the need to ban it to stop it.
> 
> 3. for the hardcore people who don't want govt legalizing it in any form,
> that's where I recommend to separate those taxpayers funding and let
> them pay under a health care track that is prolife with no abortion.
> And same with people who are against death penalty and costs of war,
> and want health care, let them separate tracks and pay for life not death!
> 
> So separation is possible where people have strong beliefs as conscientious objectors.
> I don't think that will divide people any more than we already are along political or religious beliefs,
> but will have the opposite effect and allow people to unite, when they can all have their
> own way and don't have to compete to force everyone to pay for policies they don't believe in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Emily,*
> 
> I'm hoping this helps all of the religious nuts and those people thinking they have a right to consensus on every governmental issue.
> 
> Watch this video .  The lyrics are here:  Schoolhouse Rock:I'm Just A Bill
> 
> This is a "cute" way of putting it down into very simple terms, how involved the process is.  In a democracy you may get a vote, but as you see, we are not one, otherwise, Hillary Clinton would be president - she won the popular vote, Trump appears to have the Electoral College votes - but they haven't voted yet).
> 
> We are a Republic - *US definition: Rule by elected individuals representing the citizen body and exercising power according to the rule of law.
> *
> Post Script:  DOMA wasn't changed.  Parts have been struck down as illegal/invalid.   Nothing, however, changed - it was INVALIDATED.
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin
Sorry but democratic voting does NOT apply to religious beliefs.
Govt is NOT supposed to establish faith-based biases or systems
REGARDLESS how the voting goes! It's still unconstitutional.

Now, where you and I disagree:
You don't consider political beliefs to be governed under the First Amendment
as I do.

so that IN ITSELF is a difference in BELIEFS!

You have NO RIGHT to abuse govt and laws to impose YOUR interpretation
that political and secular beliefs don't count
AND
I DO NOT have that right EITHER to impose MY beliefs that they do!

Thus the First Amendment still applies:
Govt can neither establish nor prohibit the free exercise
of YOUR beliefs or MINE
REGARDLESS OF DEMOCRATIC VOTE.

That's why I believe in consensus,
to protect both your beliefs and mine from imposition by the other.

so NO SORRY Mr. Law Professor
You do NOT have the right to subject anyone's *BELIEFS* up to VOTE by GOVT OR THROUGH GOVT
*UNLESS PEOPLE CONSENT TO HAVE THEIR BELIEFS VOTED ON THIS WAY*

I DO NOT CONSENT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION TO DO SO.

If you want to debate this publicly,
let's do it.

Ask your students and  your school to set up a national conference
on whether the ACA incorporates or imposes a bias in political beliefs
and if it is discriminatory to force compliance on citizens of other beliefs under penalty of law.

I'd LOVE to see that debated between all the law schools across the country.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> A. Representatives represent me when these issues are resolved.
> They are not getting represented yet, sorry!
> Yes, I will go through govt to resolve them
> but I have to be able to EXPLAIN them first.
> 
> I posted the letter to Ted Cruz office outlining even 3 of the grievances
> that can be documented: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10952408/
> 
> This has been going on until I find the PEOPLE to REDRESS those grievances.
> [Of the people I've found who respect what it takes to represent me, most of
> them are OUTSIDE GOVT. We have to form teams to connect with people
> INSIDE govt to create the process that WILL represent these issues for resolution purposes!]
> 
> Not everyone can deal with this. And the ones who can are NOT ALL in govt positions!
> 
> Thanks for trying but it takes SPECIFIC people.
> And then I can form a team with Congresswoman Lee to resolve these issues.
> And if we can do it FT, we can use that same model for other issues
> that HAVEN'T BEEN RESOLVED using the given legal or govt system as is.
> 
> B. So in general
> NO the system of redressing grievances by assessing restitution owed
> and crediting the taxmoney back to taxpayers
> HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET
> 
> I am teaming up with Jon Roland of the Libertarians and Constitution Society in Austin
> and Ted Weisgal with the Diversity outreach of KPFT public radio
> to try to organize some kind of party representation that can redress grievances.
> 
> The PROCESS that WOULD represent me in protecting the right
> to petition to redress grievances by consensus and noncoercion
> as the standard HASN'T BEEN proposed, offered or applied yet.
> 
> Thank you for helping to sort out the preliminary prep part.
> 
> At some point I will reach out to all law schools especially
> anyone teaching Constitutional laws and ethics, to join the effort.
> 
> If it is really based on Consensus and Inclusion then everyone
> will be able to use it to resolve their issues locally or nationally,
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> *Emily,*
> I don't think you grasp how government works.  Your representatives  are elected,  then they represent you.  Even using your example - we need some way for people like you, who opt out of health insurance, to quit bankrupting the rest of us - we used a republican plan, the ACA, written by the Heritage think tank in the mid 90's.  Romney implemented it, Obama implemented it, after a majority of Congress *APPROVED* it.  You can't explain it, because I think you don't grasp the facts.  They represented you.  PP/ACA was implemented it, even though you don't like it.   Like it or not, you were represented.  Your next step is to contact your representatives, and see what can be done to shift the burden of paying for the lazy people (people who work who don't care that they rip the rest of us off).  One will assume under the Trump regime, it will be overturned, and the rest of us will push to make sure if you don't pay for insurance because you just don't want to, can now be denied no matter what your health issues are.  The majority of health care dollars are going against deadbeats who work and refuse to pay for coverage, and those that sign up for insurance weeks before a major surgery.
> 
> If you are banking on Cruz, that will be even a bigger joke.
> 
> While I can agree with you in part in concept only, the fact is, cheap people like you ruin it for the rest of us.   My birth mother died in her mid 30's from a lung disease.   It was in the early days of health insurance, but my father made sure insurance was paid before groceries were bought - which was good.  My mother had congestive heart failure, treatment for TB, a double masectomy, all before the age of 35.  She was being treated for TB, treated in a trial with a drug that was hailed as a cure - unfortunately, she was allergic to the (now commonplace) and went into Anaphylactic shock.  She ended up on oxygen, filling up with fluid, and died days later.   So......even then, costs were thousands of dollars.   Nowadays, costs would be probably half a million.   Insurance?  Would pay for it.  You refuse insurance?   You expect ME to pay for it?  That's NOT a viable solution, Emily.
> 
> Good luck grieving a law that's in full force and effect.  That's really funny,  since we grieve and arbitrate perceptions / conclusions that laws have been violated.  The ACA is LAW.  Good luck. We, the people don't get to grieve every dreamed up misconception we have.  There are checks and balances.  And if the ACA is overturned - do I get to now grieve and file suit against you or anyone else that now refuses to pay for insurance and then gets sick?  I'll be first in line if that was doable. After all, you said I should get to grieve and get redress - so maybe I should file now against you people that refuse to purchase insurance.   Live in a nice house?  I'll take it.  Nice car?  keep up the payments, I'll just drive off in your car.   After all, an xbox, car, house, video game is more important to you people than actual good health.  And if you have children, I would even claim child abuse, playing games while your child goes from a simple sneeze to hospitalization and respiratory infections.  I guess people shouldn't be allowed to have children unless they are able to care for their kids.  Not having insurance when you can afford it should be grounds for no marriage and no children - mandatory birth  control, perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> A. The reps in Congress (legislative)
> and the President (executive) who voted yes and passed it were
> ALL DEMOCRATS.
> 
> The Republicans voted NO..
> 
> The Texs Democratic Party platform openly sat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily - you were also a Democrat (or at least not Republicans, who tried to vote down the ACA).  You are being a hypocrite now.
> 
> a)  You need to learn what the branches of government do.  Congress has to propose the law, debate, make changes, and vote.  It passes by a majority or fails by a majority.
> 
> b) The president either signs into law or vetoes  after it's been passed (PERIOD).
> 
> c)  Only then can the courts get involved.  They were involved.   You don't have a leg to stand on.
> 
> Political affiliation has NOTHING to do with anything - most bills are partisan - does that make them any less valid?  Republicans are trying to make a national FADA.   If it passes, it would be partisan.  Does it make it less of a law?  No.  Do people have recourse?   Yes - the courts.
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin
0. No, I am not a hypocrite on this one
A. I am a Democrat, but as a Constitutionalist FIRST I have consistently OPPOSED
imposing mandates on health care I have argued are ANTI CHOICE and violate
Democratic Party principles. I put Constitutional equality first BEFORE party, as I believe
right to health care can be established freely WITHOUT imposing this belief or policy on others.
B. To show I would not ask anyone to do what I am not willing to do,
even though I feel I am a VICTIM of Democratic party oppression and abuse,
I am still WILLING to be a PARTY to any suit or demand/petition to CORRECT the
problems and abuses caused by Democratic party leadership.
so this is like the rape victim offering to help the rapist to raise the money for restitution for the rape that I protested the whole time, because I'd rather see restitution and recovery SO MUCH
I am WILLING to help those that CAUSED the wrongs to fix them . To make sure that gets done!

Where am I a hypocrite?
And I believe in doing all this by CONSENSUS not coercion, too.
So I am not a hypocrite in enforcing consent as the standard for these corrections I seek.

1. I am not trying to bypass the process but to correct what went wrong WITH the given process.

a. The bill was passed through Congress as a Public Health Bill NOT a tax bill or it would have failed
b. The bill was ARGUED as a tax bill and argued and passed through Courts as that.
c. So it did NOT pass through both Congress and Courts as the SAME BILL.
Essentially TWO different bills were approved, one as a public health bill
the other as a tax!  So if it is going to pass both Congress and Courts,
it needs to HAVE BEEN VOTED ON BY Congress and PASSED AS A TAX BILL.
It should have been rejected by the court and kicked back to Congress to change first,
OR ELSE THE JUDICIARY IS ACTING  AS LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY BY CHANGING THE BILL  INSTEAD OF CONGRESS REVISING IT.
d. Or else REVISE it to make the mandates OPTIONAL:
tag on the Republican version as an EQUAL OPTION and offer BOTH.
So NOBODY can argue that one party's biased beliefs are being imposed or the other.
offer BOTH.

2. I AGREE with going through either Congress or Courts
*but the FIRST step, since I believe in consensus and NOT coercion,
is to form an AGREEMENT WITH THE PUBLIC FIRST,*
THEN AFTER we agree what to change the policies to,
THEN we go through Congress or Courts to do the formal process.

3. And why do you think Cruz is a joke? He is a Constitutionalist.
He agrees that tax laws need to be reformed. Why not propose to separate
social legislation by party so people who would rather fund education and health
care can do so, instead of funding war and the death penalty; while those who
want to fund military and VA reform can invest there instead of on welfare and
health care under rules they don't believe federal govt has authority to regulate!

[Add to that, the proposal for a restitution system that allows credits to be assessed
and collected back for taxpayers use, based on abuses by govt where public resources
went to illicit, unauthorized, unconstitutional, wasteful or corrupt spending; and we could
have all parties going after wrongs and abuses and collecting enough reimbursements
or credits to fund the reforms they want to be in charge of.  It doesn't have to cost taxpayers
more money than we have already spent, if we go after past abuses, and either charge the
wrongdoers the costs including legal expenses and damages incurred, or buy out those
debts by selling to private investors who fund the corrections on terms they agree to instead of charging taxpayers who don't agree to pay these costs. why not reward citizens for buying out
shares and responsibility for fixing these problems. I'm willing to help do the work, and ask leaders of both parties to invest a portion of their campaign funds into setting up jobs in this.]



Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> A. Representatives represent me when these issues are resolved.
> They are not getting represented yet, sorry!
> Yes, I will go through govt to resolve them
> but I have to be able to EXPLAIN them first.
> 
> I posted the letter to Ted Cruz office outlining even 3 of the grievances
> that can be documented: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10952408/
> 
> This has been going on until I find the PEOPLE to REDRESS those grievances.
> [Of the people I've found who respect what it takes to represent me, most of
> them are OUTSIDE GOVT. We have to form teams to connect with people
> INSIDE govt to create the process that WILL represent these issues for resolution purposes!]
> 
> Not everyone can deal with this. And the ones who can are NOT ALL in govt positions!
> 
> Thanks for trying but it takes SPECIFIC people.
> And then I can form a team with Congresswoman Lee to resolve these issues.
> And if we can do it FT, we can use that same model for other issues
> that HAVEN'T BEEN RESOLVED using the given legal or govt system as is.
> 
> B. So in general
> NO the system of redressing grievances by assessing restitution owed
> and crediting the taxmoney back to taxpayers
> HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET
> 
> I am teaming up with Jon Roland of the Libertarians and Constitution Society in Austin
> and Ted Weisgal with the Diversity outreach of KPFT public radio
> to try to organize some kind of party representation that can redress grievances.
> 
> The PROCESS that WOULD represent me in protecting the right
> to petition to redress grievances by consensus and noncoercion
> as the standard HASN'T BEEN proposed, offered or applied yet.
> 
> Thank you for helping to sort out the preliminary prep part.
> 
> At some point I will reach out to all law schools especially
> anyone teaching Constitutional laws and ethics, to join the effort.
> 
> If it is really based on Consensus and Inclusion then everyone
> will be able to use it to resolve their issues locally or nationally,
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> *Emily,*
> I don't think you grasp how government works.  Your representatives  are elected,  then they represent you.  Even using your example - we need some way for people like you, who opt out of health insurance, to quit bankrupting the rest of us - we used a republican plan, the ACA, written by the Heritage think tank in the mid 90's.  Romney implemented it, Obama implemented it, after a majority of Congress *APPROVED* it.  You can't explain it, because I think you don't grasp the facts.  They represented you.  PP/ACA was implemented it, even though you don't like it.   Like it or not, you were represented.  Your next step is to contact your representatives, and see what can be done to shift the burden of paying for the lazy people (people who work who don't care that they rip the rest of us off).  One will assume under the Trump regime, it will be overturned, and the rest of us will push to make sure if you don't pay for insurance because you just don't want to, can now be denied no matter what your health issues are.  The majority of health care dollars are going against deadbeats who work and refuse to pay for coverage, and those that sign up for insurance weeks before a major surgery.
> 
> If you are banking on Cruz, that will be even a bigger joke.
> 
> While I can agree with you in part in concept only, the fact is, cheap people like you ruin it for the rest of us.   My birth mother died in her mid 30's from a lung disease.   It was in the early days of health insurance, but my father made sure insurance was paid before groceries were bought - which was good.  My mother had congestive heart failure, treatment for TB, a double masectomy, all before the age of 35.  She was being treated for TB, treated in a trial with a drug that was hailed as a cure - unfortunately, she was allergic to the (now commonplace) and went into Anaphylactic shock.  She ended up on oxygen, filling up with fluid, and died days later.   So......even then, costs were thousands of dollars.   Nowadays, costs would be probably half a million.   Insurance?  Would pay for it.  You refuse insurance?   You expect ME to pay for it?  That's NOT a viable solution, Emily.
> 
> Good luck grieving a law that's in full force and effect.  That's really funny,  since we grieve and arbitrate perceptions / conclusions that laws have been violated.  The ACA is LAW.  Good luck. We, the people don't get to grieve every dreamed up misconception we have.  There are checks and balances.  And if the ACA is overturned - do I get to now grieve and file suit against you or anyone else that now refuses to pay for insurance and then gets sick?  I'll be first in line if that was doable. After all, you said I should get to grieve and get redress - so maybe I should file now against you people that refuse to purchase insurance.   Live in a nice house?  I'll take it.  Nice car?  keep up the payments, I'll just drive off in your car.   After all, an xbox, car, house, video game is more important to you people than actual good health.  And if you have children, I would even claim child abuse, playing games while your child goes from a simple sneeze to hospitalization and respiratory infections.  I guess people shouldn't be allowed to have children unless they are able to care for their kids.  Not having insurance when you can afford it should be grounds for no marriage and no children - mandatory birth  control, perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> A. The reps in Congress (legislative)
> and the President (executive) who voted yes and passed it were
> ALL DEMOCRATS.
> 
> The Republicans voted NO..
> 
> The Texs Democratic Party platform openly sat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily - you were also a Democrat (or at least not Republicans, who tried to vote down the ACA).  You are being a hypocrite now.
> 
> a)  You need to learn what the branches of government do.  Congress has to propose the law, debate, make changes, and vote.  It passes by a majority or fails by a majority.
> 
> b) The president either signs into law or vetoes  after it's been passed (PERIOD).
> 
> c)  Only then can the courts get involved.  They were involved.   You don't have a leg to stand on.
> 
> Political affiliation has NOTHING to do with anything - most bills are partisan - does that make them any less valid?  Republicans are trying to make a national FADA.   If it passes, it would be partisan.  Does it make it less of a law?  No.  Do people have recourse?   Yes - the courts.
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> A. Representatives represent me when these issues are resolved.
> They are not getting represented yet, sorry!
> Yes, I will go through govt to resolve them
> but I have to be able to EXPLAIN them first.
> 
> I posted the letter to Ted Cruz office outlining even 3 of the grievances
> that can be documented: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10952408/
> 
> This has been going on until I find the PEOPLE to REDRESS those grievances.
> [Of the people I've found who respect what it takes to represent me, most of
> them are OUTSIDE GOVT. We have to form teams to connect with people
> INSIDE govt to create the process that WILL represent these issues for resolution purposes!]
> 
> Not everyone can deal with this. And the ones who can are NOT ALL in govt positions!
> 
> Thanks for trying but it takes SPECIFIC people.
> And then I can form a team with Congresswoman Lee to resolve these issues.
> And if we can do it FT, we can use that same model for other issues
> that HAVEN'T BEEN RESOLVED using the given legal or govt system as is.
> 
> B. So in general
> NO the system of redressing grievances by assessing restitution owed
> and crediting the taxmoney back to taxpayers
> HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET
> 
> I am teaming up with Jon Roland of the Libertarians and Constitution Society in Austin
> and Ted Weisgal with the Diversity outreach of KPFT public radio
> to try to organize some kind of party representation that can redress grievances.
> 
> The PROCESS that WOULD represent me in protecting the right
> to petition to redress grievances by consensus and noncoercion
> as the standard HASN'T BEEN proposed, offered or applied yet.
> 
> Thank you for helping to sort out the preliminary prep part.
> 
> At some point I will reach out to all law schools especially
> anyone teaching Constitutional laws and ethics, to join the effort.
> 
> If it is really based on Consensus and Inclusion then everyone
> will be able to use it to resolve their issues locally or nationally,
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> *Emily,*
> I don't think you grasp how government works.  Your representatives  are elected,  then they represent you.  Even using your example - we need some way for people like you, who opt out of health insurance, to quit bankrupting the rest of us - we used a republican plan, the ACA, written by the Heritage think tank in the mid 90's.  Romney implemented it, Obama implemented it, after a majority of Congress *APPROVED* it.  You can't explain it, because I think you don't grasp the facts.  They represented you.  PP/ACA was implemented it, even though you don't like it.   Like it or not, you were represented.  Your next step is to contact your representatives, and see what can be done to shift the burden of paying for the lazy people (people who work who don't care that they rip the rest of us off).  One will assume under the Trump regime, it will be overturned, and the rest of us will push to make sure if you don't pay for insurance because you just don't want to, can now be denied no matter what your health issues are.  The majority of health care dollars are going against deadbeats who work and refuse to pay for coverage, and those that sign up for insurance weeks before a major surgery.
> 
> If you are banking on Cruz, that will be even a bigger joke.
> 
> While I can agree with you in part in concept only, the fact is, cheap people like you ruin it for the rest of us.   My birth mother died in her mid 30's from a lung disease.   It was in the early days of health insurance, but my father made sure insurance was paid before groceries were bought - which was good.  My mother had congestive heart failure, treatment for TB, a double masectomy, all before the age of 35.  She was being treated for TB, treated in a trial with a drug that was hailed as a cure - unfortunately, she was allergic to the (now commonplace) and went into Anaphylactic shock.  She ended up on oxygen, filling up with fluid, and died days later.   So......even then, costs were thousands of dollars.   Nowadays, costs would be probably half a million.   Insurance?  Would pay for it.  You refuse insurance?   You expect ME to pay for it?  That's NOT a viable solution, Emily.
> 
> Good luck grieving a law that's in full force and effect.  That's really funny,  since we grieve and arbitrate perceptions / conclusions that laws have been violated.  The ACA is LAW.  Good luck. We, the people don't get to grieve every dreamed up misconception we have.  There are checks and balances.  And if the ACA is overturned - do I get to now grieve and file suit against you or anyone else that now refuses to pay for insurance and then gets sick?  I'll be first in line if that was doable. After all, you said I should get to grieve and get redress - so maybe I should file now against you people that refuse to purchase insurance.   Live in a nice house?  I'll take it.  Nice car?  keep up the payments, I'll just drive off in your car.   After all, an xbox, car, house, video game is more important to you people than actual good health.  And if you have children, I would even claim child abuse, playing games while your child goes from a simple sneeze to hospitalization and respiratory infections.  I guess people shouldn't be allowed to have children unless they are able to care for their kids.  Not having insurance when you can afford it should be grounds for no marriage and no children - mandatory birth  control, perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> A. The reps in Congress (legislative)
> and the President (executive) who voted yes and passed it were
> ALL DEMOCRATS.
> 
> The Republicans voted NO..
> 
> The Texs Democratic Party platform openly sat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> In the next Congress, you can expect to see laws passed by the majority Republicans without a single Democrat voting yes.
> 
> That is how our system works- we are a representational Democracy- when the majority of Congress can vote in a law- that becomes the law for all of us.
> 
> I am sure I won't like some of the laws passed by the Republican Congress- but I won't be pretending that they didn't do it legally.
Click to expand...


Especially with Constitutionalists, Syriusly,
NO they should know better than to pass biased laws
that violate beliefs of others.

Free market health care is fine for those who believe in that and agree to support it.
For those who believe in going through govt for singlepayer health care,
that is an equal political belief people have equal right to exercise if they fund it themselves as well!

So why not set up both tracks and let taxpayers vote, pay and organize under
the programs as they believe in setting up their ways. Health care is supposed to
remain a private choice, so let people choose!


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said NO to all three.
> A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
> their right to petition to redress grievances.
> Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
> It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
> If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
> it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
> with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
> NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
> if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.
> 
> B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
> The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
> That is NOT what I am asking.
> 1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
> for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
> 2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
> where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage
> 
> C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
> at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!
> 
> Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
> how would you describe the equivalent process of
> * govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
> * govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing
> 
> If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
> or accept it,
> how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."
> 
> Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
> so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???
> 
> 
> 
> A.  And as i told you, no slavery violates my rights.  My religion allows slavery to this day.  You VIOLATE MY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.  You are prohibiting me from the full performance of my religion.
> 
> B.  1) Spiritual healing is religious.  I don't care if it's equal choice, it violates the 1st amendment if it receives government funding
> B  2)  There is no such thing as gay marriage.   The Civil Marriage law was not opened up and added NOTHING as a CHOICE.  The law imposes NOTHING on ANYONE.  The Government isn't endorsing Gay Marriage, Straight Marriage.   It allows couples to get marriage, if THEY CHOOSE.  No endorsement at all, never has been.
> C)  A religion can reject gay marriage (religious marriage).    It can refuse to officiate a civil marriage between same sex partners.  You, as a US citizen cannot choose to agree or reject MARRIAGE except as an opinion.   No one is forced to change any beliefs.   You must comprehend that MARRIAGE is a RIGHT..  Can you explain to me how CIVIL MARRIAGE forces anyone to do anything?   You keep combining religious matrimony with civil marriage.  Quite a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sneekin
> 
> A. And I would tell you that you have the right to exercise slavery VOLUNTARILY
> with those who AGREE to it as you do. If you agree to be enslaved, such as for charity,
> and providing free health care at no cost to others, you are free to do so.
> but by the same Bible you claim endorses slavery,
> * it says to love one another as equal neighbors.
> * it says to obey human institutions and civil authority,
> so if laws say no involuntary servitude except as punishment for crime prescribed by law
> then you as a believer would accept this rebuke and correction.
> 
> B. as for spiritual healing
> I am asking for the same thing that applies for marriage
> 
> if people choose to endorse it or engage in it,
> it is by free choice and not imposed.
> 
> so how can this be done for spiritual healing
> as it is for marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A)  Voluntary slavery is contradictory - and where did I say I used YOUR bible?  My bible says none of what you put down.
> B)  Spiritual healing, for the 10th time, violates the first amendment.  Marriage is a contract.  Spiritual healing can be just about any religious thing, such as snake handling, beatings (beat the demon), beads, rattles, feathers, prayers, speaking in tongues, prayer chains, etc.  Since it directly violates the US Constitution by receipt of federal funding.
> 
> The same thing that applies for marriage?  The difference is Marriage is a CIVIL CONTRACT and you want to impose YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS into MY HEALTHCARE.  Marriage is upheld by the 14th, faith healing VIOLATES the first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> A. then I find out what your religion, belief or Bible does say.
> And if you are using the First Amendment to practice and defend that,
> then I show you the rest of the First Amendment, Bill of rights and laws in context
> that come with that. Whatever laws you are invoking, I learn what they are
> and rebuke you where you are violating your own principles you ascribe to.
> 
> When this is done properly, the person respects the correction
> because it is given in their own terms. Like taking a set of
> math variables in a GIVEN problem, and using THOSE
> to either demonstrate consistency or inconsistency with ITSELF
> 
> B. As for spiritual healing, what if that is someone's way of
> getting their equal health care provisions.
> 
> So if you are requiring people through ACA to go through
> GOVT ENDORSED AND APPROVED ALTERNATIVES
> then ACA REQUIRES that  *federal govt* endorse these choices
> if people are to have them as "equal choices of health care"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imagine that - the ACA requires you to have insurance that actually does something and cover something.  Go figure.  I'm sorry - you elected your representatives.  They lost.  It's the law. Deal until you get your legislators can change the law.  This is NOT the forum to do it on.
> 
> My scriptures aren't even on the same shelf as my constitution - there's actually a physical separation - it helped my kids when they were younger to understand.  You can't impose your religious beliefs on spiritual healing and expect that a collective "you" will decide if my religion, belief or bible suits your needs, or if I have to change it.   The only law I'm invoking is separation of church and state.  You are hell bent on combining them with spiritual healing.  Enough. Stalemate, move on.
Click to expand...


Sneekin 
Insurance is not the only way to cover health care costs
and clearly other ways are still needed.

So why *PENALIZE those other choices* and say insurance (or religious health share ministries or federal exchanges)
are the ONLY way to avoid a fine?

You just said you didn't want spiritual healing involved as a choice.
But if you are penalizing it because it's not one of the govt endorsed choices,
you are EXCLUDING that choice. AND imposing insurance as the ONLY WAY???

Aren't you penalizing people for wanting other choices
that are equally valid?

What's wrong with someone
paying all their costs *with or without insurance*
and building a charity hospital and medical program to help others with costs NOT COVERED by govt or insurance!

Why is THAT option FINED BY GOVT AS NOT A CHOICE.

_Just because it doesn't involve paying for insurance?
_


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> A. Representatives represent me when these issues are resolved.
> They are not getting represented yet, sorry!
> Yes, I will go through govt to resolve them
> but I have to be able to EXPLAIN them first.
> 
> I posted the letter to Ted Cruz office outlining even 3 of the grievances
> that can be documented: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10952408/
> 
> This has been going on until I find the PEOPLE to REDRESS those grievances.
> [Of the people I've found who respect what it takes to represent me, most of
> them are OUTSIDE GOVT. We have to form teams to connect with people
> INSIDE govt to create the process that WILL represent these issues for resolution purposes!]
> 
> Not everyone can deal with this. And the ones who can are NOT ALL in govt positions!
> 
> Thanks for trying but it takes SPECIFIC people.
> And then I can form a team with Congresswoman Lee to resolve these issues.
> And if we can do it FT, we can use that same model for other issues
> that HAVEN'T BEEN RESOLVED using the given legal or govt system as is.
> 
> B. So in general
> NO the system of redressing grievances by assessing restitution owed
> and crediting the taxmoney back to taxpayers
> HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET
> 
> I am teaming up with Jon Roland of the Libertarians and Constitution Society in Austin
> and Ted Weisgal with the Diversity outreach of KPFT public radio
> to try to organize some kind of party representation that can redress grievances.
> 
> The PROCESS that WOULD represent me in protecting the right
> to petition to redress grievances by consensus and noncoercion
> as the standard HASN'T BEEN proposed, offered or applied yet.
> 
> Thank you for helping to sort out the preliminary prep part.
> 
> At some point I will reach out to all law schools especially
> anyone teaching Constitutional laws and ethics, to join the effort.
> 
> If it is really based on Consensus and Inclusion then everyone
> will be able to use it to resolve their issues locally or nationally,
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> *Emily,*
> I don't think you grasp how government works.  Your representatives  are elected,  then they represent you.  Even using your example - we need some way for people like you, who opt out of health insurance, to quit bankrupting the rest of us - we used a republican plan, the ACA, written by the Heritage think tank in the mid 90's.  Romney implemented it, Obama implemented it, after a majority of Congress *APPROVED* it.  You can't explain it, because I think you don't grasp the facts.  They represented you.  PP/ACA was implemented it, even though you don't like it.   Like it or not, you were represented.  Your next step is to contact your representatives, and see what can be done to shift the burden of paying for the lazy people (people who work who don't care that they rip the rest of us off).  One will assume under the Trump regime, it will be overturned, and the rest of us will push to make sure if you don't pay for insurance because you just don't want to, can now be denied no matter what your health issues are.  The majority of health care dollars are going against deadbeats who work and refuse to pay for coverage, and those that sign up for insurance weeks before a major surgery.
> 
> If you are banking on Cruz, that will be even a bigger joke.
> 
> While I can agree with you in part in concept only, the fact is, cheap people like you ruin it for the rest of us.   My birth mother died in her mid 30's from a lung disease.   It was in the early days of health insurance, but my father made sure insurance was paid before groceries were bought - which was good.  My mother had congestive heart failure, treatment for TB, a double masectomy, all before the age of 35.  She was being treated for TB, treated in a trial with a drug that was hailed as a cure - unfortunately, she was allergic to the (now commonplace) and went into Anaphylactic shock.  She ended up on oxygen, filling up with fluid, and died days later.   So......even then, costs were thousands of dollars.   Nowadays, costs would be probably half a million.   Insurance?  Would pay for it.  You refuse insurance?   You expect ME to pay for it?  That's NOT a viable solution, Emily.
> 
> Good luck grieving a law that's in full force and effect.  That's really funny,  since we grieve and arbitrate perceptions / conclusions that laws have been violated.  The ACA is LAW.  Good luck. We, the people don't get to grieve every dreamed up misconception we have.  There are checks and balances.  And if the ACA is overturned - do I get to now grieve and file suit against you or anyone else that now refuses to pay for insurance and then gets sick?  I'll be first in line if that was doable. After all, you said I should get to grieve and get redress - so maybe I should file now against you people that refuse to purchase insurance.   Live in a nice house?  I'll take it.  Nice car?  keep up the payments, I'll just drive off in your car.   After all, an xbox, car, house, video game is more important to you people than actual good health.  And if you have children, I would even claim child abuse, playing games while your child goes from a simple sneeze to hospitalization and respiratory infections.  I guess people shouldn't be allowed to have children unless they are able to care for their kids.  Not having insurance when you can afford it should be grounds for no marriage and no children - mandatory birth  control, perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> A. The reps in Congress (legislative)
> and the President (executive) who voted yes and passed it were
> ALL DEMOCRATS.
> 
> The Republicans voted NO..
> 
> The Texs Democratic Party platform openly sat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> In the next Congress, you can expect to see laws passed by the majority Republicans without a single Democrat voting yes.
> 
> That is how our system works- we are a representational Democracy- when the majority of Congress can vote in a law- that becomes the law for all of us.
> 
> I am sure I won't like some of the laws passed by the Republican Congress- but I won't be pretending that they didn't do it legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Especially with Constitutionalists, Syriusly,
> NO they should know better than to pass biased laws
> that violate beliefs of others.!
Click to expand...


Virtually every law violates the belief of someone. 

You may not like our system of government, but ACA was legally put into effect- just as every law for at least the next two years that President Trump signs. 

Even if those laws violate my beliefs.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Faun RE: conservative concept
1. are you talking about the policy credited to Reagan for opening up all hospitals to treat all people?
a. if you don't agree to the terms of taxpayers paying for that
and want to change them, why change it to something others don't agree with either?
b. why not go after prison budgets, convert those to  medical treatment, research and education programs, and pay for medical education and training at the same time as offering public health services to both inmates and the general public for the same costs we are already paying?
c. why change it to insurance if not all people agree to that and insurance doesn't cover the need for training service providers, building facilities, researching or treating the CAUSE of disease

2. if you are talking about insurance mandates being a conservative idea
that was already debunked
a. it did not cover daily and routine health care, only CATASTROPHIC
b. it still respected STATES rights and did not ever get support to pass on a NATIONAL level
So changing it to mean FEDERAL regulation of ALL health care violates
Conservative principles on 2-3 counts: states rights, civil liberties, and religious freedom since govt cannot regulate the healing work that faith based programs do which only works in private as a free choice and can't be mandated

c. that's why I'm saying to separate two tracks or else agree to let spiritual healing be incorporated into public programs.

If you insist on keeping spiritual faith based programs out of govt,
then people cannot be penalized and forced under federal regulations at the same time.



Faun said:


> As far as your question... no, I don't like the mandate. But then, it's a conservative concept that has always sounded stupid to me and I'm in favor of a national healthcare system.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> 1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
> and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?
> 
> In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?
> 
> In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
> or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.
> 
> You can have
> * VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
> * or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.
> 
> These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
> The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
> servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.
> 
> 2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
> yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
> our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.
> 
> Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?
> 
> We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
> but if we live by caring for our neighbors
> equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
> it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
> to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.
> 
> 
> 
> Emily, the OT allows for slavery, as do several other mainstream religions.  So now, you are claiming that I must completely follow your religion, which goes almost completely against my religion.  Your definition is NT law.   I don't believe in it. And yes, I'm referring to traditional slavery.  Many religions prohibit spiritual healing as well (including mine).  Why should I have to join your religion, just to have civil rights? We are not a theocracy, and you are now narrowing it down to you must be not only a christian, but a certain type of christian.  You do realize that some Christian faiths have more books than your bible, and some that have less than your bible.  There are a lot that have completely different translations - as in one case, where two people met, greeted each other and    (translations)    a)  kissed;  b) chastely kissed on the cheek;  c)  shook hands.  Some translations recognize several same sex relationships.  Other ministers, with NO knowledge of Greek or Aramaic claim it's a lie.  Are you aware that the word homosexual didn't appear in the bible until mid century - drum roll - last century.  That the Greek word for homosexual did not occur in all of the locations fundamentalist Christians claim, but only twice, and even then, it's believed to be mistranslated. So.....sorry Emily - it's another fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all Sneekin
> 
> by the Scriptures we do not force one person or the other,
> but reach agre ement by resolving grievances or conflicts
> in the spirit of Christ Jesus where we both agre e to follow as
> universal authority over both of us and all people and relations.
> see Matthew 18:15-20
> 
> I don't coerce anyone, but seek agreement on what is universal law and truth,
> and that sets both people, and the relationship between us, free from conflict!
> 
> to be honest, the process is MUTUAL, where you will correct
> me as much as I offer the same to you, so we are equal neighbors.
> 
> If you are not a believer, and you ask me to depart and not share with you this way,
> I am called to leave you alone.
> 
> But as long as I use the language and laws you ascribe to,
> usually this method works to resolve the conflicts and reach
> either agreement or neutral stalemate.
> 
> It is a mutual process of exchange,
> not forced by one person or the other or it doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily - again you bring religion into it.  Enough.  Your scriptures say one thing, mine say something completely different -which is why we are not writing law to conform to your religion.  You can't ell a muslim to resolve grievances in the spirit of Christ Jesus - that's offensive. Checkmate. Stalemate.  Enough discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. I AM trying to use YOUR terms beliefs or "religion" if that's what you call yours Sneekin
> that's the only way I can communicate with you is by YOUR beliefs.
> most people I know believe in invoking their Constitutional rights,
> so I often use that as the default language to get on the same terms.
> Once we agree what we call the things we do or don't believe in,
> we can work out the rest with that system of terms we use in common.
> 
> 2. and YES Muslims are also called to follow the Bible as sent by God.
> The true Muslim faith calls for Jews Christians and Muslims all to live with
> love and respect for other people of the Book as they are under these
> laws too which come from God.
> 
> My friend Mustafaa of CAIR reads the Bible daily and relies on it
> to communicate with Christians who have questions or rebukes for him,
> where he asks the same of them. For those who actually follow their
> own Bible, this works well. He works alongside other Christians and nontheists
> in the peace and justice community. So if you get the spirit of the laws aligned
> in agreement, anyone can get along whether religious or nontheist.
> 
> This works by fr e e choice, never by force.
> 
> So that's why I try to figure out what people's beliefs are naturally,
> how they express it, and use THEIR laws and experiences to communicate
> the same concepts and principles, which I find to be universal no matter
> how uniquely and diversely each person expresses it their own ways!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No - freedom from ALL religions.  Your religious beliefs are not my constitutional rights and won't be.  My religious beliefs are not to be factored into the law as well (and not).
> 
> That may be Mustafaa's belief (followers of the book), but it's not all - and it doesn't cover all religions.  It doesn't cover the NT - which didn't exist to all 3 parties.  The book is the OT.  Followers of Abraham would be another name for them, as they are descended from a single religion (Judaism).  So, we are back to Jews who recognize slavery, etc, etc.  No shellfish, no pork, no mixing meat and dairy - the list goes on. Except, then Christians can't have their Lobster, Muslims can't have their meat be Halal, etc.This too would violate law.   Of course, much of this violates tenets of other faiths.  I've been on threads where people have stated that Catholics are cannibals - because they believe in transubstantiation - that bread and wine is converted to the actual body and blood of Christ.  by eating/drinking actual blood and flesh, one would be a cannibal.  Only a few religions believe in that concept any more (Christian), and non-Christians don't believe it at all.   This is why we don't have what you ask for.
Click to expand...


OK Sneekin freedom from all religions
including political religions like yours and mine.
You believe in majority rule used to outvote people of one belief by another.
I do not, but believe in consent when it comes to beliefs.
By your statement, neither of us can impose our beliefs through govt.
AGREED! That's what I'm saying, it should be by CONSENT of people.
And by the very nature of CONSENT, I can't impose either.
I ask people what they consent or don't consent to, and form a consensus on that
based on free choice.  If we agree to majority rule that has to be by consent also!


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Makes no sense..
> 
> Now...in 50 words or less....PLEASE
> 
> How do you pass laws that are both pro-life and pro-choice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an example rightwinger
> 
> A. What if we agree not to ban abortion but
> create a special level of law on state levels for Health and Safety
> which communities may choose to OPT INTO freely such as
> by school district, civic association for neighborhood communities, or whole cities
> if all residents happen to agree on terms.
> 
> Then people might agree that Relationship Abuse counts as a health code threat or violation
> (and also Drug abuse or addiction without Criminalizing it or penalizing it)
> and needs to be addressed by mandatory counseling by BOTH partners if a complaint is reported of abuse.
> 
> So it could be agreed upon that an act
> resulting in unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted child, unwanted abortion,
> etc. counts as Relationship Abuse and is subject to counseling to correct the problem.
> 
> so this can be applied to "ban sex that leads to unwanted abortion"
> as a form of abuse, if people agreed to terms and definitions and process.
> 
> It is not antichoice but saying in cases where abortion is not a wanted choice,
> both partners should be protected from that situation where something is being forced.
> 
> We are not banning the abortion in ways that affect the woman more than the man,
> but banning acts of coercion or abuse that otherwise would result in abortion,a
> and holding BOTH partners responsible for not abusing the relationship or sex,
> where it causes mental emotional or physical coercion or stress on one or both partners.
> 
> B. if that doesn't work I also suggest separating funding
> by taxes where prolife people can match dollars going to Planned Parenthood
> with the same amount going to the Nurturing Network which isn't affiliated with
> anything to do with abortion.
> 
> If the left wants right to health care through govt,
> why not separate two tracks and let the right have right to life through govt.
> Let both tracks fund the programs they believe in,
> and let taxpayers CHOOSE which track to fund.
> Anyone can participate in nonprofits or govt programs of both tracks,
> but just separate the taxes where people are fully and equally represented.
> 
> That is both prochoice and prolife!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 300 words and you still didn't answer a simple question. Let me rephrase...
> 
> The problem with abortion is there can be no consensus. There is no middle ground. Dividing up communities into smaller and smaller segments will still not reach the consensus you desire. If you can't get consensus on abortion in families how can you get it by town?
> 
> Those who want to ban abortion want it banned for EVERYONE
> How do you reconcile that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> 1. if there cannot be a consensus then both sides should agree to separate,
> and where that isn't fully possible, they should agree to mutual concessions where BOTH sides agree that is the best that can be done.
> that would be fair to both.
> 
> 2. What I tell my prolife friends is they themselves are PROOF
> that abortion can be prevented and ended WITHOUT BANNING IT.
> Because THEY don't require it to be banned by law for THEM to
> do what they do, which is purely through offering better CHOICES
> and education to PREVENT abortion. That's enough to wipe it out.
> One prolife advocate I spoke with doesn't think this is possible but
> believe in promoting better birth control as the solution. Great!
> So let's work together on that instead of working against each other.
> If we use all resources to focus on where we AGREE will prevent abortion,
> that's better than wasting resources fighting where we disagree.
> 
> So of all the prolife people I've talked with, the real reason they don't
> think the laws are enough is that the prochoice people keep rejecting
> their efforts to stop abortion, so they think these people are pro ABORTION instead of prochoice.
> If prochoice people work WITH prolife to prevent abortion as much as possible,
> they wouldn't feel the need to ban it to stop it.
> 
> 3. for the hardcore people who don't want govt legalizing it in any form,
> that's where I recommend to separate those taxpayers funding and let
> them pay under a health care track that is prolife with no abortion.
> And same with people who are against death penalty and costs of war,
> and want health care, let them separate tracks and pay for life not death!
> 
> So separation is possible where people have strong beliefs as conscientious objectors.
> I don't think that will divide people any more than we already are along political or religious beliefs,
> but will have the opposite effect and allow people to unite, when they can all have their
> own way and don't have to compete to force everyone to pay for policies they don't believe in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Emily,*
> 
> I'm hoping this helps all of the religious nuts and those people thinking they have a right to consensus on every governmental issue.
> 
> Watch this video .  The lyrics are here:  Schoolhouse Rock:I'm Just A Bill
> 
> This is a "cute" way of putting it down into very simple terms, how involved the process is.  In a democracy you may get a vote, but as you see, we are not one, otherwise, Hillary Clinton would be president - she won the popular vote, Trump appears to have the Electoral College votes - but they haven't voted yet).
> 
> We are a Republic - *US definition: Rule by elected individuals representing the citizen body and exercising power according to the rule of law.
> *
> Post Script:  DOMA wasn't changed.  Parts have been struck down as illegal/invalid.   Nothing, however, changed - it was INVALIDATED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> Sorry but democratic voting does NOT apply to religious beliefs.
> Govt is NOT supposed to establish faith-based biases or systems
> REGARDLESS how the voting goes! It's still unconstitutional.
> 
> Now, where you and I disagree:
> You don't consider political beliefs to be governed under the First Amendment
> as I do.
> 
> so that IN ITSELF is a difference in BELIEFS!
> 
> You have NO RIGHT to abuse govt and laws to impose YOUR interpretation
> that political and secular beliefs don't count
> AND
> I DO NOT have that right EITHER to impose MY beliefs that they do!
> 
> Thus the First Amendment still applies:
> Govt can neither establish nor prohibit the free exercise
> of YOUR beliefs or MINE
> REGARDLESS OF DEMOCRATIC VOTE.
> 
> That's why I believe in consensus,
> to protect both your beliefs and mine from imposition by the other.
> 
> so NO SORRY Mr. Law Professor
> You do NOT have the right to subject anyone's *BELIEFS* up to VOTE by GOVT OR THROUGH GOVT
> *UNLESS PEOPLE CONSENT TO HAVE THEIR BELIEFS VOTED ON THIS WAY*
> 
> I DO NOT CONSENT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION TO DO SO.
> 
> If you want to debate this publicly,
> let's do it.
> 
> Ask your students and  your school to set up a national conference
> on whether the ACA incorporates or imposes a bias in political beliefs
> and if it is discriminatory to force compliance on citizens of other beliefs under penalty of law.
> 
> I'd LOVE to see that debated between all the law schools across the country.
Click to expand...

*Emily,*

I'm confused.  You are the one that continues to try and introduce faith based health care, prayer in schools, and other items that all amount to you trying to establish a state religion.  What is more egregious is that at first you said any faith based healing, then down to New Testament teachings that recognize Christ, and claimed the religions you referenced were Judaism, Islam and Christianity.   That completely ignores the 1000 + other religions - how dare you!  You not only want to allow wanton child abuse (beating the demons from children), snake handling (poisonous snakes), praying over people, laying of hands, speaking in tongues, and more.  These all violate MANY Christian religions, not to mention, that only a few Jews believe that there was a prophet named Jesus, ditto Islam.  Leaves out Buddhists, for example, who don't believe in a Godhead figure.  That's not what a Buddha is.

If I believe in the constitution, which covers ALL law, then of course I believe the first amendment covers civil law.   You don't get to make up your own religion; there are guidelines for a religion - not much, but just because you may think Heroin is the body of Christ, or the Holy Grail, doesn't mean you get to sell, distribute or shoot up Heroin, which, based on your words about "beliefs".

From the top -
1.  You have been pushing for days for faith based health care - I sure as hell haven't.  Your first sentence and first lie.  You regurgitated my words back at me:  "Govt is NOT supposed to establish faith-based biases or systems REGARDLESS how the voting goes! It's still unconstitutional."  I told YOU that.    Unless you are under some delusion that the ACA is FAITH BASED, which it is not - the law would not have left chambers and been voted on by the House, Senate, signed by the President, and past Judicial Review by the SCOTUS.  You win the Pants On Fire award for you claim.

2.  You made the egregious lie:  "You don't consider political beliefs to be governed under the First Amendment as I do. so that IN ITSELF is a difference in BELIEFS!"   I never said that.  Pants on Fire Award again for you.   

3.  Another lie:  "You have NO RIGHT to abuse govt and laws to impose YOUR interpretation that political and secular beliefs don't count
AND I DO NOT have that right EITHER to impose MY beliefs that they do!"  I wasn't imposing my OPINION on you - I was telling you what the laws and the constitution CLEARLY state.  You choose to disbelieve - doesn't mean I'm trying to impose squat on you.   Your ignorance of fact doesn't make me guilty of anything.  The only person trying to impose anything was YOU, when you claimed you want faith based healing as an option under a federal health care program (again, I told YOU it violates the first amendment, and you twisted that into para 1 and 2.

4.  Then you said:  "Thus the First Amendment still applies: Govt can neither establish nor prohibit the free exercise of YOUR beliefs or MINE
REGARDLESS OF DEMOCRATIC VOTE." - which is almost a direct quote of what I TOLD YOU again!  This is your 4th PANTS ON FIRE AWARD.  

You don't seem to understand.  What you want to do violates the 1st amendment - your BS FAITH BASED HEALING ADDITION TO THE ACA would GET LAUGHED OUT OF CONGRESS.  

5.  the most egregious and funny comment you made was:

"You do NOT have the right to subject anyone's *BELIEFS* up to VOTE by GOVT OR THROUGH GOVT *UNLESS PEOPLE CONSENT TO HAVE THEIR BELIEFS VOTED ON THIS WAY*

I DO NOT CONSENT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION TO DO SO."

Actually lawmakers can subject your beliefs/my beliefs etc up for vote by the Congress (note, not "GOVT", use correct terms").  For example:   Affordable Health Care.   Congress has every right to discuss this in committee, move it to the floor, pass/not pass, and if it passes, the president can either pass or veto.  If there is a veto, the congress can override the veto with enough votes.   If ANYONE has an issue with a law, they can pursue it through the US LEGAL SYSTEM.   Not call me names, not make up your own facts, not twist my words, nor substitute your words for mine.  

Contrary to what you think, with the example given, I would not be the only person wanting a government health care program to cover the uninsured.   Congress NEVER needs your consent - we aren't a monarchy, and you aren't the queen of the country.  At this point, Emily, back away from the keyboard.  You are deluding yourself if you believe Congress needs to come to a consensus with your ideas (your words, not mine), and another point being Congress doesn't need your consent to submit a bill, just because you have the same idea for a bill.   In regards to your faith-based healthcare, NO Congressman would expect to have a bill calling for that to pass and become a law, any first year without being challenged and overturned.  Your proposal is faith based (faith based healing).   The ACA, according to the US Legal system is not.

No need to have a discussion, if you'd bother researching a bit.

Your arguments regarding the constitutionality of being forced to purchase (mandated) health care insurance was decided by the SCOTUS on June 28, 2012.  Although the Supreme Court declared that the law could not have been upheld under an argument based on the regulatory power of Congress under the Commerce Clause, the Court declared that the legislatively-declared "penalty" was constitutional as a valid exercise of the Congressional power to tax, thus upholding the individual mandate.

This completely shoots your statement of "Ask your students and  your school to set up a national conference on whether the ACA incorporates or imposes a bias in political beliefs and if it is discriminatory to force compliance on citizens of other beliefs under penalty of law." - all to hell.  Why would anyone want to discuss a program that's been ruled on by the SCOTUS, and on the chopping block by the upcoming Republican party?

There is your answer, from the SCOTUS.  Feel free to research and get their email addresses, and question them.  I am through discussing and arguing this,  especially as it has ZIP to do with who can get married and is totally off topic.

Absorb this.  Don't bother to reply to this.  If you want to discuss marriage, stay on topic.


----------



## Sneekin

*EMILY SAID:*
3. And why do you think Cruz is a joke? He is a Constitutionalist.
He agrees that tax laws need to be reformed. Why not propose to separate
social legislation by party so people who would rather fund education and health
care can do so, instead of funding war and the death penalty; while those who
want to fund military and VA reform can invest there instead of on welfare and
health care under rules they don't believe federal govt has authority to regulate!

_*SNEEKIN SAID:*_
Why do I think he's a joke?  He's a "sorta" Constructionist.  Only when it works for him.   He's not strict on the second amendment - anyone can do anything, no limits,  but says the 14th only applies to one specific group, because it's currently used to protect gay people, who he's on record for hating.   His religion is questionable at best - he's a strict follower of his father, who proclaims that Ted is one of the pillars of God, and he should be extreme ruler and bowed down to.   He doesn't think all tax laws need to be reformed - only those that help business - not the common man and not the poor.   He's an advocate of gerrymandering and voter suppression - public record, as usual.  

Separation of social legislation by party is patently ILLEGAL.  I guess if I choose not to register (which I have yet to do in all my years of voting), then I will have to pay no taxes, I can get every form of public aid anyway - since the social legislation wouldn't be covered.....not to mention, you are claiming you are going to be refusing to  treat children or feed them because of their parent's political affiliation.  No can do, Emily.   Riddle me this, Batgirl.   Let's say social security is Democrat, and not Republican.   You are a Democrat and your Husband is Republican.   That means your kids would not be entitled to your husband's survivor benefits, nor would you.  But if you passed, your children would receive yours, as would your husband.   Based on what I've seen over the last 30 years, glass ceiling and all, with women making much less than men, it's quite apparent that there would be disparity based on Sex and Political Affiliation, which once again, flies in the face of the constitution.

The concept behind public education is equal access by all students to the same basic standards.  You wish to define access by political affiliation?  Again - not registered - so you are now denying my child a right to an education?  ILLEGAL!!!!

54 percent of ALL OUR DOLLARS go to DEFENSE.  5.6 percent goes to VA Benefits.  That's almost 60 percent.   The remaining 41 percent is split between Transportation (you know, your roads, train/plane/etc subsidies), Medicare, Housing, Energy, Science, Education, International affairs, etc.   You seem to think you can split this out politically, but you can't.   half of these would impact Military/VA reform AND welfare/healthcare.   There is a National Cemetery in my town.   It's on a military base.  So when I take my father to his best friend's grave, I drive on Transportation funded roadways, check in with military officials, take him for a background check, which taps into NON-MILITARY databases (the 40 percent, not 60 percent), and take him to the grave.   Who buries people there?   Military does.  Who maintains?  Military.  It may be contracted out, but it's payed with military funding.   Another example - I want to go and visit my daughter, who lives across the river.  Unless I drive 30 miles out of the way, I have to use the bridge owned by the Department of the Army.  It was decided over 100 years ago that all persons, military or not can use the bridge.   Yet only military pays for maintenance on the bridge.   If you use ethanol, any product that has corn as an ingredient, etc, more than likely at some point it was on a barge on the Mississippi River.   Barges go through a series of 29 lock and dams, built by, and maintained by the Army Corp of Engineers.   Are you claiming you want to vote on what food you can eat now?  If you don't want to vote for the military, then you won't get any product on a barge (also, coal etc is transported on these barges, as well as food, limestone, etc).  If you have a boat, you can't go any farther north once you hit the state of Missouri - the Army maintains the locks - or you would pay an enormous fee (nowadays, it's a minimal fee, based on taxes paid by businesses.  I've seen 30 pleasure boats go through here, and no one pays a fee - but you would if you weren't paying taxes......You'd have to pay more in transportation, as the Military has paid for some of the bridges crossing the MS river. Most bridges are paid for out of state and federal dollars.  Some comes from DoD. 

Finally, Emily, go and research - YOU HAVE NO VOICE what happens to TAX DOLLARS.  It goes into a general fund.  Money is budgeted for multi-year - DoD has an 8 year budget cycle (prior year (baseline), current year, current plus one (they have a biennial budget), and five out years. 

Please educate everyone here how the following scenario could happen, allowing you to willy-nilly change things, and who to charge.

One command in Department of Army buys ammunition.  Let's take a simple 5.56 bullet.   That bullet is purchased by the Highway Patrol of many states; all branches of the service; Coast Guard (not DoD if we aren't at war); the VA; Treasury Dept; State Dept; Foreign Military Sales (other countries, who don't pay taxes); and almost every Federal agency that has guards/police, some of which are in the non-Military/Non-VA category.  Some local police also purchase.   The command budgets for a period of 8 years, based on requirements for those 8 years sent in by previously named organizations.  All DoD / VA purchases would come out of the DoD/VA pot - and you are saying on a whim, we can cut half the funding by changing our political affiliation  - ie, Billionaires become Democrats.  The command doesn't request a bullet be made separately for each requestor, they do the math, and might say they need 4 billion this year.  How do you budget the remaining years if you don't have a dependable funding stream?   

Let's take something even MORE near and dear.   My father and the company he worked for has a patent for equipment that was initially funded as a joint effort of DoD and Science.  It's currently being used in EVERY HOSPITAL, many Dr offices, and some homes.    The company continues to make improvements.   That would now lose half it's funding, as Science is Social as opposed to DoD - Science works on medical, FDA, Weather, etc Research and Development.   You in essence are killing people - this equipment is still being updated when there are new advances.  The device in the initial stages took up the back end of a station wagon (one of the developers had the health issue, and was the first "tester").   Over the last 50 plus years, it went down to the size of R2D2, then down to the size of a canister vac, then an extremely heavy suitcase, to it's current iteration - carried in one hand, about 10 x 20 x 4-5 inches.   Engineers are trying to reduce this to the size of a pack of playing cards (children utilize this as well).   With no dependable funding, that dream won't come true any more (probably will take some other scientific advances, HHS involvement, etc, and some money kicked in by the VA and DoD).  This no longer will occur.  So.......do you understand now?

Our taxes, after paid, go into a single pot - period.   The congress, not YOU, decide on how funds are appropriated, and then must be signed into law by the president every year.   Breaking this out will also probably double the size of many government offices, who will now be tasked with continual reprogramming of funds from the "on-high" level down to your local agency level, and then distributed down to individual offices.   Some DoD commands around here have several hundred offices per command.  With funding in flux, you can't count on competency of workers - so be prepared to pay more money for less talent - again leading to an increase of personnel required.  I guess while you are talking to Ted Cruz, see if he can get the funding to extend the number of hours in a day and  days in a year.  To accomplish your pipe dreams, he'd need to work that magic ASAP.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily, the OT allows for slavery, as do several other mainstream religions.  So now, you are claiming that I must completely follow your religion, which goes almost completely against my religion.  Your definition is NT law.   I don't believe in it. And yes, I'm referring to traditional slavery.  Many religions prohibit spiritual healing as well (including mine).  Why should I have to join your religion, just to have civil rights? We are not a theocracy, and you are now narrowing it down to you must be not only a christian, but a certain type of christian.  You do realize that some Christian faiths have more books than your bible, and some that have less than your bible.  There are a lot that have completely different translations - as in one case, where two people met, greeted each other and    (translations)    a)  kissed;  b) chastely kissed on the cheek;  c)  shook hands.  Some translations recognize several same sex relationships.  Other ministers, with NO knowledge of Greek or Aramaic claim it's a lie.  Are you aware that the word homosexual didn't appear in the bible until mid century - drum roll - last century.  That the Greek word for homosexual did not occur in all of the locations fundamentalist Christians claim, but only twice, and even then, it's believed to be mistranslated. So.....sorry Emily - it's another fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all Sneekin
> 
> by the Scriptures we do not force one person or the other,
> but reach agre ement by resolving grievances or conflicts
> in the spirit of Christ Jesus where we both agre e to follow as
> universal authority over both of us and all people and relations.
> see Matthew 18:15-20
> 
> I don't coerce anyone, but seek agreement on what is universal law and truth,
> and that sets both people, and the relationship between us, free from conflict!
> 
> to be honest, the process is MUTUAL, where you will correct
> me as much as I offer the same to you, so we are equal neighbors.
> 
> If you are not a believer, and you ask me to depart and not share with you this way,
> I am called to leave you alone.
> 
> But as long as I use the language and laws you ascribe to,
> usually this method works to resolve the conflicts and reach
> either agreement or neutral stalemate.
> 
> It is a mutual process of exchange,
> not forced by one person or the other or it doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily - again you bring religion into it.  Enough.  Your scriptures say one thing, mine say something completely different -which is why we are not writing law to conform to your religion.  You can't ell a muslim to resolve grievances in the spirit of Christ Jesus - that's offensive. Checkmate. Stalemate.  Enough discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. I AM trying to use YOUR terms beliefs or "religion" if that's what you call yours Sneekin
> that's the only way I can communicate with you is by YOUR beliefs.
> most people I know believe in invoking their Constitutional rights,
> so I often use that as the default language to get on the same terms.
> Once we agree what we call the things we do or don't believe in,
> we can work out the rest with that system of terms we use in common.
> 
> 2. and YES Muslims are also called to follow the Bible as sent by God.
> The true Muslim faith calls for Jews Christians and Muslims all to live with
> love and respect for other people of the Book as they are under these
> laws too which come from God.
> 
> My friend Mustafaa of CAIR reads the Bible daily and relies on it
> to communicate with Christians who have questions or rebukes for him,
> where he asks the same of them. For those who actually follow their
> own Bible, this works well. He works alongside other Christians and nontheists
> in the peace and justice community. So if you get the spirit of the laws aligned
> in agreement, anyone can get along whether religious or nontheist.
> 
> This works by fr e e choice, never by force.
> 
> So that's why I try to figure out what people's beliefs are naturally,
> how they express it, and use THEIR laws and experiences to communicate
> the same concepts and principles, which I find to be universal no matter
> how uniquely and diversely each person expresses it their own ways!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No - freedom from ALL religions.  Your religious beliefs are not my constitutional rights and won't be.  My religious beliefs are not to be factored into the law as well (and not).
> 
> That may be Mustafaa's belief (followers of the book), but it's not all - and it doesn't cover all religions.  It doesn't cover the NT - which didn't exist to all 3 parties.  The book is the OT.  Followers of Abraham would be another name for them, as they are descended from a single religion (Judaism).  So, we are back to Jews who recognize slavery, etc, etc.  No shellfish, no pork, no mixing meat and dairy - the list goes on. Except, then Christians can't have their Lobster, Muslims can't have their meat be Halal, etc.This too would violate law.   Of course, much of this violates tenets of other faiths.  I've been on threads where people have stated that Catholics are cannibals - because they believe in transubstantiation - that bread and wine is converted to the actual body and blood of Christ.  by eating/drinking actual blood and flesh, one would be a cannibal.  Only a few religions believe in that concept any more (Christian), and non-Christians don't believe it at all.   This is why we don't have what you ask for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK Sneekin freedom from all religions
> including political religions like yours and mine.
> You believe in majority rule used to outvote people of one belief by another.
> I do not, but believe in consent when it comes to beliefs.
> By your statement, neither of us can impose our beliefs through govt.
> AGREED! That's what I'm saying, it should be by CONSENT of people.
> And by the very nature of CONSENT, I can't impose either.
> I ask people what they consent or don't consent to, and form a consensus on that
> based on free choice.  If we agree to majority rule that has to be by consent also!
Click to expand...



Emily

Politics does not fall under religion.  The first amendment does not cover your "political religion".  

I've told you repeatedly we aren't a democracy, we are a constitutional republic - majority doesn't rule.  The rights of the minority must also be taken into account (interracial marriage, gay marriage, etc)  are rights - we can't legally say blacks or gays cannot get married.   They are both minorities.

I don't believe ANYONE can outvote your belief, and I CHALLENGE YOU to give one case where their constitutional rights have been voted away.   Allowing two men to get married does not violate the rights of ANY CHRISTIAN/MUSLIM/ATHEIST/RELIGIOUS/Non-RELIGIOUS person.

Health care isn't a belief, and I've furnished you with the Supreme Court verbiage from their ruling.

We don't NEED your consent to pass ANY BILL.  It needs to be (hopefully) legal, pass through committees, Senate and House, signed by the president, and ruled as constitutional by the SCOTUS if challenged.  For example, healthcare mandate is not a matter of choice, majority rule, consensus or consent.  Did you watch the "I'm a Bill on Capitol Hill" video?  It should explain the process.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> A. Representatives represent me when these issues are resolved.
> They are not getting represented yet, sorry!
> Yes, I will go through govt to resolve them
> but I have to be able to EXPLAIN them first.
> 
> I posted the letter to Ted Cruz office outlining even 3 of the grievances
> that can be documented: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10952408/
> 
> This has been going on until I find the PEOPLE to REDRESS those grievances.
> [Of the people I've found who respect what it takes to represent me, most of
> them are OUTSIDE GOVT. We have to form teams to connect with people
> INSIDE govt to create the process that WILL represent these issues for resolution purposes!]
> 
> Not everyone can deal with this. And the ones who can are NOT ALL in govt positions!
> 
> Thanks for trying but it takes SPECIFIC people.
> And then I can form a team with Congresswoman Lee to resolve these issues.
> And if we can do it FT, we can use that same model for other issues
> that HAVEN'T BEEN RESOLVED using the given legal or govt system as is.
> 
> B. So in general
> NO the system of redressing grievances by assessing restitution owed
> and crediting the taxmoney back to taxpayers
> HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET
> 
> I am teaming up with Jon Roland of the Libertarians and Constitution Society in Austin
> and Ted Weisgal with the Diversity outreach of KPFT public radio
> to try to organize some kind of party representation that can redress grievances.
> 
> The PROCESS that WOULD represent me in protecting the right
> to petition to redress grievances by consensus and noncoercion
> as the standard HASN'T BEEN proposed, offered or applied yet.
> 
> Thank you for helping to sort out the preliminary prep part.
> 
> At some point I will reach out to all law schools especially
> anyone teaching Constitutional laws and ethics, to join the effort.
> 
> If it is really based on Consensus and Inclusion then everyone
> will be able to use it to resolve their issues locally or nationally,
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> *Emily,*
> I don't think you grasp how government works.  Your representatives  are elected,  then they represent you.  Even using your example - we need some way for people like you, who opt out of health insurance, to quit bankrupting the rest of us - we used a republican plan, the ACA, written by the Heritage think tank in the mid 90's.  Romney implemented it, Obama implemented it, after a majority of Congress *APPROVED* it.  You can't explain it, because I think you don't grasp the facts.  They represented you.  PP/ACA was implemented it, even though you don't like it.   Like it or not, you were represented.  Your next step is to contact your representatives, and see what can be done to shift the burden of paying for the lazy people (people who work who don't care that they rip the rest of us off).  One will assume under the Trump regime, it will be overturned, and the rest of us will push to make sure if you don't pay for insurance because you just don't want to, can now be denied no matter what your health issues are.  The majority of health care dollars are going against deadbeats who work and refuse to pay for coverage, and those that sign up for insurance weeks before a major surgery.
> 
> If you are banking on Cruz, that will be even a bigger joke.
> 
> While I can agree with you in part in concept only, the fact is, cheap people like you ruin it for the rest of us.   My birth mother died in her mid 30's from a lung disease.   It was in the early days of health insurance, but my father made sure insurance was paid before groceries were bought - which was good.  My mother had congestive heart failure, treatment for TB, a double masectomy, all before the age of 35.  She was being treated for TB, treated in a trial with a drug that was hailed as a cure - unfortunately, she was allergic to the (now commonplace) and went into Anaphylactic shock.  She ended up on oxygen, filling up with fluid, and died days later.   So......even then, costs were thousands of dollars.   Nowadays, costs would be probably half a million.   Insurance?  Would pay for it.  You refuse insurance?   You expect ME to pay for it?  That's NOT a viable solution, Emily.
> 
> Good luck grieving a law that's in full force and effect.  That's really funny,  since we grieve and arbitrate perceptions / conclusions that laws have been violated.  The ACA is LAW.  Good luck. We, the people don't get to grieve every dreamed up misconception we have.  There are checks and balances.  And if the ACA is overturned - do I get to now grieve and file suit against you or anyone else that now refuses to pay for insurance and then gets sick?  I'll be first in line if that was doable. After all, you said I should get to grieve and get redress - so maybe I should file now against you people that refuse to purchase insurance.   Live in a nice house?  I'll take it.  Nice car?  keep up the payments, I'll just drive off in your car.   After all, an xbox, car, house, video game is more important to you people than actual good health.  And if you have children, I would even claim child abuse, playing games while your child goes from a simple sneeze to hospitalization and respiratory infections.  I guess people shouldn't be allowed to have children unless they are able to care for their kids.  Not having insurance when you can afford it should be grounds for no marriage and no children - mandatory birth  control, perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> A. The reps in Congress (legislative)
> and the President (executive) who voted yes and passed it were
> ALL DEMOCRATS.
> 
> The Republicans voted NO..
> 
> The Texs Democratic Party platform openly sat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> In the next Congress, you can expect to see laws passed by the majority Republicans without a single Democrat voting yes.
> 
> That is how our system works- we are a representational Democracy- when the majority of Congress can vote in a law- that becomes the law for all of us.
> 
> I am sure I won't like some of the laws passed by the Republican Congress- but I won't be pretending that they didn't do it legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Especially with Constitutionalists, Syriusly,
> NO they should know better than to pass biased laws
> that violate beliefs of others.
> 
> Free market health care is fine for those who believe in that and agree to support it.
> For those who believe in going through govt for singlepayer health care,
> that is an equal political belief people have equal right to exercise if they fund it themselves as well!
> 
> So why not set up both tracks and let taxpayers vote, pay and organize under
> the programs as they believe in setting up their ways. Health care is supposed to
> remain a private choice, so let people choose!
Click to expand...



Name a law that's been ruled biased in your lifetime.  Not your opinion, but factually ruled upon.  Healthcare mandating has been ruled on and ruled as NOT BIASED!!!!


----------



## Sneekin

*Emily Said:
*
Sneekin
Insurance is not the only way to cover health care costs
and clearly other ways are still needed.

So why *PENALIZE those other choices* and say insurance (or religious health share ministries or federal exchanges)
are the ONLY way to avoid a fine?

You just said you didn't want spiritual healing involved as a choice.
But if you are penalizing it because it's not one of the govt endorsed choices,
you are EXCLUDING that choice. AND imposing insurance as the ONLY WAY???

Aren't you penalizing people for wanting other choices
that are equally valid?

What's wrong with someone
paying all their costs *with or without insurance*
and building a charity hospital and medical program to help others with costs NOT COVERED by govt or insurance!

Why is THAT option FINED BY GOVT AS NOT A CHOICE.

_Just because it doesn't involve paying for insurance?_
[/QUOTE]

_*Sneekin Said:*_
Really? Those other ways are what?   If you have no insurance, and you have cancer, heart attack, need major surgery, transplants, etc, explain how you think the average person will pay for these WITHOUT insurance.  The average income is between 40 and 48K.  A heart transplant will cost more than you will make in a year.   

Why say (your second paragraph)?   Because that is the law.....BTW, federal exchanges ARE INSURANCE.  If you open a book, and compare the definition of religious health share ministries and exchanges and health insurance, they are the same thing, conceptually.

OMG - Spiritual healing IS ILLEGAL under the federal exchanges, as well as conventional health insurance.  You can have spiritual healing under RHSM, but RHSM also has to meet all the ACA criteria - why can't you understand that?  You can have ADDITIONAL choices - but you fail to grasp that there are guidelines that must be followed - THEY ARE LAW.  

Nothing is wrong with paying all of your costs - provided you can demonstrate you can come up with the money.   Most people cannot.  Can you afford to pay for a cancer surgery, with chemotherapy, along with two knee replacements, and similar for your husband? Why the hell do you think people have insurance to begin with?  Because *MOST PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY ALL OF THEIR MEDICAL BILLS.  *

Why must you ask (we are up to probably 15 times now) why establishment of a state religion isn't a choice/ok/legal?  It's the FIRST AMENDMENT that makes it illegal for *INSURANCE/FEDERAL EXCHANGE*.  Off topic.  Last time I answer you on this subject.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Faun RE: conservative concept
> 1. are you talking about the policy credited to Reagan for opening up all hospitals to treat all people?
> a. if you don't agree to the terms of taxpayers paying for that
> and want to change them, why change it to something others don't agree with either?
> b. why not go after prison budgets, convert those to  medical treatment, research and education programs, and pay for medical education and training at the same time as offering public health services to both inmates and the general public for the same costs we are already paying?
> c. why change it to insurance if not all people agree to that and insurance doesn't cover the need for training service providers, building facilities, researching or treating the CAUSE of disease
> 
> 2. if you are talking about insurance mandates being a conservative idea
> that was already debunked
> a. it did not cover daily and routine health care, only CATASTROPHIC
> b. it still respected STATES rights and did not ever get support to pass on a NATIONAL level
> So changing it to mean FEDERAL regulation of ALL health care violates
> Conservative principles on 2-3 counts: states rights, civil liberties, and religious freedom since govt cannot regulate the healing work that faith based programs do which only works in private as a free choice and can't be mandated
> 
> c. that's why I'm saying to separate two tracks or else agree to let spiritual healing be incorporated into public programs.
> 
> If you insist on keeping spiritual faith based programs out of govt,
> then people cannot be penalized and forced under federal regulations at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as your question... no, I don't like the mandate. But then, it's a conservative concept that has always sounded stupid to me and I'm in favor of a national healthcare system.
Click to expand...


*Emily - STOP RAMBLING ON ABOUT A LAW THAT'S BEEN IN EFFECT FOR 30 YEARS. * 
a.  No one cares what you think about it.  If you want it changed, stop posting here and hit the pavement and get the signatures - convince your federal senators and congressmen - have them convince the republicans (some of which passed the Reagan bill 30 years ago, more than likely) that it's a bad thing.  IT'S THE LAW.  APPARENTLY ONE YOU DIDN'T BOTHER TO READ, EITHER.   If they receive any federal dollars (ie, Medicare/Medicaid and others), they lose their tax-exempt status.  All they have to do is give up that status. 
b. Why?  Because of the money YOUR STATE GETS from contracting out prison services.  It's called kickbacks.  You are also talking of violating the civil rights of the prisoners - you can't require them to participate in RDTE.  Why not go with a single payer system, instead?  One that gets everyone treated the same?  Novel concept.
c.   Because it's NOT YOUR CHOICE.   Not everyone is going to like ANY method that's chosen.  

2. 
a. Emily, you are completely FULL OF S**T.   The Heritage Foundation WROTE the ACA, in the 90's.  Heritage is a CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK.  It was written, because they wanted a plan in place in case Hillary's proposed health care plan as first lady was introduced.  Tell me, who debunked this?  Certainly not Heritage.   Certainly not Romney, who implemented it in his home state.   Claiming it was debunked demonstrates that you are either ignorant (failed to read up and try to debunk), or stupid - meaning unwilling to listen to others and refusing to believe facts.   Which is it.
b.  Did you check with Mitt Romney, where it didn't cover daily/routine health care?  It most certainly does. Romney was first to implement it, and he could ONLY IMPLEMENT at a STATE LEVEL, as HE WAS GOVERNOR.   Obama could implement it based on the recommendations of Congress - and it was modified to be across the board at the FEDERAL LEVEL.    Another of your lies is that government can't regulate healing work of faith based programs (your snake handling, etc).  There are SPECIFIC GUIDELINES that must be met - that don't violate the constitution.  

I know you can't grasp the concept, but the RFRA doesn't overrule law.  The cake/photo/etc lawsuits repeatedly prove you wrong.

c.  You cannot separate into two tracks, you were told by 5 different people why now.  We aren't telling you again.

You babbled:  "If you insist on keeping spiritual faith based programs out of govt, then people cannot be penalized and forced under federal regulations at the same time."  

We've told you repeatedly that it violates the first amendment.  It's already been to the SCOTUS, and people most  certainly can be penalized and forced under federal regulations.  Your inability to understand, or your refusal (more than likely) is not our problem.   Break the law, go to jail, at this point I am through arguing you about this off topic subject, where you continually babble about things you know nothing about.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> A. Representatives represent me when these issues are resolved.
> They are not getting represented yet, sorry!
> Yes, I will go through govt to resolve them
> but I have to be able to EXPLAIN them first.
> 
> I posted the letter to Ted Cruz office outlining even 3 of the grievances
> that can be documented: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10952408/
> 
> This has been going on until I find the PEOPLE to REDRESS those grievances.
> [Of the people I've found who respect what it takes to represent me, most of
> them are OUTSIDE GOVT. We have to form teams to connect with people
> INSIDE govt to create the process that WILL represent these issues for resolution purposes!]
> 
> Not everyone can deal with this. And the ones who can are NOT ALL in govt positions!
> 
> Thanks for trying but it takes SPECIFIC people.
> And then I can form a team with Congresswoman Lee to resolve these issues.
> And if we can do it FT, we can use that same model for other issues
> that HAVEN'T BEEN RESOLVED using the given legal or govt system as is.
> 
> B. So in general
> NO the system of redressing grievances by assessing restitution owed
> and crediting the taxmoney back to taxpayers
> HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET
> 
> I am teaming up with Jon Roland of the Libertarians and Constitution Society in Austin
> and Ted Weisgal with the Diversity outreach of KPFT public radio
> to try to organize some kind of party representation that can redress grievances.
> 
> The PROCESS that WOULD represent me in protecting the right
> to petition to redress grievances by consensus and noncoercion
> as the standard HASN'T BEEN proposed, offered or applied yet.
> 
> Thank you for helping to sort out the preliminary prep part.
> 
> At some point I will reach out to all law schools especially
> anyone teaching Constitutional laws and ethics, to join the effort.
> 
> If it is really based on Consensus and Inclusion then everyone
> will be able to use it to resolve their issues locally or nationally,
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> *Emily,*
> I don't think you grasp how government works.  Your representatives  are elected,  then they represent you.  Even using your example - we need some way for people like you, who opt out of health insurance, to quit bankrupting the rest of us - we used a republican plan, the ACA, written by the Heritage think tank in the mid 90's.  Romney implemented it, Obama implemented it, after a majority of Congress *APPROVED* it.  You can't explain it, because I think you don't grasp the facts.  They represented you.  PP/ACA was implemented it, even though you don't like it.   Like it or not, you were represented.  Your next step is to contact your representatives, and see what can be done to shift the burden of paying for the lazy people (people who work who don't care that they rip the rest of us off).  One will assume under the Trump regime, it will be overturned, and the rest of us will push to make sure if you don't pay for insurance because you just don't want to, can now be denied no matter what your health issues are.  The majority of health care dollars are going against deadbeats who work and refuse to pay for coverage, and those that sign up for insurance weeks before a major surgery.
> 
> If you are banking on Cruz, that will be even a bigger joke.
> 
> While I can agree with you in part in concept only, the fact is, cheap people like you ruin it for the rest of us.   My birth mother died in her mid 30's from a lung disease.   It was in the early days of health insurance, but my father made sure insurance was paid before groceries were bought - which was good.  My mother had congestive heart failure, treatment for TB, a double masectomy, all before the age of 35.  She was being treated for TB, treated in a trial with a drug that was hailed as a cure - unfortunately, she was allergic to the (now commonplace) and went into Anaphylactic shock.  She ended up on oxygen, filling up with fluid, and died days later.   So......even then, costs were thousands of dollars.   Nowadays, costs would be probably half a million.   Insurance?  Would pay for it.  You refuse insurance?   You expect ME to pay for it?  That's NOT a viable solution, Emily.
> 
> Good luck grieving a law that's in full force and effect.  That's really funny,  since we grieve and arbitrate perceptions / conclusions that laws have been violated.  The ACA is LAW.  Good luck. We, the people don't get to grieve every dreamed up misconception we have.  There are checks and balances.  And if the ACA is overturned - do I get to now grieve and file suit against you or anyone else that now refuses to pay for insurance and then gets sick?  I'll be first in line if that was doable. After all, you said I should get to grieve and get redress - so maybe I should file now against you people that refuse to purchase insurance.   Live in a nice house?  I'll take it.  Nice car?  keep up the payments, I'll just drive off in your car.   After all, an xbox, car, house, video game is more important to you people than actual good health.  And if you have children, I would even claim child abuse, playing games while your child goes from a simple sneeze to hospitalization and respiratory infections.  I guess people shouldn't be allowed to have children unless they are able to care for their kids.  Not having insurance when you can afford it should be grounds for no marriage and no children - mandatory birth  control, perhaps?
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin
A. RE: changing laws that are in full force and effect
* Slavery laws were also in full effect and enforced by courts, treating people as property.
The cases that went through court found in favor of enforcing laws requiring that
slaves be returned to their owners as property.
* Segregation laws were also enforced to the point people went to jail over them.

So your argument based on laws being in full force
doesn't mean that laws CAN'T change.

You are just concerned that I go through the process.
I understand that.

B. 
_What I am trying to do BEFORE going through the FORMAL process
is reach an agreement in advance, where we get the terms and conditions straight
so we PROCEED in the SAME direction toward mutually agreed CORRECTIONS --
NOT COMPETING "AT ODDS" WITH EACH OTHER WHICH WASTES ENERGY ON BOTH SIDES.
(If you are going to push a car out of the ditch, you agree first to get behind the same side
and push in the SAME direction, not face each other from opposites and push or you get nowhere!)

BEFORE people pushed to abolish slavery, or they fought against segregation laws,
they reached AGREEMENT WITH EACH OTHER 
* that the laws needed to be challenged
* what steps to take to push for change

We are still arguing if the laws are unconstitutional or not!
So we haven't even gotten past ground zero!
I'm not going to recommend to push ANY solution through Courts or Congress
if people don't even agree what the solution is yet, that's a waste of time!!!
if we AGREE in advance what we want to change ACA to,
then we can work TOGETHER to go through the process of reforming it!!!
_
*C. The REASON this issue of constitutionality is important to resolve: 

If we DON'T learn to RECOGNIZE and manage the differences in our beliefs
"about what is constitutional or unconstitutional"
we will KEEP overstepping the SAME BOUNDS
and cause SIMILAR conflicts over and over.

The SAME biases that prevent us from AGREEING what is
constitutional or not IN THIS CASE, are going to cause SIMILAR situations
with the next law and the next, IF WE DON'T FIGURE OUT 
WHERE WE AREN'T RESPECTING EACH OTHER'S BOUNDS. *

D. As for the process of changing them, now the fastest way
may be for Congress to repeal or revise ACA.

What I understand is up for consideration is giving people who depend on coverage under it
a transition period such as 2 years to whatever is going to replace the ACA where it doesn't have mandates.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> *Emily Said:
> *
> Sneekin
> Insurance is not the only way to cover health care costs
> and clearly other ways are still needed.
> 
> So why *PENALIZE those other choices* and say insurance (or religious health share ministries or federal exchanges)
> are the ONLY way to avoid a fine?
> 
> You just said you didn't want spiritual healing involved as a choice.
> But if you are penalizing it because it's not one of the govt endorsed choices,
> you are EXCLUDING that choice. AND imposing insurance as the ONLY WAY???
> 
> Aren't you penalizing people for wanting other choices
> that are equally valid?
> 
> What's wrong with someone
> paying all their costs *with or without insurance*
> and building a charity hospital and medical program to help others with costs NOT COVERED by govt or insurance!
> 
> Why is THAT option FINED BY GOVT AS NOT A CHOICE.
> 
> _Just because it doesn't involve paying for insurance?_



_*Sneekin Said:*_
Really? Those other ways are what?   If you have no insurance, and you have cancer, heart attack, need major surgery, transplants, etc, explain how you think the average person will pay for these WITHOUT insurance.  The average income is between 40 and 48K.  A heart transplant will cost more than you will make in a year.  

Why say (your second paragraph)?   Because that is the law.....BTW, federal exchanges ARE INSURANCE.  If you open a book, and compare the definition of religious health share ministries and exchanges and health insurance, they are the same thing, conceptually.

OMG - Spiritual healing IS ILLEGAL under the federal exchanges, as well as conventional health insurance.  You can have spiritual healing under RHSM, but RHSM also has to meet all the ACA criteria - why can't you understand that?  You can have ADDITIONAL choices - but you fail to grasp that there are guidelines that must be followed - THEY ARE LAW. 

Nothing is wrong with paying all of your costs - provided you can demonstrate you can come up with the money.   Most people cannot.  Can you afford to pay for a cancer surgery, with chemotherapy, along with two knee replacements, and similar for your husband? Why the hell do you think people have insurance to begin with?  Because *MOST PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY ALL OF THEIR MEDICAL BILLS.  *

Why must you ask (we are up to probably 15 times now) why establishment of a state religion isn't a choice/ok/legal?  It's the FIRST AMENDMENT that makes it illegal for *INSURANCE/FEDERAL EXCHANGE*.  Off topic.  Last time I answer you on this subject.[/QUOTE]

Dear Sneekin:
0. If you want to require insurance as a condition for YOU to pay for health care that's fine.
But not everyone agrees to that condition.
*Some people would rather have the freedom rather than save the costs you think are more important!*

Same with the freedom to choose spiritual healing that would also save costs.
Since clearly the govt cannot require that people go through spiritual healing, 
that's why I recommend a separate PRIVATE system if people believe in that!

1. RE: alternatives to pay for health care where insurance remains optional
*I have proposed to fellow Democrats to reform the prison and mental health systems,
converting these to medical programs and teaching hospitals 
that combine medical education and training of service providers
with internships in public health and social services, so that the same resources
we are already spending (running a FAILED system of prisons and mental health)
can ALREADY pay for preventative health care and general medical services
by running these EFFICIENTLY.**

_* [You are new to this idea of spiritual healing curing costly diseases,
but the resources I recommend for further medical R&D have 35-40 years
of working WITH medical science, not in opposition,
to save lives, health, and resources by diagnosing and curing the root cause of 
a wide range of ills, from cancer and diabetes to schizophrenia, drug abuse
and other addictions, including criminal illnesses, that otherwise fill our prisons 
and cost taxpayers billions per state]_

*For catastrophic, sure, there can be insurance and emergency funds for extreme cases.*

But if we focus on the RIGHT type of cost saving measures,
then we have plenty of resources to invest in developing 
campus facilities in EVERY DISTRICT that would ensure access
to clinics and hospitals.

Why not invest resources in creating the actual
FACILITIES and SERVICE PROVIDERS.

People can buy insurance by free choice, it doesn't have to be forced by law
unless you want to require it for whatever system you want to pay for.

2. In general I am not arguing with you where insurance can help cover costs.
I'm saying the federal govt cannot require people to buy it.*
If you want to pay costs yourself, that is your choice.
Just like people would rather pay for large houses on the water front,
where it costs more, especially when hurricanes hit and wipe out whole coastlines,
or cars that get less gas mileage per gallon.

* Now if YOU don't believe in paying for health care of others
without this condition of insurance, YES, I support you in demanding that condition!

So if we don't agree on terms, that's where I am saying
we should have choices of separate policies:
* people who agree that mandated insurance is required for your plan
sign up and fund that one, and agree to the same terms of membership
* people who only want to pay for everyone to go through spiritual healing
can be under that plan
* people who want free market and charity with NO conditions can pay for that plan
etc.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> A. Representatives represent me when these issues are resolved.
> They are not getting represented yet, sorry!
> Yes, I will go through govt to resolve them
> but I have to be able to EXPLAIN them first.
> 
> I posted the letter to Ted Cruz office outlining even 3 of the grievances
> that can be documented: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10952408/
> 
> This has been going on until I find the PEOPLE to REDRESS those grievances.
> [Of the people I've found who respect what it takes to represent me, most of
> them are OUTSIDE GOVT. We have to form teams to connect with people
> INSIDE govt to create the process that WILL represent these issues for resolution purposes!]
> 
> Not everyone can deal with this. And the ones who can are NOT ALL in govt positions!
> 
> Thanks for trying but it takes SPECIFIC people.
> And then I can form a team with Congresswoman Lee to resolve these issues.
> And if we can do it FT, we can use that same model for other issues
> that HAVEN'T BEEN RESOLVED using the given legal or govt system as is.
> 
> B. So in general
> NO the system of redressing grievances by assessing restitution owed
> and crediting the taxmoney back to taxpayers
> HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET
> 
> I am teaming up with Jon Roland of the Libertarians and Constitution Society in Austin
> and Ted Weisgal with the Diversity outreach of KPFT public radio
> to try to organize some kind of party representation that can redress grievances.
> 
> The PROCESS that WOULD represent me in protecting the right
> to petition to redress grievances by consensus and noncoercion
> as the standard HASN'T BEEN proposed, offered or applied yet.
> 
> Thank you for helping to sort out the preliminary prep part.
> 
> At some point I will reach out to all law schools especially
> anyone teaching Constitutional laws and ethics, to join the effort.
> 
> If it is really based on Consensus and Inclusion then everyone
> will be able to use it to resolve their issues locally or nationally,
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> *Emily,*
> I don't think you grasp how government works.  Your representatives  are elected,  then they represent you.  Even using your example - we need some way for people like you, who opt out of health insurance, to quit bankrupting the rest of us - we used a republican plan, the ACA, written by the Heritage think tank in the mid 90's.  Romney implemented it, Obama implemented it, after a majority of Congress *APPROVED* it.  You can't explain it, because I think you don't grasp the facts.  They represented you.  PP/ACA was implemented it, even though you don't like it.   Like it or not, you were represented.  Your next step is to contact your representatives, and see what can be done to shift the burden of paying for the lazy people (people who work who don't care that they rip the rest of us off).  One will assume under the Trump regime, it will be overturned, and the rest of us will push to make sure if you don't pay for insurance because you just don't want to, can now be denied no matter what your health issues are.  The majority of health care dollars are going against deadbeats who work and refuse to pay for coverage, and those that sign up for insurance weeks before a major surgery.
> 
> If you are banking on Cruz, that will be even a bigger joke.
> 
> While I can agree with you in part in concept only, the fact is, cheap people like you ruin it for the rest of us.   My birth mother died in her mid 30's from a lung disease.   It was in the early days of health insurance, but my father made sure insurance was paid before groceries were bought - which was good.  My mother had congestive heart failure, treatment for TB, a double masectomy, all before the age of 35.  She was being treated for TB, treated in a trial with a drug that was hailed as a cure - unfortunately, she was allergic to the (now commonplace) and went into Anaphylactic shock.  She ended up on oxygen, filling up with fluid, and died days later.   So......even then, costs were thousands of dollars.   Nowadays, costs would be probably half a million.   Insurance?  Would pay for it.  You refuse insurance?   You expect ME to pay for it?  That's NOT a viable solution, Emily.
> 
> Good luck grieving a law that's in full force and effect.  That's really funny,  since we grieve and arbitrate perceptions / conclusions that laws have been violated.  The ACA is LAW.  Good luck. We, the people don't get to grieve every dreamed up misconception we have.  There are checks and balances.  And if the ACA is overturned - do I get to now grieve and file suit against you or anyone else that now refuses to pay for insurance and then gets sick?  I'll be first in line if that was doable. After all, you said I should get to grieve and get redress - so maybe I should file now against you people that refuse to purchase insurance.   Live in a nice house?  I'll take it.  Nice car?  keep up the payments, I'll just drive off in your car.   After all, an xbox, car, house, video game is more important to you people than actual good health.  And if you have children, I would even claim child abuse, playing games while your child goes from a simple sneeze to hospitalization and respiratory infections.  I guess people shouldn't be allowed to have children unless they are able to care for their kids.  Not having insurance when you can afford it should be grounds for no marriage and no children - mandatory birth  control, perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> A. RE: changing laws that are in full force and effect
> * Slavery laws were also in full effect and enforced by courts, treating people as property.
> The cases that went through court found in favor of enforcing laws requiring that
> slaves be returned to their owners as property.
> * Segregation laws were also enforced to the point people went to jail over them.
> 
> So your argument based on laws being in full force
> doesn't mean that laws CAN'T change.
> 
> You are just concerned that I go through the process.
> I understand that.
> 
> B.
> _What I am trying to do BEFORE going through the FORMAL process
> is reach an agreement in advance, where we get the terms and conditions straight
> so we PROCEED in the SAME direction toward mutually agreed CORRECTIONS --
> NOT COMPETING "AT ODDS" WITH EACH OTHER WHICH WASTES ENERGY ON BOTH SIDES.
> (If you are going to push a car out of the ditch, you agree first to get behind the same side
> and push in the SAME direction, not face each other from opposites and push or you get nowhere!)
> 
> BEFORE people pushed to abolish slavery, or they fought against segregation laws,
> they reached AGREEMENT WITH EACH OTHER
> * that the laws needed to be challenged
> * what steps to take to push for change
> 
> We are still arguing if the laws are unconstitutional or not!
> So we haven't even gotten past ground zero!
> I'm not going to recommend to push ANY solution through Courts or Congress
> if people don't even agree what the solution is yet, that's a waste of time!!!
> if we AGREE in advance what we want to change ACA to,
> then we can work TOGETHER to go through the process of reforming it!!!
> _
> *C. The REASON this issue of constitutionality is important to resolve:
> 
> If we DON'T learn to RECOGNIZE and manage the differences in our beliefs
> "about what is constitutional or unconstitutional"
> we will KEEP overstepping the SAME BOUNDS
> and cause SIMILAR conflicts over and over.
> 
> The SAME biases that prevent us from AGREEING what is
> constitutional or not IN THIS CASE, are going to cause SIMILAR situations
> with the next law and the next, IF WE DON'T FIGURE OUT
> WHERE WE AREN'T RESPECTING EACH OTHER'S BOUNDS. *
> 
> D. As for the process of changing them, now the fastest way
> may be for Congress to repeal or revise ACA.
> 
> What I understand is up for consideration is giving people who depend on coverage under it
> a transition period such as 2 years to whatever is going to replace the ACA where it doesn't have mandates.
Click to expand...

*OFF TOPIC - IGNORED.*


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Emily Said:
> *
> Sneekin
> Insurance is not the only way to cover health care costs
> and clearly other ways are still needed.
> 
> So why *PENALIZE those other choices* and say insurance (or religious health share ministries or federal exchanges)
> are the ONLY way to avoid a fine?
> 
> You just said you didn't want spiritual healing involved as a choice.
> But if you are penalizing it because it's not one of the govt endorsed choices,
> you are EXCLUDING that choice. AND imposing insurance as the ONLY WAY???
> 
> Aren't you penalizing people for wanting other choices
> that are equally valid?
> 
> What's wrong with someone
> paying all their costs *with or without insurance*
> and building a charity hospital and medical program to help others with costs NOT COVERED by govt or insurance!
> 
> Why is THAT option FINED BY GOVT AS NOT A CHOICE.
> 
> _Just because it doesn't involve paying for insurance?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Sneekin Said:*_
> Really? Those other ways are what?   If you have no insurance, and you have cancer, heart attack, need major surgery, transplants, etc, explain how you think the average person will pay for these WITHOUT insurance.  The average income is between 40 and 48K.  A heart transplant will cost more than you will make in a year.
> 
> Why say (your second paragraph)?   Because that is the law.....BTW, federal exchanges ARE INSURANCE.  If you open a book, and compare the definition of religious health share ministries and exchanges and health insurance, they are the same thing, conceptually.
> 
> OMG - Spiritual healing IS ILLEGAL under the federal exchanges, as well as conventional health insurance.  You can have spiritual healing under RHSM, but RHSM also has to meet all the ACA criteria - why can't you understand that?  You can have ADDITIONAL choices - but you fail to grasp that there are guidelines that must be followed - THEY ARE LAW.
> 
> Nothing is wrong with paying all of your costs - provided you can demonstrate you can come up with the money.   Most people cannot.  Can you afford to pay for a cancer surgery, with chemotherapy, along with two knee replacements, and similar for your husband? Why the hell do you think people have insurance to begin with?  Because *MOST PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY ALL OF THEIR MEDICAL BILLS.  *
> 
> Why must you ask (we are up to probably 15 times now) why establishment of a state religion isn't a choice/ok/legal?  It's the FIRST AMENDMENT that makes it illegal for *INSURANCE/FEDERAL EXCHANGE*.  Off topic.  Last time I answer you on this subject.
Click to expand...


Dear Sneekin:
0. If you want to require insurance as a condition for YOU to pay for health care that's fine.
But not everyone agrees to that condition.
*Some people would rather have the freedom rather than save the costs you think are more important!*

Same with the freedom to choose spiritual healing that would also save costs.
Since clearly the govt cannot require that people go through spiritual healing,
that's why I recommend a separate PRIVATE system if people believe in that!

1. RE: alternatives to pay for health care where insurance remains optional
*I have proposed to fellow Democrats to reform the prison and mental health systems,
converting these to medical programs and teaching hospitals 
that combine medical education and training of service providers
with internships in public health and social services, so that the same resources
we are already spending (running a FAILED system of prisons and mental health)
can ALREADY pay for preventative health care and general medical services
by running these EFFICIENTLY.**

_* [You are new to this idea of spiritual healing curing costly diseases,
but the resources I recommend for further medical R&D have 35-40 years
of working WITH medical science, not in opposition,
to save lives, health, and resources by diagnosing and curing the root cause of 
a wide range of ills, from cancer and diabetes to schizophrenia, drug abuse
and other addictions, including criminal illnesses, that otherwise fill our prisons 
and cost taxpayers billions per state]_

*For catastrophic, sure, there can be insurance and emergency funds for extreme cases.*

But if we focus on the RIGHT type of cost saving measures,
then we have plenty of resources to invest in developing
campus facilities in EVERY DISTRICT that would ensure access
to clinics and hospitals.

Why not invest resources in creating the actual
FACILITIES and SERVICE PROVIDERS.

People can buy insurance by free choice, it doesn't have to be forced by law
unless you want to require it for whatever system you want to pay for.

2. In general I am not arguing with you where insurance can help cover costs.
I'm saying the federal govt cannot require people to buy it.*
If you want to pay costs yourself, that is your choice.
Just like people would rather pay for large houses on the water front,
where it costs more, especially when hurricanes hit and wipe out whole coastlines,
or cars that get less gas mileage per gallon.

* Now if YOU don't believe in paying for health care of others
without this condition of insurance, YES, I support you in demanding that condition!

So if we don't agree on terms, that's where I am saying
we should have choices of separate policies:
* people who agree that mandated insurance is required for your plan
sign up and fund that one, and agree to the same terms of membership
* people who only want to pay for everyone to go through spiritual healing
can be under that plan
* people who want free market and charity with NO conditions can pay for that plan
etc.[/QUOTE]
*OFF TOPIC - IGNORED.*


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

IndependantAce said:


> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.



yes but overturned because the Constitution did not contemplate gay marriage any more than it contemplated triad marriage or human/animal marriage.


----------



## Sneekin

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes but overturned because the Constitution did not contemplate gay marriage any more than it contemplated triad marriage or human/animal marriage.
Click to expand...

So, EdwardBaiamonte and Independant Ace, one has to assume this "Amendment" will, in the name of equal protection and due process, also overturn interracial marriage, and heterosexual marriage?  Oh yes, also Christian Marriage as well, right?  Do you boys know the amount of time it would take to put an amendment through?   We will more than likely be on a new president.  We've only passed 27 amendments since inception (the first 10 became the bill of rights (articles 3-12).    Based on the WHY we had the Obergefell decision (rather than hearing every state separately, it impacted the remaining few in a single decision.   Please explain how you think states will be able to ban SSM, etc, as we all know what happened in Loving v Virginia - states cannot legislate discrimination into their constitutions.   Obergefell and Windsor rulings impacted the states, they all must recognize SSM performed by other states.    The citizens of those states from 2015 on forward (or prior, depending on state) can file federal tax returns as valid married couple.   I'm curious how you think a state could author an amendment that wouldn't be overturned at the State or Federal Level.   Marriage can't be solely based at state level - there are 1138 rights granted, mostly at the federal level.   

While Trump wants to drain the swamp - I guess having our congressmen try and author an amendment such as this would be a good way - considering close to 2/3 of the voters in the US are proponents of SSM.


----------



## Sneekin

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes but overturned because the Constitution did not contemplate gay marriage any more than it contemplated triad marriage or human/animal marriage.
Click to expand...

Ace, you want to invalidate an entire group of people from being married because they can't reproduce?  Are you going to fund the fertility tests that you must be advocating?  You claim that no woman over 50-55 can get married, men that have had the snip or prostate cancer (which people in their 20's have gotten) will no longer get married either, heterosexuals included?  You do realize that what you propose is unconstitutional. Read the last 1666 posts if you fail to grasp what I told you.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Sneekin said:


> this "Amendment" will, in the name of equal protection and due process, also overturn interracial marriage, and heterosexual marriage? .


overturn?? no, just admit it is not a mentioned or alluded to in Constitution. Do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Sneekin said:


> Ace, you want to invalidate an entire group of people from being married because they can't reproduce?  .


 a liberal always lacks the IQ to understand. Not invalidate!!!! just have SCOTUS
recognize Constitution does not address marriage between gays, triads, siblings. Now do you understand?


----------



## peabody

IndependantAce said:


> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.


Ain't gonna happen. Liberals already won the battle over social issues, even after Trumps scotus pick is installed. The only thing that conservatives can change is that that relates to foreign policy and economics


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

peabody said:


> . Liberals already won the battle over social issues,



Which is why we have 75% of black kids growing up in broken or never formed homes. Trump might appoint 2-4, perhaps enough to reintroduce civilized social values to America again.


----------



## peabody

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> . Liberals already won the battle over social issues,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why we have 75% of black kids growing up in broken or never formed homes. Trump might appoint 2-4, perhaps enough to reintroduce civilized social values to America again.
Click to expand...

Ain't gonna happen because millennials and the  younger generation are not conservative and they are the future. Trump is the dying cry of an aging generation of conservatives. The future of America is liberal all the way.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

peabody said:


> Ain't gonna happen because millennials and the  younger generation are not conservative and they are the future..


just like they said Trump could never be elected????? and it turned out Hilary had it backwards!


----------



## peabody

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ain't gonna happen because millennials and the  younger generation are not conservative and they are the future..
> 
> 
> 
> just like they said Trump could never be elected????? and it turned out Hilary had it backwards!
Click to expand...

Trump is the dying cry of an aging generation of conservatives. The future of America is liberal all the way.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

peabody said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ain't gonna happen because millennials and the  younger generation are not conservative and they are the future..
> 
> 
> 
> just like they said Trump could never be elected????? and it turned out Hilary had it backwards!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump is the dying cry of an aging generation of conservatives. The future of America is liberal all the way.
Click to expand...


and somehow he's president and stock market is already  breaking records after Barry had worst record since depression! At this point you'd predict midterms will increase Republican majority even more in all branches of Federal and State govt. Just keep parroting what the liberal media told you: Trump cant win!!!


----------



## Syriusly

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ain't gonna happen because millennials and the  younger generation are not conservative and they are the future..
> 
> 
> 
> just like they said Trump could never be elected????? and it turned out Hilary had it backwards!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump is the dying cry of an aging generation of conservatives. The future of America is liberal all the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and somehow he's president and stock market is already  breaking records after Barry had worst record since depression!
Click to expand...


Hmmm the stock market under President Obama

I do hope that the stock market does as well under President Trump as it has under President Obama, because I have made lots of money in the last 8 years. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/y...the-best-of-times-to-be-a-stock-investor.html
Consider that had you been prescient enough to buy shares of a low-cost stock index fund on Mr. Obama’s first inauguration day, on Jan. 20, 2009, you would now have tripled your money. Stock market performance of this level has rarely been surpassed.


----------



## Sneekin

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes but overturned because the Constitution did not contemplate gay marriage any more than it contemplated triad marriage or human/animal marriage.
Click to expand...

Poor Edward - not too bright, are you.

The Constitution must not have contemplated heterosexual marriage either, as it's not mentioned. Nor is divorce. You see, dear boy, we are a secular country.

That's your first problem.  Your second is that you didn't bother reading the constitution, but instead, you blindly accepted the ramblings of some religious nut job that doesn't have a clue what the original text stated.  You are aware that the word Homosexual wasn't in the Bible (Christian, non-Catholic version, known as the one TRUE Bible) until mid last century.

If 2/3 of Americans approve of SSM, how do you think you are going to pass an amendment which would allow it to take place?  You still will have laws in place recognizing SSM marriage, for the 1138 benefits.  So "splain" yourself.   If you marry your SSM partner in Missouri, and move to Oklahoma, do you really think that Oklahoma doesn't have to recognize it?  All you are doing is moving the location of the ceremony - except, dear boy, there is that SCOTUS ruling that says STATE AMENDMENTS BANNING SSM ARE ILLEGAL!

Oh yes, your comments regarding the Stock Market are wrong - not to mention, foolish boy, Obama is still President, not Trump. Syriusly summed it up perfectly - how's your stock portfolio doing?  You might want to start diversifying now.....

Looking forward to what you think can be done.....I need a laugh.


----------



## Sneekin

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes but overturned because the Constitution did not contemplate gay marriage any more than it contemplated triad marriage or human/animal marriage.
Click to expand...

Ed:

First of all, there is no such thing as triad marriage.  Perhaps you refer to plural marriages, which is a requirement for statehood?  Sorry, no need to have it in the constitution.  No need for human/animal, either,.  While you may not be as smart as a goat or cow or your animal of choice, even you should know basic contract law.   Animals, like children, cannot give consent.  What country did you say you are from?  Everything you ramble on about was discounted during the time you were in primary school.


----------



## Sneekin

peabody said:


> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Ain't gonna happen. Liberals already won the battle over social issues, even after Trumps scotus pick is installed. The only thing that conservatives can change is that that relates to foreign policy and economics
Click to expand...

Not a liberal or conservative issue.  2/3 of the country advocate SSM.   More than 70 percent of Democrats, and over 55 percent of Republicans.   Nice try, though.   

My mother died when I was 6.  My stepmother raised our family. She was unable to have children, so according to him, they shouldn't be able to  get married because she can't procreate - unlike SSM couples, who can use donor sperm or surrogates. He's even misinterpreting the 14th amendment when it comes to separate but equal, as well.  It doesn't just apply to race - it applies to sex, age, national origin, religion, skin color as well.   And EEOC's last ruling stated that discrimination based on sexual preference was the same as discrimination based on sex - where a man or a woman doesn't match the preconceived notions of male/female.


----------



## Sneekin

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ain't gonna happen because millennials and the  younger generation are not conservative and they are the future..
> 
> 
> 
> just like they said Trump could never be elected????? and it turned out Hilary had it backwards!
Click to expand...

You mean that he one the electoral college vote....only he hasn't yet.   They don't meet for a week or so.  Hillary won the popular vote by 2.5 Million votes.   No one said Trump is going to stay president - I look for him to be out sooner than later.  Although he's much better than Pence would ever be.


----------



## peabody

Sneekin said:


> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Ain't gonna happen. Liberals already won the battle over social issues, even after Trumps scotus pick is installed. The only thing that conservatives can change is that that relates to foreign policy and economics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a liberal or conservative issue.  2/3 of the country advocate SSM.   More than 70 percent of Democrats, and over 55 percent of Republicans.   Nice try, though.
> 
> My mother died when I was 6.  My stepmother raised our family. She was unable to have children, so according to him, they shouldn't be able to  get married because she can't procreate - unlike SSM couples, who can use donor sperm or surrogates. He's even misinterpreting the 14th amendment when it comes to separate but equal, as well.  It doesn't just apply to race - it applies to sex, age, national origin, religion, skin color as well.   And EEOC's last ruling stated that discrimination based on sexual preference was the same as discrimination based on sex - where a man or a woman doesn't match the preconceived notions of male/female.
Click to expand...

Please don't make shit up.

Over 60 percent of Republicans oppose court on gay marriage: Reuters/Ipsos poll

The Pew Research Center survey, conducted May 12-18 among 2,002 adults, finds that partisans are as divided on this issue as ever: Today, *65%* of Democrats and an identical percentage of independents favor gay marriage; only about one third (34%) of Republicans do so.


----------



## Sneekin

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> . Liberals already won the battle over social issues,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why we have 75% of black kids growing up in broken or never formed homes. Trump might appoint 2-4, perhaps enough to reintroduce civilized social values to America again.
Click to expand...

Except that's another lie, Edward.

US CENSUS states:
1)  23.6% of US children (17.4 million) lived in father absent homes in 2014.
2)  Using actual numbers, Whites have the most number of single family households, followed by black, then Hispanic, then Asian.
3)  There are less Whites in America than the combined number of minorities, starting within the last few years.
4)  There's this group of judges in Washington DC, called the SCOTUS.  For Trump to appoint someone, there has to be a vacancy.  Obama can do an end run and wait for Congress to go on break and appoint Scalia's replacement, otherwise, Trump can only NOMINATE (not appoint) 2-4.  Congress has to approve the judges.  After midterm elections, chances are Dems will take back congress, and further skew your statements.
5)  The SCOTUS rules by point of law, NOT by religious fiat (hint:  fiat = A sanction; decree. A legally binding command or decision).  This is why Trump is saying Obergefell won't be overturned.  It was just ruled on in 2015, and even if they replaced the entire court, they wouldn't overturn that decision.  
6)  What you claim to be civilized social values never existed.  There were always single parent homes.  There were always the poor, and there were always people like you that looked down their noses at them.   Yet many of them went on to be great people (just like nowadays), and make 10 times the money you make - and would be more than happy now to ship YOUR job out of country or done by robots. 
7.  SS families have existed back in that golden era you claim was civilized social values.  I grew up with a neighbor and her "maiden cousin" (lesbian girlfriend) raised her children (1 is a CEO, 1 is a doctor, all are doing better than you ever will); as are the grandchildren and great grandchildren.  They have civilized social values that actually are civilized and social and don't monger fear or hatred.


----------



## Sneekin

peabody said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Ain't gonna happen. Liberals already won the battle over social issues, even after Trumps scotus pick is installed. The only thing that conservatives can change is that that relates to foreign policy and economics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a liberal or conservative issue.  2/3 of the country advocate SSM.   More than 70 percent of Democrats, and over 55 percent of Republicans.   Nice try, though.
> 
> My mother died when I was 6.  My stepmother raised our family. She was unable to have children, so according to him, they shouldn't be able to  get married because she can't procreate - unlike SSM couples, who can use donor sperm or surrogates. He's even misinterpreting the 14th amendment when it comes to separate but equal, as well.  It doesn't just apply to race - it applies to sex, age, national origin, religion, skin color as well.   And EEOC's last ruling stated that discrimination based on sexual preference was the same as discrimination based on sex - where a man or a woman doesn't match the preconceived notions of male/female.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please don't make shit up.
> 
> Over 60 percent of Republicans oppose court on gay marriage: Reuters/Ipsos poll
> 
> The Pew Research Center survey, conducted May 12-18 among 2,002 adults, finds that partisans are as divided on this issue as ever: Today, *65%* of Democrats and an identical percentage of independents favor gay marriage; only about one third (34%) of Republicans do so.
Click to expand...

I'm not. PRC is a conservative think tank.  2002 is a low number.  I've yet to see any poll showing republicans at 34 percent.  What were the questions.   I'm not making things up, you are taking a single poll out of context.  Look at the NYT, WSJ, CNN, and on and on.   Still makes no difference, my mathematically  challenged friend, because when you use real numbers using the real question, it shows that MORE advocate SSM than are against it.   So what is your point?   Gallup, back in 2013, when only 26 percent of republicans approved, showed a combined percentage of 53 percent.   In 3 years time, the number of Democrats when up from 69 pecent to 75 percent, and Republicans wen from 26 percent to 35 percent.  Your generation is dying off.  Millenials are coming up, where the numbers pro SSM marriage in 2013 were at 79 percent - and that number is in the mid 80 percentile now..... so you need to stop making "sh*t" up, and look at more than a single poll - which, we all know, is the rightmost leaning poll available.  Hey - did you know that they also wrote the draft for the Affordable Care Act, or did you forget that as well?


----------



## peabody

Sneekin said:


> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Ain't gonna happen. Liberals already won the battle over social issues, even after Trumps scotus pick is installed. The only thing that conservatives can change is that that relates to foreign policy and economics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a liberal or conservative issue.  2/3 of the country advocate SSM.   More than 70 percent of Democrats, and over 55 percent of Republicans.   Nice try, though.
> 
> My mother died when I was 6.  My stepmother raised our family. She was unable to have children, so according to him, they shouldn't be able to  get married because she can't procreate - unlike SSM couples, who can use donor sperm or surrogates. He's even misinterpreting the 14th amendment when it comes to separate but equal, as well.  It doesn't just apply to race - it applies to sex, age, national origin, religion, skin color as well.   And EEOC's last ruling stated that discrimination based on sexual preference was the same as discrimination based on sex - where a man or a woman doesn't match the preconceived notions of male/female.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please don't make shit up.
> 
> Over 60 percent of Republicans oppose court on gay marriage: Reuters/Ipsos poll
> 
> The Pew Research Center survey, conducted May 12-18 among 2,002 adults, finds that partisans are as divided on this issue as ever: Today, *65%* of Democrats and an identical percentage of independents favor gay marriage; only about one third (34%) of Republicans do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not. PRC is a conservative think tank.  2002 is a low number.  I've yet to see any poll showing republicans at 34 percent.  What were the questions.   I'm not making things up, you are taking a single poll out of context.  Look at the NYT, WSJ, CNN, and on and on.   Still makes no difference, my mathematically  challenged friend, because when you use real numbers using the real question, it shows that MORE advocate SSM than are against it.   So what is your point?   Gallup, back in 2013, when only 26 percent of republicans approved, showed a combined percentage of 53 percent.   In 3 years time, the number of Democrats when up from 69 pecent to 75 percent, and Republicans wen from 26 percent to 35 percent.  Your generation is dying off.  Millenials are coming up, where the numbers pro SSM marriage in 2013 were at 79 percent - and that number is in the mid 80 percentile now..... so you need to stop making "sh*t" up, and look at more than a single poll - which, we all know, is the rightmost leaning poll available.  Hey - did you know that they also wrote the draft for the Affordable Care Act, or did you forget that as well?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. I was wrong and I would like to take the time out now to apologize for my misinformed post.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun RE: conservative concept
> 1. are you talking about the policy credited to Reagan for opening up all hospitals to treat all people?
> a. if you don't agree to the terms of taxpayers paying for that
> and want to change them, why change it to something others don't agree with either?
> b. why not go after prison budgets, convert those to  medical treatment, research and education programs, and pay for medical education and training at the same time as offering public health services to both inmates and the general public for the same costs we are already paying?
> c. why change it to insurance if not all people agree to that and insurance doesn't cover the need for training service providers, building facilities, researching or treating the CAUSE of disease
> 
> 2. if you are talking about insurance mandates being a conservative idea
> that was already debunked
> a. it did not cover daily and routine health care, only CATASTROPHIC
> b. it still respected STATES rights and did not ever get support to pass on a NATIONAL level
> So changing it to mean FEDERAL regulation of ALL health care violates
> Conservative principles on 2-3 counts: states rights, civil liberties, and religious freedom since govt cannot regulate the healing work that faith based programs do which only works in private as a free choice and can't be mandated
> 
> c. that's why I'm saying to separate two tracks or else agree to let spiritual healing be incorporated into public programs.
> 
> If you insist on keeping spiritual faith based programs out of govt,
> then people cannot be penalized and forced under federal regulations at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as your question... no, I don't like the mandate. But then, it's a conservative concept that has always sounded stupid to me and I'm in favor of a national healthcare system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Emily - STOP RAMBLING ON ABOUT A LAW THAT'S BEEN IN EFFECT FOR 30 YEARS. *
> a.  No one cares what you think about it.  If you want it changed, stop posting here and hit the pavement and get the signatures - convince your federal senators and congressmen - have them convince the republicans (some of which passed the Reagan bill 30 years ago, more than likely) that it's a bad thing.  IT'S THE LAW.  APPARENTLY ONE YOU DIDN'T BOTHER TO READ, EITHER.   If they receive any federal dollars (ie, Medicare/Medicaid and others), they lose their tax-exempt status.  All they have to do is give up that status.
> b. Why?  Because of the money YOUR STATE GETS from contracting out prison services.  It's called kickbacks.  You are also talking of violating the civil rights of the prisoners - you can't require them to participate in RDTE.  Why not go with a single payer system, instead?  One that gets everyone treated the same?  Novel concept.
> c.   Because it's NOT YOUR CHOICE.   Not everyone is going to like ANY method that's chosen.
> 
> 2.
> a. Emily, you are completely FULL OF S**T.   The Heritage Foundation WROTE the ACA, in the 90's.  Heritage is a CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK.  It was written, because they wanted a plan in place in case Hillary's proposed health care plan as first lady was introduced.  Tell me, who debunked this?  Certainly not Heritage.   Certainly not Romney, who implemented it in his home state.   Claiming it was debunked demonstrates that you are either ignorant (failed to read up and try to debunk), or stupid - meaning unwilling to listen to others and refusing to believe facts.   Which is it.
> b.  Did you check with Mitt Romney, where it didn't cover daily/routine health care?  It most certainly does. Romney was first to implement it, and he could ONLY IMPLEMENT at a STATE LEVEL, as HE WAS GOVERNOR.   Obama could implement it based on the recommendations of Congress - and it was modified to be across the board at the FEDERAL LEVEL.    Another of your lies is that government can't regulate healing work of faith based programs (your snake handling, etc).  There are SPECIFIC GUIDELINES that must be met - that don't violate the constitution.
> 
> I know you can't grasp the concept, but the RFRA doesn't overrule law.  The cake/photo/etc lawsuits repeatedly prove you wrong.
> 
> c.  You cannot separate into two tracks, you were told by 5 different people why now.  We aren't telling you again.
> 
> You babbled:  "If you insist on keeping spiritual faith based programs out of govt, then people cannot be penalized and forced under federal regulations at the same time."
> 
> We've told you repeatedly that it violates the first amendment.  It's already been to the SCOTUS, and people most  certainly can be penalized and forced under federal regulations.  Your inability to understand, or your refusal (more than likely) is not our problem.   Break the law, go to jail, at this point I am through arguing you about this off topic subject, where you continually babble about things you know nothing about.
Click to expand...


Hi Sneekin sorry I got behind reading, thanking and responding to all your messages
which I don't want you to think are going underappreciated!
I will struggle to catch up with you, but think this is GREAT and well worth the effort on both our part.
THANK YOU and I will go back and give you all the credit, thanks, info's etc you deserve for spelling all this out
so we can work this out in detail comprehensively.

Can I start with this one point about Heritage Foundation
[and secondary point about RFRA vs Constitutional religious freedom in general]


			
				Sneekin said:
			
		

> 2.
> a. Emily, you are completely FULL OF S**T. The Heritage Foundation WROTE the ACA, in the 90's. Heritage is a CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK. It was written, because they wanted a plan in place in case Hillary's proposed health care plan as first lady was introduced. Tell me, who debunked this? Certainly not Heritage. Certainly not Romney, who implemented it in his home state. Claiming it was debunked demonstrates that you are either ignorant (failed to read up and try to debunk), or stupid - meaning unwilling to listen to others and refusing to believe facts. Which is it.
> b. Did you check with Mitt Romney, where it didn't cover daily/routine health care? It most certainly does. Romney was first to implement it, and he could ONLY IMPLEMENT at a STATE LEVEL, as HE WAS GOVERNOR. Obama could implement it based on the recommendations of Congress - and it was modified to be across the board at the FEDERAL LEVEL. Another of your lies is that government can't regulate healing work of faith based programs (your snake handling, etc). There are SPECIFIC GUIDELINES that must be met - that don't violate the constitution.
> 
> I know you can't grasp the concept, but the RFRA doesn't overrule law. The cake/photo/etc lawsuits repeatedly prove you wrong.



A. No, this Heritage Argument was debunked
1. the insurance was for CATASTROPHIC ONLY
*IT WAS NEVER INTENDED FOR FED GOVT TO MICROMANAGE ALL HEALTH CARE COMPREHENSIVELY
WHICH VIOLATES THE BELIEFS OF CONSERVATIVES IN LIMITED GOVT!!*

We both know Conservatives are OPPOSED to federal govt interfering with personal finances and health care.
They have CONSISTENTLY screamed against anything risking the path of SOCIALISM and still prefer to change to PRIVATE.
That's been their stance opposing ANY govt welfare, health care, benefits etc.

2. Yo, earth to Sneekin, law professor:
*PASSING LAWS ON A STATE LEVEL IS DIFFERENT FROM FEDERAL.*
PEOPLE WHO ARGUE FOR STATES RIGHTS DISTINGUISH THIS ALL THE TIME FROM FEDERAL.
EX: They argue Marriage laws belong to States not to Federal govt!

Surely as a law professor, you know there is a HUGE different in jurisdiction
and decisions/representation between State laws and Federal laws.

3. And NO CONSERVATIVE in Congress had PASSED that mandate
BECAUSE IT VIOLATES CONSERVATIVE AND CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES!

It only passed when DEMOCRATS in Congress voted for it.

It FAILED when Conservatives vote for it because it goes against Constitutional beliefs that CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE IN
ie in limited federal govt that has NO authority to DEPRIVE citizens of liberty
(for health care benefits or other social programs that don't justify a compelling interest
because of conservative beliefs that private sector and free market can meet those demands better than govt).

At most the CONSERVATIVES would argue that a Constitutional Amendment
would need to be passed by the given process if federal govt and Constitution
is to be EXPANDED to include
* right to marriage
* right to health care

So NO Sneekin, conservatives do not support or endorse ANY
of what you are ascribing to them because it violates their own beliefs.

You would have better luck arguing that Democrats passed laws
violated their own prochoice principles (of not letting govt interfere with personal choices
but penalizing them), rather than saying Republicans passed or approved ANY SUCH
LAWS that violate their Constitutional beliefs in keeping social and health benefits apart from federal govt!

Thanks Sneekin

I wish it were that simple, but Conservatives have consistently
rejected growing more federal programs that make people more and more
dependent and lose their ability to check govt because of these conflicting interests
where govt starts controlling people instead of people having all the leverage.


----------



## emilynghiem

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.
> a. Emily, you are completely FULL OF S**T.   The Heritage Foundation WROTE the ACA, in the 90's.  Heritage is a CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK.  It was written, because they wanted a plan in place in case Hillary's proposed health care plan as first lady was introduced.  Tell me, who debunked this?  Certainly not Heritage.   Certainly not Romney, who implemented it in his home state.   Claiming it was debunked demonstrates that you are either ignorant (failed to read up and try to debunk), or stupid - meaning unwilling to listen to others and refusing to believe facts.   Which is it.
> b.  Did you check with Mitt Romney, where it didn't cover daily/routine health care?  It most certainly does. Romney was first to implement it, and he could ONLY IMPLEMENT at a STATE LEVEL, as HE WAS GOVERNOR.   Obama could implement it based on the recommendations of Congress - and it was modified to be across the board at the FEDERAL LEVEL.    Another of your lies is that government can't regulate healing work of faith based programs (your snake handling, etc).  There are SPECIFIC GUIDELINES that must be met - that don't violate the constitution.
> 
> I know you can't grasp the concept, but the RFRA doesn't overrule law.  The cake/photo/etc lawsuits repeatedly prove you wrong.
> 
> c.  You cannot separate into two tracks, you were told by 5 different people why now.  We aren't telling you again.
> 
> You babbled:  "If you insist on keeping spiritual faith based programs out of govt, then people cannot be penalized and forced under federal regulations at the same time."
> 
> We've told you repeatedly that it violates the first amendment.  It's already been to the SCOTUS, and people most  certainly can be penalized and forced under federal regulations.  Your inability to understand, or your refusal (more than likely) is not our problem.   Break the law, go to jail, at this point I am through arguing you about this off topic subject, where you continually babble about things you know nothing about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Sneekin sorry I got behind reading, thanking and responding to all your messages
> which I don't want you to think are going underappreciated!
> I will struggle to catch up with you, but think this is GREAT and well worth the effort on both our part.
> THANK YOU and I will go back and give you all the credit, thanks, info's etc you deserve for spelling all this out
> so we can work this out in detail comprehensively.
> 
> Can I start with this one point about Heritage Foundation
> [and secondary point about RFRA vs Constitutional religious freedom in general]
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.
> a. Emily, you are completely FULL OF S**T. The Heritage Foundation WROTE the ACA, in the 90's. Heritage is a CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK. It was written, because they wanted a plan in place in case Hillary's proposed health care plan as first lady was introduced. Tell me, who debunked this? Certainly not Heritage. Certainly not Romney, who implemented it in his home state. Claiming it was debunked demonstrates that you are either ignorant (failed to read up and try to debunk), or stupid - meaning unwilling to listen to others and refusing to believe facts. Which is it.
> b. Did you check with Mitt Romney, where it didn't cover daily/routine health care? It most certainly does. Romney was first to implement it, and he could ONLY IMPLEMENT at a STATE LEVEL, as HE WAS GOVERNOR. Obama could implement it based on the recommendations of Congress - and it was modified to be across the board at the FEDERAL LEVEL. Another of your lies is that government can't regulate healing work of faith based programs (your snake handling, etc). There are SPECIFIC GUIDELINES that must be met - that don't violate the constitution.
> 
> I know you can't grasp the concept, but the RFRA doesn't overrule law. The cake/photo/etc lawsuits repeatedly prove you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A. No, this Heritage Argument was debunked
> 1. the insurance was for CATASTROPHIC ONLY
> *IT WAS NEVER INTENDED FOR FED GOVT TO MICROMANAGE ALL HEALTH CARE COMPREHENSIVELY
> WHICH VIOLATES THE BELIEFS OF CONSERVATIVES IN LIMITED GOVT!!*
> 
> We both know Conservatives are OPPOSED to federal govt interfering with personal finances and health care.
> They have CONSISTENTLY screamed against anything risking the path of SOCIALISM and still prefer to change to PRIVATE.
> That's been their stance opposing ANY govt welfare, health care, benefits etc.
> 
> 2. Yo, earth to Sneekin, law professor:
> *PASSING LAWS ON A STATE LEVEL IS DIFFERENT FROM FEDERAL.*
> PEOPLE WHO ARGUE FOR STATES RIGHTS DISTINGUISH THIS ALL THE TIME FROM FEDERAL.
> EX: They argue Marriage laws belong to States not to Federal govt!
> 
> Surely as a law professor, you know there is a HUGE different in jurisdiction
> and decisions/representation between State laws and Federal laws.
> 
> 3. And NO CONSERVATIVE in Congress had PASSED that mandate
> BECAUSE IT VIOLATES CONSERVATIVE AND CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES!
> 
> It only passed when DEMOCRATS in Congress voted for it.
> 
> It FAILED when Conservatives vote for it because it goes against Constitutional beliefs that CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE IN
> ie in limited federal govt that has NO authority to DEPRIVE citizens of liberty
> (for health care benefits or other social programs that don't justify a compelling interest
> because of conservative beliefs that private sector and free market can meet those demands better than govt).
> 
> At most the CONSERVATIVES would argue that a Constitutional Amendment
> would need to be passed by the given process if federal govt and Constitution
> is to be EXPANDED to include
> * right to marriage
> * right to health care
> 
> So NO Sneekin, conservatives do not support or endorse ANY
> of what you are ascribing to them because it violates their own beliefs.
> 
> You would have better luck arguing that Democrats passed laws
> violated their own prochoice principles (of not letting govt interfere with personal choices
> but penalizing them), rather than saying Republicans passed or approved ANY SUCH
> LAWS that violate their Constitutional beliefs in keeping social and health benefits apart from federal govt!
> 
> Thanks Sneekin
> 
> I wish it were that simple, but Conservatives have consistently
> rejected growing more federal programs that make people more and more
> dependent and lose their ability to check govt because of these conflicting interests
> where govt starts controlling people instead of people having all the leverage.
Click to expand...


P.S. here's the best explanation I found online as to why Conservatives
supported something DIFFERENT and not the federal mandate in ACA that overreached too far
where they argued it was unconstitutional:
No, Obamacare Wasn't a "Republican" Proposal

Someone else disagrees and argues more like you as posted on Reddit:
"I read this article the other day, and while it does highlight significant differences between the original Heritage Foundation proposal and the PPACA, the individual mandate (i.e. the subject of your post) was definitely in the Heritage proposal.

The argument for the similarity between the two plans depends on their one shared attribute: both contained a "mandate" requiring people to carry insurance coverage.
That said, the article also goes on to say the individual mandate idea has been around for much longer

Several other countries (including Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Germany) have compulsory insurance requirements without single-payer or socialized systems."

A. Just because people propose it doesn't mean they approve it as constitutional.
which is why it always got shot down before, it contradicts itself.
The conservatives who believe in prolife also get shot down by other conservatives
who argue for Constitutional religious freedom and limited govt not allowed to interfere and regulate private choices.
DOMA was pushed by conservatives, but shot down because it is unconstitutional.
Targeting Muslims is pushed by conservatives, but shot down because it is unconstitutional.

So what matters is what is found to be unconstitutional, regardless if it is proposed by conservatives.
That doesn't justify pushing it on them, especially where others disagree and argue it is unconstitutional.

B. just because people consent to ONE thing doesn't justify imposing another.
I would compare your argument to marriage, that if a couple agrees to sexual relations,
that doesn't give the right of either one to rape or force the other into sex!

So just because one partner proposes marriage first, does NOT give the
other partner the right to VIOLATE THEIR CONSENT and "claim they consented when they
proposed or agreed to marriage"!

Sneekin
so for the secondary point
NO it's not RFRA that makes it right or wrong, because that would be unnecessary anyway if people enforced the First Amendment/religious freedom and 14th Amendment consistently to begin with.

What causes THESE type of laws to be rejected is the fact they impose
on people's beliefs in the first place.

This violates natural laws on human free will and desire for self-determination
expressed as "consent of the governed" or "no taxation without representation."
If people find they are not equally represented, they will fight to change or remove the bias causing that problem.

This is human nature and the cycle of democratic process, to object petition and reform
laws through the given system.

So that process is REFLECTED in the First Amendment, and other
Constitutional principles on due process and equal protection of the laws.

And then in addition to that, people passed RFRA and Civil rights laws
to try to further define and delineate areas they wanted to protect from infringements
and discrimination more specifically.

We would not need these additional laws if people respected
equal religious freedom for everyone equally to begin with!

RFRA would not even be necessary.
What matters is if PEOPLE AGREE to respect each other's equal freedom and beliefs!

If so, we would naturally fulfill and enforce the principles in the
First and Fourteenth  Amendments directly by our actions.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> * Now if YOU don't believe in paying for health care of others
> without this condition of insurance, YES, I support you in demanding that condition!
> 
> So if we don't agree on terms, that's where I am saying
> we should have choices of separate policies:
> * people who agree that mandated insurance is required for your plan
> sign up and fund that one, and agree to the same terms of membership
> * people who only want to pay for everyone to go through spiritual healing
> can be under that plan
> * people who want free market and charity with NO conditions can pay for that plan
> etc.


*OFF TOPIC - IGNORED.*[/QUOTE]

^ ????
Dear Sneekin
how is this off topic when it is the KEY to differences causes biases?
If people BELIEVE in free market and PRIVATE SECTOR choices and 
DON'T BELIEVE federal govt has the authority to deprive
citizens of liberty without due process OR PENALIZE FOR THESE BELIEFS, 
then that's the key to resolving why people don't agree to 
* ACA mandates
* to TERMS of marriage laws and health care/social programs and policies

Do you want to address this in a separate thread?
The underlying CORE difference in thinking
between people who believe in going through govt for these things
and people who do not?

The same conflict is going to arise OVER and OVER
as the fundamental core difference in beliefs.
So we might as well address this head on!
is that a separate topic?


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun RE: conservative concept
> 1. are you talking about the policy credited to Reagan for opening up all hospitals to treat all people?
> a. if you don't agree to the terms of taxpayers paying for that
> and want to change them, why change it to something others don't agree with either?
> b. why not go after prison budgets, convert those to  medical treatment, research and education programs, and pay for medical education and training at the same time as offering public health services to both inmates and the general public for the same costs we are already paying?
> c. why change it to insurance if not all people agree to that and insurance doesn't cover the need for training service providers, building facilities, researching or treating the CAUSE of disease
> 
> 2. if you are talking about insurance mandates being a conservative idea
> that was already debunked
> a. it did not cover daily and routine health care, only CATASTROPHIC
> b. it still respected STATES rights and did not ever get support to pass on a NATIONAL level
> So changing it to mean FEDERAL regulation of ALL health care violates
> Conservative principles on 2-3 counts: states rights, civil liberties, and religious freedom since govt cannot regulate the healing work that faith based programs do which only works in private as a free choice and can't be mandated
> 
> c. that's why I'm saying to separate two tracks or else agree to let spiritual healing be incorporated into public programs.
> 
> If you insist on keeping spiritual faith based programs out of govt,
> then people cannot be penalized and forced under federal regulations at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as your question... no, I don't like the mandate. But then, it's a conservative concept that has always sounded stupid to me and I'm in favor of a national healthcare system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Emily - STOP RAMBLING ON ABOUT A LAW THAT'S BEEN IN EFFECT FOR 30 YEARS. *
> a.  No one cares what you think about it.  If you want it changed, stop posting here and hit the pavement and get the signatures - convince your federal senators and congressmen - have them convince the republicans (some of which passed the Reagan bill 30 years ago, more than likely) that it's a bad thing.  IT'S THE LAW.  APPARENTLY ONE YOU DIDN'T BOTHER TO READ, EITHER.   If they receive any federal dollars (ie, Medicare/Medicaid and others), they lose their tax-exempt status.  All they have to do is give up that status.
> b. Why?  Because of the money YOUR STATE GETS from contracting out prison services.  It's called kickbacks.  You are also talking of violating the civil rights of the prisoners - you can't require them to participate in RDTE.  Why not go with a single payer system, instead?  One that gets everyone treated the same?  Novel concept.
> c.   Because it's NOT YOUR CHOICE.   Not everyone is going to like ANY method that's chosen.
> 
> 2.
> a. Emily, you are completely FULL OF S**T.   The Heritage Foundation WROTE the ACA, in the 90's.  Heritage is a CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK.  It was written, because they wanted a plan in place in case Hillary's proposed health care plan as first lady was introduced.  Tell me, who debunked this?  Certainly not Heritage.   Certainly not Romney, who implemented it in his home state.   Claiming it was debunked demonstrates that you are either ignorant (failed to read up and try to debunk), or stupid - meaning unwilling to listen to others and refusing to believe facts.   Which is it.
> b.  Did you check with Mitt Romney, where it didn't cover daily/routine health care?  It most certainly does. Romney was first to implement it, and he could ONLY IMPLEMENT at a STATE LEVEL, as HE WAS GOVERNOR.   Obama could implement it based on the recommendations of Congress - and it was modified to be across the board at the FEDERAL LEVEL.    Another of your lies is that government can't regulate healing work of faith based programs (your snake handling, etc).  There are SPECIFIC GUIDELINES that must be met - that don't violate the constitution.
> 
> I know you can't grasp the concept, but the RFRA doesn't overrule law.  The cake/photo/etc lawsuits repeatedly prove you wrong.
> 
> c.  You cannot separate into two tracks, you were told by 5 different people why now.  We aren't telling you again.
> 
> You babbled:  "If you insist on keeping spiritual faith based programs out of govt, then people cannot be penalized and forced under federal regulations at the same time."
> 
> We've told you repeatedly that it violates the first amendment.  It's already been to the SCOTUS, and people most  certainly can be penalized and forced under federal regulations.  Your inability to understand, or your refusal (more than likely) is not our problem.   Break the law, go to jail, at this point I am through arguing you about this off topic subject, where you continually babble about things you know nothing about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Sneekin sorry I got behind reading, thanking and responding to all your messages
> which I don't want you to think are going underappreciated!
> I will struggle to catch up with you, but think this is GREAT and well worth the effort on both our part.
> THANK YOU and I will go back and give you all the credit, thanks, info's etc you deserve for spelling all this out
> so we can work this out in detail comprehensively.
> 
> Can I start with this one point about Heritage Foundation
> [and secondary point about RFRA vs Constitutional religious freedom in general]
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.
> a. Emily, you are completely FULL OF S**T. The Heritage Foundation WROTE the ACA, in the 90's. Heritage is a CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK. It was written, because they wanted a plan in place in case Hillary's proposed health care plan as first lady was introduced. Tell me, who debunked this? Certainly not Heritage. Certainly not Romney, who implemented it in his home state. Claiming it was debunked demonstrates that you are either ignorant (failed to read up and try to debunk), or stupid - meaning unwilling to listen to others and refusing to believe facts. Which is it.
> b. Did you check with Mitt Romney, where it didn't cover daily/routine health care? It most certainly does. Romney was first to implement it, and he could ONLY IMPLEMENT at a STATE LEVEL, as HE WAS GOVERNOR. Obama could implement it based on the recommendations of Congress - and it was modified to be across the board at the FEDERAL LEVEL. Another of your lies is that government can't regulate healing work of faith based programs (your snake handling, etc). There are SPECIFIC GUIDELINES that must be met - that don't violate the constitution.
> 
> I know you can't grasp the concept, but the RFRA doesn't overrule law. The cake/photo/etc lawsuits repeatedly prove you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A. No, this Heritage Argument was debunked
> 1. the insurance was for CATASTROPHIC ONLY
> *IT WAS NEVER INTENDED FOR FED GOVT TO MICROMANAGE ALL HEALTH CARE COMPREHENSIVELY
> WHICH VIOLATES THE BELIEFS OF CONSERVATIVES IN LIMITED GOVT!!*
> 
> We both know Conservatives are OPPOSED to federal govt interfering with personal finances and health care.
> They have CONSISTENTLY screamed against anything risking the path of SOCIALISM and still prefer to change to PRIVATE.
> That's been their stance opposing ANY govt welfare, health care, benefits etc.
> 
> 2. Yo, earth to Sneekin, law professor:
> *PASSING LAWS ON A STATE LEVEL IS DIFFERENT FROM FEDERAL.*
> PEOPLE WHO ARGUE FOR STATES RIGHTS DISTINGUISH THIS ALL THE TIME FROM FEDERAL.
> EX: They argue Marriage laws belong to States not to Federal govt!
> 
> Surely as a law professor, you know there is a HUGE different in jurisdiction
> and decisions/representation between State laws and Federal laws.
> 
> 3. And NO CONSERVATIVE in Congress had PASSED that mandate
> BECAUSE IT VIOLATES CONSERVATIVE AND CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES!
> 
> It only passed when DEMOCRATS in Congress voted for it.
> 
> It FAILED when Conservatives vote for it because it goes against Constitutional beliefs that CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE IN
> ie in limited federal govt that has NO authority to DEPRIVE citizens of liberty
> (for health care benefits or other social programs that don't justify a compelling interest
> because of conservative beliefs that private sector and free market can meet those demands better than govt).
> 
> At most the CONSERVATIVES would argue that a Constitutional Amendment
> would need to be passed by the given process if federal govt and Constitution
> is to be EXPANDED to include
> * right to marriage
> * right to health care
> 
> So NO Sneekin, conservatives do not support or endorse ANY
> of what you are ascribing to them because it violates their own beliefs.
> 
> You would have better luck arguing that Democrats passed laws
> violated their own prochoice principles (of not letting govt interfere with personal choices
> but penalizing them), rather than saying Republicans passed or approved ANY SUCH
> LAWS that violate their Constitutional beliefs in keeping social and health benefits apart from federal govt!
> 
> Thanks Sneekin
> 
> I wish it were that simple, but Conservatives have consistently
> rejected growing more federal programs that make people more and more
> dependent and lose their ability to check govt because of these conflicting interests
> where govt starts controlling people instead of people having all the leverage.
Click to expand...

*Emily:*

1.  The Heritage Foundation was written specifically back in the 1990's when Hillary was working on her "wife of the president" Single Payer Health Care proposal.   The Heritage Foundation wrote this for the entire country, and proposed using insurance plans throughout the US (the ability to buy across state lines).  This is pretty common knowledge to those who were focused on Obama and his proposed health care plan.  Republicans at the time were worried that the public would go for a single payer system, so they funded the Heritage Foundation in an attempt to counteract Hillary's proposal. Hillary's plan died on the vine when republicans took over congress, and the Heritage plan was shelved, until Romney dredged it up, and implemented it after tweaking the proposal to be a single state system.  Obama dusted it off, tweaked it back, and gave it to congressional committees to tweak.  As republicans were also on the committee, one knows it didn't violate their constitutions.  

Paul Ryan, speaker of the House,  works with social programs.  to say it's against his beliefs is laughable.   Paul and Mitch are against social programs that don't help people of their own personal states only.  Same with health care.   It's been proven over and over that health care is cheaper when spread over the population, rather than taxing the democrats when the lazy and ignorant republicans refuse to pay for insurance, practice gluttony, and need expensive surgeries - when all could have been avoided with a simple drug, like Lipitor, or a simple ace inhibitor - which combined costs to the citizenry is only a few cents per month.   Single payer health care has even more savings.  Check it out.

2.  There are more republicans on public aid and disability than democrats, so what you claim is totally wrong.   The poor (republicans) voted for Trump.  Last time I looked, he's a republican.

I really wish you'd learn how government works.   And you still can't pass a constitutional amendment for the reasons you claim.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Now if YOU don't believe in paying for health care of others
> without this condition of insurance, YES, I support you in demanding that condition!
> 
> So if we don't agree on terms, that's where I am saying
> we should have choices of separate policies:
> * people who agree that mandated insurance is required for your plan
> sign up and fund that one, and agree to the same terms of membership
> * people who only want to pay for everyone to go through spiritual healing
> can be under that plan
> * people who want free market and charity with NO conditions can pay for that plan
> etc.
> 
> 
> 
> *OFF TOPIC - IGNORED.*
Click to expand...


^ ????
Dear Sneekin
how is this off topic when it is the KEY to differences causes biases?
If people BELIEVE in free market and PRIVATE SECTOR choices and
DON'T BELIEVE federal govt has the authority to deprive
citizens of liberty without due process OR PENALIZE FOR THESE BELIEFS,
then that's the key to resolving why people don't agree to
* ACA mandates
* to TERMS of marriage laws and health care/social programs and policies

Do you want to address this in a separate thread?
The underlying CORE difference in thinking
between people who believe in going through govt for these things
and people who do not?

The same conflict is going to arise OVER and OVER
as the fundamental core difference in beliefs.
So we might as well address this head on!
is that a separate topic?[/QUOTE]
It's off topic because this is about gay marraige, not health care.  You can claim it violates your liberty without due process, you can claim you are penalized for your beliefs, but based on the ruling of the SCOTUS, they have decided what you claim is WRONG, and it most certainly IS constitutional.   It needs to be a separate thread, but why bother?   Cruz claims it's going to be gone within the first days after Trump takes office - why waste our time?


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are against freedom. That most of them are against gay marriage makes it a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No WheelieAddict
> Are you going to say that not wanting to legislate God and Christianity through govt
> means being antiChristian and antiGod?
> 
> Just because conservatives resist govt making decisions that belong to people
> doesn't make them AGAINST those things!
> 
> the REAL conservatives and Constitutionalists want LIMITED govt
> and MAXIMUM power to the people instead of being overregulated.
> 
> As for which party is against freedom,
> the Democrats are argued as being more "antichoice"
> if they are
> AGAINST the free choice of how to pay for health care,
> AGAINST the free choice to bear arms and to interpret the law as
> recognizing right of people without requiring membership in a militia,
> AGAINST the free choice of reparative therapy and the inclusion of
> exgays and other people who believe in changing orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's what you want, vote progressive.  Republicans grow government, spend more, and rob from the poor and give tax breaks to the rich.  Republicans also want to legislate God and Christianity throughout government.
> 
> Just because Democrats/Progressives want to uphold the first amendment doesn't make them anti Christian or God.
> 
> Conservatives make decisions that impact people, mainly the poor.  They are against Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Welfare, Section 8, SNAp, etc.  They are ON RECORD for being against the programs.
> 
> Democrats do not argue about free choice to pay for health care - at no time did Obama direct it not be free choice.  In fact, quite the opposite, as the majority of the people with health insurance are paying out of their free choice.   The extreme poor (until Texas law passed) get Medicaid, IF THEY CHOOSE.   As does the middle class and upper class.  You are talking under 15 percent that utilizes the exchanges (as a half to, in lieu of alternative sources).
> Democrats are not against the right to bear arms.   And even the great Idol, Scalia, says that the second amendment is not an unlimited right.  You can't have certain weapons.  If you are a felon, no weapons and so on.  I'm not aware of anyone that doesn't interpret existing law as saying MOST (not all) people have a right to bear arms.
> You need to pull your head out and read up on what really happens with conversion therapy.  The fact that you think there is such a thing as an ex-gay just demonstrates nothing more than stupidity (refusal to accept, versus simply being ignorant (uninformed)).  Sexual Orientation CANNOT change.  It can only be repressed.  You are a Christian.   Just because I tell you that you are a Catholic doesn't make you one.  Same with conversion therapy.  It's never worked, and if you knew anyone that IS GAY that has experienced Conversion therapy, they will tell you they are STILL GAY, they are repressing their sexual urges.  Sex act is not the same as sexual orientation. I'm sorry you refuse to understand it, and I'm sorry you have no friends having experienced it, but I've had friends of my daughters that have suicided after therapy.  Others have become wildly promiscuous (same sex)  Some have married opposite sex spouses, and to this day sneak around on their spouses and having sex on the down low.  Until you grasp the difference between the sex act and what sexual preference is, you should drop the subject. I can send you to Lesbian conversion therapy - and possibly you can be "converted" - that is, you might be able to have sex with another female.  Does that make you a lesbian? NO.   Will you still have sex with your opposite sex spouse?  Most definitely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^ Dear Sneekin what part of MANDATES and FINES are you saying are free choice?
> the cheapest route for me to avoid being under fines/mandates I never agreed to was
> to pay or owe 45 a month for membership in a Christian health shares ministry.
> 
> So basically the Federal Govt REQUIRED me to either
> * pay for insurance I couldn't afford,
> * register for an exchange I don't believe in (the very least intrusion on my civil liberties
> being to apply for domestic abuse exception where I do consider this depriving me of my income
> and exercise of my liberties without any due process to prove I committed a crime or abuse)
> * or PAY to join a RELIGIOUS organization that exempts me from penalty
> 
> How is any of THAT "free choice" to pay and provide health care through charities and medical programs
> I deem more cost effective and sustainable?
> 
> Sneekin I USED to have free choice without penalties,
> but now I am restricted to only the choices above until state alternatives are set up.
> 
> And the CHEAPEST choice even requires JOINING A FAITH BASED GROUP
> AND PAYING FOR MEMBERSHIP.
> 
> Why aren't you offended by that ^ as a VIOLATION where govt is REGULATING
> exemptions based on PAID MEMBERSHIP IN APPROVED RELIGIOUS GROUPS!!!
> 
> BTW here is the DOJ definition of domestic abuse I would ask to use for an exemption:
> 
> Domestic Violence | OVW | Department of Justice
> 
> *Economic Abuse:* Is defined as making or attempting to make an individual financially dependent by maintaining total control over financial resources, *withholding one's access to money,* or forbidding one's attendance at school or employment.
> 
> I have been begging for help to get out from under MANDATES I never agreed to because these violate my beliefs and free choice without due process of laws and representation,
> and equal protection of my beliefs in rights of people and states that weren't changed by an amendment to the Constitution to authorize govt to impose mandates on health care.
> 
> *If you teach law in a school where you can ask other profs or students to research this,
> I would love to find a law firm or lawyer to petition to fix this mess!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This post is offensive.   For you to belittle and ridicule domestic abuse......I hope you are never in need of any resources.   To answer your question,  you can't get an exemption from DV.   No one is withholding your money.  You could go self insured, and not costs you a cent, provided your business has the  resources to cover expenses.
> Mandate:  the authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election:  You elect people, they voted contrary to what you wanted.  I believe that falls in the too bad too sad pile.  You'll need to "drain the swamp" and get new people in from Texas.  Otherwise, it's the definition of insanity - repeating the same mistakes over and over again and expecting different results
Click to expand...

 
Dear Sneekin

1. the way to STOP repeating these mistakes is to respect people's CONSENT to begin with.
E X A C T L Y ! Bingo!
This would stop ALL MANNER of abuse, bullying coercion by respecting peopel's free will and consent instead of overruling and overriding it.

2. and yes I have been victimized by one of the worst
forms of relationship abuse, by being FORCED TO ABORT A BABY AGAINST MY WISHES MY BELIEFS AND INTENT!
My partner ìnsisted he would kill himself, if I even offered to have the baby and give it up for adoption.
He and others convinced me by bullying that this was someone all my responsibility and mistake
and my ONLY CHOICE was to abort the baby to prevent from imposing on anyone else who didn't want that responsibility.

So I've been through a TERRIBLE case of having my consent violated by complete coercion
until I felt no other choice to stop the constant harassment and bullying except to agree to an abortion!

Can you BELIEVE that???
I still cannot believe I went through that, but it happened to me

3. So you wonder why I am such an advocate for consent and against coercion.
I saw what it did to someone like me who was even forced to violate my own beliefs
and abort a baby I wanted.  That's how horrible it is to me to see anyone else's consent violated.

So I say NO to going down that path.
No coercion, and if something is really right or wrong
you should be able to AGREE on it and take action by consent
(unless the person is mentally or criminally ill or disabled
in which case I support spiritual healing to ensure that
nobody's will is violated until the conflicts can be remedied)

I am seeking ways to stop ALL FORMS OF ABUSE OPPRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION
That come from violating consent of people.

So that's how I interpret 'free exercise of religion" to mean FREE WILL
which requires balancing and consensus among all people equally so nobody gets violated
as I went through because of other people's beliefs.

Been there, done that, it doesn't work to force people.
The best way to undo the damage to relations and obstructing
people from resolving conflicts is to respect CONSENT and include
all people so we don't lose time energy resources or relationships
bullying and forcing anything on anyone against their beliefs!


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.
> a. Emily, you are completely FULL OF S**T.   The Heritage Foundation WROTE the ACA, in the 90's.  Heritage is a CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK.  It was written, because they wanted a plan in place in case Hillary's proposed health care plan as first lady was introduced.  Tell me, who debunked this?  Certainly not Heritage.   Certainly not Romney, who implemented it in his home state.   Claiming it was debunked demonstrates that you are either ignorant (failed to read up and try to debunk), or stupid - meaning unwilling to listen to others and refusing to believe facts.   Which is it.
> b.  Did you check with Mitt Romney, where it didn't cover daily/routine health care?  It most certainly does. Romney was first to implement it, and he could ONLY IMPLEMENT at a STATE LEVEL, as HE WAS GOVERNOR.   Obama could implement it based on the recommendations of Congress - and it was modified to be across the board at the FEDERAL LEVEL.    Another of your lies is that government can't regulate healing work of faith based programs (your snake handling, etc).  There are SPECIFIC GUIDELINES that must be met - that don't violate the constitution.
> 
> I know you can't grasp the concept, but the RFRA doesn't overrule law.  The cake/photo/etc lawsuits repeatedly prove you wrong.
> 
> c.  You cannot separate into two tracks, you were told by 5 different people why now.  We aren't telling you again.
> 
> You babbled:  "If you insist on keeping spiritual faith based programs out of govt, then people cannot be penalized and forced under federal regulations at the same time."
> 
> We've told you repeatedly that it violates the first amendment.  It's already been to the SCOTUS, and people most  certainly can be penalized and forced under federal regulations.  Your inability to understand, or your refusal (more than likely) is not our problem.   Break the law, go to jail, at this point I am through arguing you about this off topic subject, where you continually babble about things you know nothing about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Sneekin sorry I got behind reading, thanking and responding to all your messages
> which I don't want you to think are going underappreciated!
> I will struggle to catch up with you, but think this is GREAT and well worth the effort on both our part.
> THANK YOU and I will go back and give you all the credit, thanks, info's etc you deserve for spelling all this out
> so we can work this out in detail comprehensively.
> 
> Can I start with this one point about Heritage Foundation
> [and secondary point about RFRA vs Constitutional religious freedom in general]
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.
> a. Emily, you are completely FULL OF S**T. The Heritage Foundation WROTE the ACA, in the 90's. Heritage is a CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK. It was written, because they wanted a plan in place in case Hillary's proposed health care plan as first lady was introduced. Tell me, who debunked this? Certainly not Heritage. Certainly not Romney, who implemented it in his home state. Claiming it was debunked demonstrates that you are either ignorant (failed to read up and try to debunk), or stupid - meaning unwilling to listen to others and refusing to believe facts. Which is it.
> b. Did you check with Mitt Romney, where it didn't cover daily/routine health care? It most certainly does. Romney was first to implement it, and he could ONLY IMPLEMENT at a STATE LEVEL, as HE WAS GOVERNOR. Obama could implement it based on the recommendations of Congress - and it was modified to be across the board at the FEDERAL LEVEL. Another of your lies is that government can't regulate healing work of faith based programs (your snake handling, etc). There are SPECIFIC GUIDELINES that must be met - that don't violate the constitution.
> 
> I know you can't grasp the concept, but the RFRA doesn't overrule law. The cake/photo/etc lawsuits repeatedly prove you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A. No, this Heritage Argument was debunked
> 1. the insurance was for CATASTROPHIC ONLY
> *IT WAS NEVER INTENDED FOR FED GOVT TO MICROMANAGE ALL HEALTH CARE COMPREHENSIVELY
> WHICH VIOLATES THE BELIEFS OF CONSERVATIVES IN LIMITED GOVT!!*
> 
> We both know Conservatives are OPPOSED to federal govt interfering with personal finances and health care.
> They have CONSISTENTLY screamed against anything risking the path of SOCIALISM and still prefer to change to PRIVATE.
> That's been their stance opposing ANY govt welfare, health care, benefits etc.
> 
> 2. Yo, earth to Sneekin, law professor:
> *PASSING LAWS ON A STATE LEVEL IS DIFFERENT FROM FEDERAL.*
> PEOPLE WHO ARGUE FOR STATES RIGHTS DISTINGUISH THIS ALL THE TIME FROM FEDERAL.
> EX: They argue Marriage laws belong to States not to Federal govt!
> 
> Surely as a law professor, you know there is a HUGE different in jurisdiction
> and decisions/representation between State laws and Federal laws.
> 
> 3. And NO CONSERVATIVE in Congress had PASSED that mandate
> BECAUSE IT VIOLATES CONSERVATIVE AND CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES!
> 
> It only passed when DEMOCRATS in Congress voted for it.
> 
> It FAILED when Conservatives vote for it because it goes against Constitutional beliefs that CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE IN
> ie in limited federal govt that has NO authority to DEPRIVE citizens of liberty
> (for health care benefits or other social programs that don't justify a compelling interest
> because of conservative beliefs that private sector and free market can meet those demands better than govt).
> 
> At most the CONSERVATIVES would argue that a Constitutional Amendment
> would need to be passed by the given process if federal govt and Constitution
> is to be EXPANDED to include
> * right to marriage
> * right to health care
> 
> So NO Sneekin, conservatives do not support or endorse ANY
> of what you are ascribing to them because it violates their own beliefs.
> 
> You would have better luck arguing that Democrats passed laws
> violated their own prochoice principles (of not letting govt interfere with personal choices
> but penalizing them), rather than saying Republicans passed or approved ANY SUCH
> LAWS that violate their Constitutional beliefs in keeping social and health benefits apart from federal govt!
> 
> Thanks Sneekin
> 
> I wish it were that simple, but Conservatives have consistently
> rejected growing more federal programs that make people more and more
> dependent and lose their ability to check govt because of these conflicting interests
> where govt starts controlling people instead of people having all the leverage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> P.S. here's the best explanation I found online as to why Conservatives
> supported something DIFFERENT and not the federal mandate in ACA that overreached too far
> where they argued it was unconstitutional:
> No, Obamacare Wasn't a "Republican" Proposal
> 
> Someone else disagrees and argues more like you as posted on Reddit:
> "I read this article the other day, and while it does highlight significant differences between the original Heritage Foundation proposal and the PPACA, the individual mandate (i.e. the subject of your post) was definitely in the Heritage proposal.
> 
> The argument for the similarity between the two plans depends on their one shared attribute: both contained a "mandate" requiring people to carry insurance coverage.
> That said, the article also goes on to say the individual mandate idea has been around for much longer
> 
> Several other countries (including Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Germany) have compulsory insurance requirements without single-payer or socialized systems."
> 
> A. Just because people propose it doesn't mean they approve it as constitutional.
> which is why it always got shot down before, it contradicts itself.
> The conservatives who believe in prolife also get shot down by other conservatives
> who argue for Constitutional religious freedom and limited govt not allowed to interfere and regulate private choices.
> DOMA was pushed by conservatives, but shot down because it is unconstitutional.
> Targeting Muslims is pushed by conservatives, but shot down because it is unconstitutional.
> 
> So what matters is what is found to be unconstitutional, regardless if it is proposed by conservatives.
> That doesn't justify pushing it on them, especially where others disagree and argue it is unconstitutional.
> 
> B. just because people consent to ONE thing doesn't justify imposing another.
> I would compare your argument to marriage, that if a couple agrees to sexual relations,
> that doesn't give the right of either one to rape or force the other into sex!
> 
> So just because one partner proposes marriage first, does NOT give the
> other partner the right to VIOLATE THEIR CONSENT and "claim they consented when they
> proposed or agreed to marriage"!
> 
> Sneekin
> so for the secondary point
> NO it's not RFRA that makes it right or wrong, because that would be unnecessary anyway if people enforced the First Amendment/religious freedom and 14th Amendment consistently to begin with.
> 
> What causes THESE type of laws to be rejected is the fact they impose
> on people's beliefs in the first place.
> 
> This violates natural laws on human free will and desire for self-determination
> expressed as "consent of the governed" or "no taxation without representation."
> If people find they are not equally represented, they will fight to change or remove the bias causing that problem.
> 
> This is human nature and the cycle of democratic process, to object petition and reform
> laws through the given system.
> 
> So that process is REFLECTED in the First Amendment, and other
> Constitutional principles on due process and equal protection of the laws.
> 
> And then in addition to that, people passed RFRA and Civil rights laws
> to try to further define and delineate areas they wanted to protect from infringements
> and discrimination more specifically.
> 
> We would not need these additional laws if people respected
> equal religious freedom for everyone equally to begin with!
> 
> RFRA would not even be necessary.
> What matters is if PEOPLE AGREE to respect each other's equal freedom and beliefs!
> 
> If so, we would naturally fulfill and enforce the principles in the
> First and Fourteenth  Amendments directly by our actions.
Click to expand...

Again, you and I don't get to propose if something is constitutional or not - the SCOTUS does.  We get to take it through the courts to the SCOTUS.   In the case of what you are arguing, it's already been ruled on and decided.  And you are still wrong.  Nothing you claim is true, not even no taxation without representation - you've got plenty of representation down there.

The RFRA that is being proposed is unconstitutional.   It's picking one single issue (gay marriage) and claiming marriage is only between a male and a female.  That violates the 14th amendment.   But it also doesn't address other religious beliefs - if you are Jewish, Muslim Buddhist, they can now deny you a cake, venue, etc, and not violate the RFRA.   If you are Christian and advocate gay marriage, your first amendment rights are violated.  I can't believe a single person would advocate for the RFRA.  The first amendment is enough.   Once you pass the RFRA, you will then be able to pass amendments removing rights from women, blacks, the elderly, the infirm, etc.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are against freedom. That most of them are against gay marriage makes it a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No WheelieAddict
> Are you going to say that not wanting to legislate God and Christianity through govt
> means being antiChristian and antiGod?
> 
> Just because conservatives resist govt making decisions that belong to people
> doesn't make them AGAINST those things!
> 
> the REAL conservatives and Constitutionalists want LIMITED govt
> and MAXIMUM power to the people instead of being overregulated.
> 
> As for which party is against freedom,
> the Democrats are argued as being more "antichoice"
> if they are
> AGAINST the free choice of how to pay for health care,
> AGAINST the free choice to bear arms and to interpret the law as
> recognizing right of people without requiring membership in a militia,
> AGAINST the free choice of reparative therapy and the inclusion of
> exgays and other people who believe in changing orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's what you want, vote progressive.  Republicans grow government, spend more, and rob from the poor and give tax breaks to the rich.  Republicans also want to legislate God and Christianity throughout government.
> 
> Just because Democrats/Progressives want to uphold the first amendment doesn't make them anti Christian or God.
> 
> Conservatives make decisions that impact people, mainly the poor.  They are against Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Welfare, Section 8, SNAp, etc.  They are ON RECORD for being against the programs.
> 
> Democrats do not argue about free choice to pay for health care - at no time did Obama direct it not be free choice.  In fact, quite the opposite, as the majority of the people with health insurance are paying out of their free choice.   The extreme poor (until Texas law passed) get Medicaid, IF THEY CHOOSE.   As does the middle class and upper class.  You are talking under 15 percent that utilizes the exchanges (as a half to, in lieu of alternative sources).
> Democrats are not against the right to bear arms.   And even the great Idol, Scalia, says that the second amendment is not an unlimited right.  You can't have certain weapons.  If you are a felon, no weapons and so on.  I'm not aware of anyone that doesn't interpret existing law as saying MOST (not all) people have a right to bear arms.
> You need to pull your head out and read up on what really happens with conversion therapy.  The fact that you think there is such a thing as an ex-gay just demonstrates nothing more than stupidity (refusal to accept, versus simply being ignorant (uninformed)).  Sexual Orientation CANNOT change.  It can only be repressed.  You are a Christian.   Just because I tell you that you are a Catholic doesn't make you one.  Same with conversion therapy.  It's never worked, and if you knew anyone that IS GAY that has experienced Conversion therapy, they will tell you they are STILL GAY, they are repressing their sexual urges.  Sex act is not the same as sexual orientation. I'm sorry you refuse to understand it, and I'm sorry you have no friends having experienced it, but I've had friends of my daughters that have suicided after therapy.  Others have become wildly promiscuous (same sex)  Some have married opposite sex spouses, and to this day sneak around on their spouses and having sex on the down low.  Until you grasp the difference between the sex act and what sexual preference is, you should drop the subject. I can send you to Lesbian conversion therapy - and possibly you can be "converted" - that is, you might be able to have sex with another female.  Does that make you a lesbian? NO.   Will you still have sex with your opposite sex spouse?  Most definitely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^ Dear Sneekin what part of MANDATES and FINES are you saying are free choice?
> the cheapest route for me to avoid being under fines/mandates I never agreed to was
> to pay or owe 45 a month for membership in a Christian health shares ministry.
> 
> So basically the Federal Govt REQUIRED me to either
> * pay for insurance I couldn't afford,
> * register for an exchange I don't believe in (the very least intrusion on my civil liberties
> being to apply for domestic abuse exception where I do consider this depriving me of my income
> and exercise of my liberties without any due process to prove I committed a crime or abuse)
> * or PAY to join a RELIGIOUS organization that exempts me from penalty
> 
> How is any of THAT "free choice" to pay and provide health care through charities and medical programs
> I deem more cost effective and sustainable?
> 
> Sneekin I USED to have free choice without penalties,
> but now I am restricted to only the choices above until state alternatives are set up.
> 
> And the CHEAPEST choice even requires JOINING A FAITH BASED GROUP
> AND PAYING FOR MEMBERSHIP.
> 
> Why aren't you offended by that ^ as a VIOLATION where govt is REGULATING
> exemptions based on PAID MEMBERSHIP IN APPROVED RELIGIOUS GROUPS!!!
> 
> BTW here is the DOJ definition of domestic abuse I would ask to use for an exemption:
> 
> Domestic Violence | OVW | Department of Justice
> 
> *Economic Abuse:* Is defined as making or attempting to make an individual financially dependent by maintaining total control over financial resources, *withholding one's access to money,* or forbidding one's attendance at school or employment.
> 
> I have been begging for help to get out from under MANDATES I never agreed to because these violate my beliefs and free choice without due process of laws and representation,
> and equal protection of my beliefs in rights of people and states that weren't changed by an amendment to the Constitution to authorize govt to impose mandates on health care.
> 
> *If you teach law in a school where you can ask other profs or students to research this,
> I would love to find a law firm or lawyer to petition to fix this mess!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This post is offensive.   For you to belittle and ridicule domestic abuse......I hope you are never in need of any resources.   To answer your question,  you can't get an exemption from DV.   No one is withholding your money.  You could go self insured, and not costs you a cent, provided your business has the  resources to cover expenses.
> Mandate:  the authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election:  You elect people, they voted contrary to what you wanted.  I believe that falls in the too bad too sad pile.  You'll need to "drain the swamp" and get new people in from Texas.  Otherwise, it's the definition of insanity - repeating the same mistakes over and over again and expecting different results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear @Sne ekin
> 
> 1. the way to STOP repeating these mistakes is to respect people's CONSENT to begin with.
> E X A C T L Y ! Bingo!
> This would stop ALL MANNER of abuse, bullying coercion by respecting peopel's free will and consent instead of overruling and overriding it.
> 
> 2. and yes I have been victimized by one of the worst
> forms of relationship abuse, by being FORCED TO ABORT A BABY AGAINST MY WISHES MY BELIEFS AND INTENT!
> My partner ìnsisted he would kill himself, if I even offered to have the baby and give it up for adoption.
> He and others convinced me by bullying that this was someone all my responsibility and mistake
> and my ONLY CHOICE was to abort the baby to prevent from imposing on anyone else who didn't want that responsibility.
> 
> So I've been through a TERRIBLE case of having my consent violated by complete coercion
> until I felt no other choice to stop the constant harassment and bullying except to agree to an abortion!
> 
> Can you BELIEVE that???
> I still cannot believe I went through that, but it happened to me
> 
> 3. So you wonder why I am such an advocate for consent and against coercion.
> I saw what it did to someone like me who was even forced to violate my own beliefs
> and abort a baby I wanted.  That's how horrible it is to me to see anyone else's consent violated.
> 
> So I say NO to going down that path.
> No coercion, and if something is really right or wrong
> you should be able to AGREE on it and take action by consent
> (unless the person is mentally or criminally ill or disabled
> in which case I support spiritual healing to ensure that
> nobody's will is violated until the conflicts can be remedied)
> 
> I am seeking ways to stop ALL FORMS OF ABUSE OPPRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION
> That come from violating consent of people.
> 
> So that's how I interpret 'free exercise of religion" to mean FREE WILL
> which requires balancing and consensus among all people equally so nobody gets violated
> as I went through because of other people's beliefs.
> 
> Been there, done that, it doesn't work to force people.
> The best way to undo the damage to relations and obstructing
> people from resolving conflicts is to respect CONSENT and include
> all people so we don't lose time energy resources or relationships
> bullying and forcing anything on anyone against their beliefs!
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for you, that's not the way our government works.   And no one can force you to consent to an abortion.  They "forced" you to make a choice between an abortion and a boyfriend, and if the baby was truly more important, you would have kicked him to the curb.  Because of all rights, it is your right and your right alone to make a decision about your own body.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun RE: conservative concept
> 1. are you talking about the policy credited to Reagan for opening up all hospitals to treat all people?
> a. if you don't agree to the terms of taxpayers paying for that
> and want to change them, why change it to something others don't agree with either?
> b. why not go after prison budgets, convert those to  medical treatment, research and education programs, and pay for medical education and training at the same time as offering public health services to both inmates and the general public for the same costs we are already paying?
> c. why change it to insurance if not all people agree to that and insurance doesn't cover the need for training service providers, building facilities, researching or treating the CAUSE of disease
> 
> 2. if you are talking about insurance mandates being a conservative idea
> that was already debunked
> a. it did not cover daily and routine health care, only CATASTROPHIC
> b. it still respected STATES rights and did not ever get support to pass on a NATIONAL level
> So changing it to mean FEDERAL regulation of ALL health care violates
> Conservative principles on 2-3 counts: states rights, civil liberties, and religious freedom since govt cannot regulate the healing work that faith based programs do which only works in private as a free choice and can't be mandated
> 
> c. that's why I'm saying to separate two tracks or else agree to let spiritual healing be incorporated into public programs.
> 
> If you insist on keeping spiritual faith based programs out of govt,
> then people cannot be penalized and forced under federal regulations at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as your question... no, I don't like the mandate. But then, it's a conservative concept that has always sounded stupid to me and I'm in favor of a national healthcare system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Emily - STOP RAMBLING ON ABOUT A LAW THAT'S BEEN IN EFFECT FOR 30 YEARS. *
> a.  No one cares what you think about it.  If you want it changed, stop posting here and hit the pavement and get the signatures - convince your federal senators and congressmen - have them convince the republicans (some of which passed the Reagan bill 30 years ago, more than likely) that it's a bad thing.  IT'S THE LAW.  APPARENTLY ONE YOU DIDN'T BOTHER TO READ, EITHER.   If they receive any federal dollars (ie, Medicare/Medicaid and others), they lose their tax-exempt status.  All they have to do is give up that status.
> b. Why?  Because of the money YOUR STATE GETS from contracting out prison services.  It's called kickbacks.  You are also talking of violating the civil rights of the prisoners - you can't require them to participate in RDTE.  Why not go with a single payer system, instead?  One that gets everyone treated the same?  Novel concept.
> c.   Because it's NOT YOUR CHOICE.   Not everyone is going to like ANY method that's chosen.
> 
> 2.
> a. Emily, you are completely FULL OF S**T.   The Heritage Foundation WROTE the ACA, in the 90's.  Heritage is a CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK.  It was written, because they wanted a plan in place in case Hillary's proposed health care plan as first lady was introduced.  Tell me, who debunked this?  Certainly not Heritage.   Certainly not Romney, who implemented it in his home state.   Claiming it was debunked demonstrates that you are either ignorant (failed to read up and try to debunk), or stupid - meaning unwilling to listen to others and refusing to believe facts.   Which is it.
> b.  Did you check with Mitt Romney, where it didn't cover daily/routine health care?  It most certainly does. Romney was first to implement it, and he could ONLY IMPLEMENT at a STATE LEVEL, as HE WAS GOVERNOR.   Obama could implement it based on the recommendations of Congress - and it was modified to be across the board at the FEDERAL LEVEL.    Another of your lies is that government can't regulate healing work of faith based programs (your snake handling, etc).  There are SPECIFIC GUIDELINES that must be met - that don't violate the constitution.
> 
> I know you can't grasp the concept, but the RFRA doesn't overrule law.  The cake/photo/etc lawsuits repeatedly prove you wrong.
> 
> c.  You cannot separate into two tracks, you were told by 5 different people why now.  We aren't telling you again.
> 
> You babbled:  "If you insist on keeping spiritual faith based programs out of govt, then people cannot be penalized and forced under federal regulations at the same time."
> 
> We've told you repeatedly that it violates the first amendment.  It's already been to the SCOTUS, and people most  certainly can be penalized and forced under federal regulations.  Your inability to understand, or your refusal (more than likely) is not our problem.   Break the law, go to jail, at this point I am through arguing you about this off topic subject, where you continually babble about things you know nothing about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Sneekin sorry I got behind reading, thanking and responding to all your messages
> which I don't want you to think are going underappreciated!
> I will struggle to catch up with you, but think this is GREAT and well worth the effort on both our part.
> THANK YOU and I will go back and give you all the credit, thanks, info's etc you deserve for spelling all this out
> so we can work this out in detail comprehensively.
> 
> Can I start with this one point about Heritage Foundation
> [and secondary point about RFRA vs Constitutional religious freedom in general]
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.
> a. Emily, you are completely FULL OF S**T. The Heritage Foundation WROTE the ACA, in the 90's. Heritage is a CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK. It was written, because they wanted a plan in place in case Hillary's proposed health care plan as first lady was introduced. Tell me, who debunked this? Certainly not Heritage. Certainly not Romney, who implemented it in his home state. Claiming it was debunked demonstrates that you are either ignorant (failed to read up and try to debunk), or stupid - meaning unwilling to listen to others and refusing to believe facts. Which is it.
> b. Did you check with Mitt Romney, where it didn't cover daily/routine health care? It most certainly does. Romney was first to implement it, and he could ONLY IMPLEMENT at a STATE LEVEL, as HE WAS GOVERNOR. Obama could implement it based on the recommendations of Congress - and it was modified to be across the board at the FEDERAL LEVEL. Another of your lies is that government can't regulate healing work of faith based programs (your snake handling, etc). There are SPECIFIC GUIDELINES that must be met - that don't violate the constitution.
> 
> I know you can't grasp the concept, but the RFRA doesn't overrule law. The cake/photo/etc lawsuits repeatedly prove you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A. No, this Heritage Argument was debunked
> 1. the insurance was for CATASTROPHIC ONLY
> *IT WAS NEVER INTENDED FOR FED GOVT TO MICROMANAGE ALL HEALTH CARE COMPREHENSIVELY
> WHICH VIOLATES THE BELIEFS OF CONSERVATIVES IN LIMITED GOVT!!*
> 
> We both know Conservatives are OPPOSED to federal govt interfering with personal finances and health care.
> They have CONSISTENTLY screamed against anything risking the path of SOCIALISM and still prefer to change to PRIVATE.
> That's been their stance opposing ANY govt welfare, health care, benefits etc.
> 
> 2. Yo, earth to Sneekin, law professor:
> *PASSING LAWS ON A STATE LEVEL IS DIFFERENT FROM FEDERAL.*
> PEOPLE WHO ARGUE FOR STATES RIGHTS DISTINGUISH THIS ALL THE TIME FROM FEDERAL.
> EX: They argue Marriage laws belong to States not to Federal govt!
> 
> Surely as a law professor, you know there is a HUGE different in jurisdiction
> and decisions/representation between State laws and Federal laws.
> 
> 3. And NO CONSERVATIVE in Congress had PASSED that mandate
> BECAUSE IT VIOLATES CONSERVATIVE AND CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES!
> 
> It only passed when DEMOCRATS in Congress voted for it.
> 
> It FAILED when Conservatives vote for it because it goes against Constitutional beliefs that CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE IN
> ie in limited federal govt that has NO authority to DEPRIVE citizens of liberty
> (for health care benefits or other social programs that don't justify a compelling interest
> because of conservative beliefs that private sector and free market can meet those demands better than govt).
> 
> At most the CONSERVATIVES would argue that a Constitutional Amendment
> would need to be passed by the given process if federal govt and Constitution
> is to be EXPANDED to include
> * right to marriage
> * right to health care
> 
> So NO Sneekin, conservatives do not support or endorse ANY
> of what you are ascribing to them because it violates their own beliefs.
> 
> You would have better luck arguing that Democrats passed laws
> violated their own prochoice principles (of not letting govt interfere with personal choices
> but penalizing them), rather than saying Republicans passed or approved ANY SUCH
> LAWS that violate their Constitutional beliefs in keeping social and health benefits apart from federal govt!
> 
> Thanks Sneekin
> 
> I wish it were that simple, but Conservatives have consistently
> rejected growing more federal programs that make people more and more
> dependent and lose their ability to check govt because of these conflicting interests
> where govt starts controlling people instead of people having all the leverage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Emily:*
> 
> 1.  The Heritage Foundation was written specifically back in the 1990's when Hillary was working on her "wife of the president" Single Payer Health Care proposal.   The Heritage Foundation wrote this for the entire country, and proposed using insurance plans throughout the US (the ability to buy across state lines).  This is pretty common knowledge to those who were focused on Obama and his proposed health care plan.  Republicans at the time were worried that the public would go for a single payer system, so they funded the Heritage Foundation in an attempt to counteract Hillary's proposal. Hillary's plan died on the vine when republicans took over congress, and the Heritage plan was shelved, until Romney dredged it up, and implemented it after tweaking the proposal to be a single state system.  Obama dusted it off, tweaked it back, and gave it to congressional committees to tweak.  As republicans were also on the committee, one knows it didn't violate their constitutions.
> 
> Paul Ryan, speaker of the House,  works with social programs.  to say it's against his beliefs is laughable.   Paul and Mitch are against social programs that don't help people of their own personal states only.  Same with health care.   It's been proven over and over that health care is cheaper when spread over the population, rather than taxing the democrats when the lazy and ignorant republicans refuse to pay for insurance, practice gluttony, and need expensive surgeries - when all could have been avoided with a simple drug, like Lipitor, or a simple ace inhibitor - which combined costs to the citizenry is only a few cents per month.   Single payer health care has even more savings.  Check it out.
> 
> 2.  There are more republicans on public aid and disability than democrats, so what you claim is totally wrong.   The poor (republicans) voted for Trump.  Last time I looked, he's a republican.
> 
> I really wish you'd learn how government works.   And you still can't pass a constitutional amendment for the reasons you claim.
Click to expand...


And? Sneekin
If people do not agree to such mandates they argue are flawed and unconstitutional,
are you insinuating they have no right to dissent because OTHER PEOPLE proposed them?

I don't understand your bias Sneekin
You also argue that since SOME PEOPLE have interpreted the Bible to justify slavery
then ALL PEOPLE have to respect and include that intepretation if they follow the Bible.
What?

Just because scientists once misidentified the Brontosaurus as a separate dinosaur,
does that mean ALL science related to dinosaurs is flawed because of THOSE PEOPLE in THAT situation?

So if SOME people "propose" that marriage HAS to mean one man and one woman only,
does that mean ALL people have to believe and accept the same?

Where are you getting this Sneekin?
You can argue and be right that Heritage foundation first
proposed the insurance mandate even for Catastrophic only,
and that DOESN'T JUSTIFY passing and imposing it against
the BELIEFS of other citizens.

So ANYTHING that ANYONE says can be imposed on others?
What are you SAYING???

If some Christians teach KKK policies against race mixing, 
then ALL CHRISTIANS have to enforce the same?

WHAT?


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.
> a. Emily, you are completely FULL OF S**T.   The Heritage Foundation WROTE the ACA, in the 90's.  Heritage is a CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK.  It was written, because they wanted a plan in place in case Hillary's proposed health care plan as first lady was introduced.  Tell me, who debunked this?  Certainly not Heritage.   Certainly not Romney, who implemented it in his home state.   Claiming it was debunked demonstrates that you are either ignorant (failed to read up and try to debunk), or stupid - meaning unwilling to listen to others and refusing to believe facts.   Which is it.
> b.  Did you check with Mitt Romney, where it didn't cover daily/routine health care?  It most certainly does. Romney was first to implement it, and he could ONLY IMPLEMENT at a STATE LEVEL, as HE WAS GOVERNOR.   Obama could implement it based on the recommendations of Congress - and it was modified to be across the board at the FEDERAL LEVEL.    Another of your lies is that government can't regulate healing work of faith based programs (your snake handling, etc).  There are SPECIFIC GUIDELINES that must be met - that don't violate the constitution.
> 
> I know you can't grasp the concept, but the RFRA doesn't overrule law.  The cake/photo/etc lawsuits repeatedly prove you wrong.
> 
> c.  You cannot separate into two tracks, you were told by 5 different people why now.  We aren't telling you again.
> 
> You babbled:  "If you insist on keeping spiritual faith based programs out of govt, then people cannot be penalized and forced under federal regulations at the same time."
> 
> We've told you repeatedly that it violates the first amendment.  It's already been to the SCOTUS, and people most  certainly can be penalized and forced under federal regulations.  Your inability to understand, or your refusal (more than likely) is not our problem.   Break the law, go to jail, at this point I am through arguing you about this off topic subject, where you continually babble about things you know nothing about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Sneekin sorry I got behind reading, thanking and responding to all your messages
> which I don't want you to think are going underappreciated!
> I will struggle to catch up with you, but think this is GREAT and well worth the effort on both our part.
> THANK YOU and I will go back and give you all the credit, thanks, info's etc you deserve for spelling all this out
> so we can work this out in detail comprehensively.
> 
> Can I start with this one point about Heritage Foundation
> [and secondary point about RFRA vs Constitutional religious freedom in general]
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.
> a. Emily, you are completely FULL OF S**T. The Heritage Foundation WROTE the ACA, in the 90's. Heritage is a CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK. It was written, because they wanted a plan in place in case Hillary's proposed health care plan as first lady was introduced. Tell me, who debunked this? Certainly not Heritage. Certainly not Romney, who implemented it in his home state. Claiming it was debunked demonstrates that you are either ignorant (failed to read up and try to debunk), or stupid - meaning unwilling to listen to others and refusing to believe facts. Which is it.
> b. Did you check with Mitt Romney, where it didn't cover daily/routine health care? It most certainly does. Romney was first to implement it, and he could ONLY IMPLEMENT at a STATE LEVEL, as HE WAS GOVERNOR. Obama could implement it based on the recommendations of Congress - and it was modified to be across the board at the FEDERAL LEVEL. Another of your lies is that government can't regulate healing work of faith based programs (your snake handling, etc). There are SPECIFIC GUIDELINES that must be met - that don't violate the constitution.
> 
> I know you can't grasp the concept, but the RFRA doesn't overrule law. The cake/photo/etc lawsuits repeatedly prove you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A. No, this Heritage Argument was debunked
> 1. the insurance was for CATASTROPHIC ONLY
> *IT WAS NEVER INTENDED FOR FED GOVT TO MICROMANAGE ALL HEALTH CARE COMPREHENSIVELY
> WHICH VIOLATES THE BELIEFS OF CONSERVATIVES IN LIMITED GOVT!!*
> 
> We both know Conservatives are OPPOSED to federal govt interfering with personal finances and health care.
> They have CONSISTENTLY screamed against anything risking the path of SOCIALISM and still prefer to change to PRIVATE.
> That's been their stance opposing ANY govt welfare, health care, benefits etc.
> 
> 2. Yo, earth to Sneekin, law professor:
> *PASSING LAWS ON A STATE LEVEL IS DIFFERENT FROM FEDERAL.*
> PEOPLE WHO ARGUE FOR STATES RIGHTS DISTINGUISH THIS ALL THE TIME FROM FEDERAL.
> EX: They argue Marriage laws belong to States not to Federal govt!
> 
> Surely as a law professor, you know there is a HUGE different in jurisdiction
> and decisions/representation between State laws and Federal laws.
> 
> 3. And NO CONSERVATIVE in Congress had PASSED that mandate
> BECAUSE IT VIOLATES CONSERVATIVE AND CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES!
> 
> It only passed when DEMOCRATS in Congress voted for it.
> 
> It FAILED when Conservatives vote for it because it goes against Constitutional beliefs that CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE IN
> ie in limited federal govt that has NO authority to DEPRIVE citizens of liberty
> (for health care benefits or other social programs that don't justify a compelling interest
> because of conservative beliefs that private sector and free market can meet those demands better than govt).
> 
> At most the CONSERVATIVES would argue that a Constitutional Amendment
> would need to be passed by the given process if federal govt and Constitution
> is to be EXPANDED to include
> * right to marriage
> * right to health care
> 
> So NO Sneekin, conservatives do not support or endorse ANY
> of what you are ascribing to them because it violates their own beliefs.
> 
> You would have better luck arguing that Democrats passed laws
> violated their own prochoice principles (of not letting govt interfere with personal choices
> but penalizing them), rather than saying Republicans passed or approved ANY SUCH
> LAWS that violate their Constitutional beliefs in keeping social and health benefits apart from federal govt!
> 
> Thanks Sneekin
> 
> I wish it were that simple, but Conservatives have consistently
> rejected growing more federal programs that make people more and more
> dependent and lose their ability to check govt because of these conflicting interests
> where govt starts controlling people instead of people having all the leverage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> P.S. here's the best explanation I found online as to why Conservatives
> supported something DIFFERENT and not the federal mandate in ACA that overreached too far
> where they argued it was unconstitutional:
> No, Obamacare Wasn't a "Republican" Proposal
> 
> Someone else disagrees and argues more like you as posted on Reddit:
> "I read this article the other day, and while it does highlight significant differences between the original Heritage Foundation proposal and the PPACA, the individual mandate (i.e. the subject of your post) was definitely in the Heritage proposal.
> 
> The argument for the similarity between the two plans depends on their one shared attribute: both contained a "mandate" requiring people to carry insurance coverage.
> That said, the article also goes on to say the individual mandate idea has been around for much longer
> 
> Several other countries (including Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Germany) have compulsory insurance requirements without single-payer or socialized systems."
> 
> A. Just because people propose it doesn't mean they approve it as constitutional.
> which is why it always got shot down before, it contradicts itself.
> The conservatives who believe in prolife also get shot down by other conservatives
> who argue for Constitutional religious freedom and limited govt not allowed to interfere and regulate private choices.
> DOMA was pushed by conservatives, but shot down because it is unconstitutional.
> Targeting Muslims is pushed by conservatives, but shot down because it is unconstitutional.
> 
> So what matters is what is found to be unconstitutional, regardless if it is proposed by conservatives.
> That doesn't justify pushing it on them, especially where others disagree and argue it is unconstitutional.
> 
> B. just because people consent to ONE thing doesn't justify imposing another.
> I would compare your argument to marriage, that if a couple agrees to sexual relations,
> that doesn't give the right of either one to rape or force the other into sex!
> 
> So just because one partner proposes marriage first, does NOT give the
> other partner the right to VIOLATE THEIR CONSENT and "claim they consented when they
> proposed or agreed to marriage"!
> 
> Sneekin
> so for the secondary point
> NO it's not RFRA that makes it right or wrong, because that would be unnecessary anyway if people enforced the First Amendment/religious freedom and 14th Amendment consistently to begin with.
> 
> What causes THESE type of laws to be rejected is the fact they impose
> on people's beliefs in the first place.
> 
> This violates natural laws on human free will and desire for self-determination
> expressed as "consent of the governed" or "no taxation without representation."
> If people find they are not equally represented, they will fight to change or remove the bias causing that problem.
> 
> This is human nature and the cycle of democratic process, to object petition and reform
> laws through the given system.
> 
> So that process is REFLECTED in the First Amendment, and other
> Constitutional principles on due process and equal protection of the laws.
> 
> And then in addition to that, people passed RFRA and Civil rights laws
> to try to further define and delineate areas they wanted to protect from infringements
> and discrimination more specifically.
> 
> We would not need these additional laws if people respected
> equal religious freedom for everyone equally to begin with!
> 
> RFRA would not even be necessary.
> What matters is if PEOPLE AGREE to respect each other's equal freedom and beliefs!
> 
> If so, we would naturally fulfill and enforce the principles in the
> First and Fourteenth  Amendments directly by our actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you and I don't get to propose if something is constitutional or not - the SCOTUS does.  We get to take it through the courts to the SCOTUS.   In the case of what you are arguing, it's already been ruled on and decided.  And you are still wrong.  Nothing you claim is true, not even no taxation without representation - you've got plenty of representation down there.
> 
> The RFRA that is being proposed is unconstitutional.   It's picking one single issue (gay marriage) and claiming marriage is only between a male and a female.  That violates the 14th amendment.   But it also doesn't address other religious beliefs - if you are Jewish, Muslim Buddhist, they can now deny you a cake, venue, etc, and not violate the RFRA.   If you are Christian and advocate gay marriage, your first amendment rights are violated.  I can't believe a single person would advocate for the RFRA.  The first amendment is enough.   Once you pass the RFRA, you will then be able to pass amendments removing rights from women, blacks, the elderly, the infirm, etc.
Click to expand...


Sure Sneekin
But people have to bring arguments or corrections TO the Courts and TO Congress first.

*What I am doing is trying to form CONSENSUS first on WHAT REFORMS
to bring to Congress to SAVE TIME AND TROUBLE.
*
So if Congress got it right the first time
(such as passing laws UNANIMOUSLY like the Code of Ethics for
Govt Service: www.ethics-commission.net as an EXAMPLE)
then everyone would agree and we wouldn't NE ED to
argue before Courts if a law or reform WE ALL AGREE TO BE Constitutional
was passed IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

SEE above code of ethics ^
on seeking to employ the most economical
and efficient means of getting tasks accomplished.

*Any person in govt service should
"IV. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.*

We could have avoided a 24 billion dollar
shut down of govt if ACA had been resolved up front,
such as by making the contested mandates optional,
and allowing both sides voting opposite ways to each
support a separate plan and including both as equal choices for taxpayers of different beliefs.
then keeping this optional would have remained constitutional
and both could have passed. but we didn't do that.
So I'm asking we do that NOW and stop wasting resources fighting.
Over beliefs that people don't consent to change to the other group's!


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then
> Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.
> 
> I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?
> 
> Is this just your way of communicating?
> 
> If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!
> 
> If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun
> 
> 
> 
> Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you _thought_ you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a _"yes"_ or _"no"_ answer and neither were forthcoming from you.
> 
> Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....
> 
> Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.
> 
> That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's *but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.*
> 
> I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...
> 
> ___________________________​
> *Faun: *_do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?_
> 
> *emilynghiem: *_I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction. The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt._
> 
> ... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...
> 
> ___________________________​
> So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??
> 
> That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?
> 
> Thanks for your answer but your answer is *EXACTLY* the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.
> 
> A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)
> 
> In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> 
> What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.
> 
> The government is not divorcing itself from marriage *precisely because of people like you* who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RE: In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
> NO, I'm saying to AVOID that by either:
> A. if govt use marriage then ALL people get that
> (and I'm suggesting that to reach agreement on inclusion, to treat LGBT beliefs
> and Christian beliefs about spiritual healing prayer equally, neither imposing one while excluding the other)
> B. if people cannot agre e on that, but for example ALL agre e to civil contracts,
> then ALL people get that.
> C. as for your concern that if that were to happen and this leaves out Atheists who don't have
> a way to get married, I am saying to set it up -- by agreement BEFORE changing policies*. so if there needs to be separate CHOICE of funding for govt programs
> that deals with "social" benefits that not all people agree to the terms of, that can be done while
> setting up state alternatives to resolve ACA issues and requirements that are FACING this SAME ISSUE.
> 
> Sorry Faun if you don't like my full answer.
> I am trying to address these things in context.
> the solutions to one point (such as marriage issues) solve other problems as well (such as health care issues).
> 
> * NOTE to Faun: ACA required states alternatives to avoid penalty BEFORE setting these up. Did you complain about ACA being unconstitutional by requiring people to face fines for not choosing alternatives that weren't even allowed to be proposed to states yet much less set up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A. Already occurs - you can do all of the spiritual prayer healing on your own time, or during moments of silence.  You can't do it around me, as it violates my religious principles (first amendment violation).  Christianity isn't the only religion, there are thousands, and not all Christians believe in spiritual healing prayer.
> B.  Nothing to agree to - already the law, and the law says civil marriages are civil contracts.  Anyone that gets married utilizing a state issued marriage license has the civil contract for their civil marriage.  If you don't want a civil marriage, have your officiant NOT sign a marriage license, and exempt yourself from the civic benefits you get from your civil marriage contract.
> C.  Existing civil marriage laws cover both religious and Atheist - it already occurs.
> 
> Finally you don't get to agree/come to a consensus or directives such as the ACA - it's not YOUR JOB, it's the job of your Congress.   Sounds like it's going away.  Texas, in the next 2 weeks, is going to cut Medicaid for Autistic, Children with Down's Syndrome, and other disabled children's therapy services.  A cut of 350 Million dollars that will affect 60,000 children, and also force businesses that provide these services to fold.   So it seems you people in Texas need to clean up your own back yard before you mess with our services.  Children with these delays require constant attention that will no longer be provided, which means more parents will be unable to work.....Texas congressmen are on record as not even investigating the impacts of implementing these changes. Texas health officials testified in court in 2015 that they had not studied how the budget cuts would affect children’s access to medically necessary therapy treatments.  Not to mention your law going into effect on the 19th of this month, requiring fetal remains to be buried or cremated - unless the abortion or miscarriage happens at home.  Let's just hope you don't miscarry/spontaneously abort on your way to work, as by the new law, you are required to go to the ER and be treated - even if you are weeks along.  Your illustrious governor is requiring the hospitals to pay these expenses - which will more than likely raise your taxes.  Attorneys for the reproductive rights of women are ready to litigate, and predict this will be costly - for the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> 3. RE: ACA as long as it affects my taxes and income, it is my job to see that I am represented.
> 
> The people are supposed to be the govt, the govt is supposed to represent the people.
> If there is conflict it is up to both people inside and outside govt to fix it.
> Nobody is going to mediate and reach consensus if they don't even believe it is possible much less legally necessary.
> That is my belief, and only I can take responsibility for it, and/or for finding leaders who believe the same
> so we can work it out together.
> 
> 2. spiritual healing is an essential part of health care, and one of the keys for sustainable universal care afforded to ALL.
> 
> Sneekin if we do not research the ability of spiritual healing to cure CRIMINAL illness,
> this puts innocent people, like children killed by Andrea Yates due to sick obsession with
> demonic type voices, at risk instead of protecting them from deadly disease
> that CAN BE CURED by REMOVING the demonic type obessions and voices driving people to kill.
> 
> This spiritual healing process works on ATHEISTS. I have a friend who used it to fight off
> demons he also had, similar to the patients in Scott Peck's book Glimpses of the Devil.
> 
> The good news is we can research and prove how this process works naturally and universally
> with medical science, so it does NOT have to be imposed which doesn't work anyway.
> The only way this process works is by FREE choice because the therapy is based
> on Forgiveness which has to be chosen freely or it's false and FAILS.
> 
> You CANNOT fake healing because you cannot fake forgiveness.
> Either you are healed and free or you are SUPPRESSED like you said where it's fake.
> 
> I would say of all the things and angles we discussed,
> spiritual healing is the closest "equivalent" of wanting govt marriage.
> 
> To incorporate the CHOICE of spiritual healing into mental and medical health care
> would change the system to free up resources to save more lives and mental/physical health of people.
> 
> so it would not be "taking away" any choices but A D DING them.
> Your same reaction that it is AGAINST what you believe
> is how others are saying SIMILAR about gay marriage.
> But if we are OFFERING an equal choice, that is adding not taking away.
> 
> And you can wait until you see PROOF that it saves lives
> and decide which cases you believe are true or which are fake.
> 
> 1. If we focus on that, then there will be agreement reached on other areas as well.
> Because the same process of forgiveness that heals mind and body in spiritual healing therapy
> also heals relationships between people, so it affects all other areas of conflicts, both political or religious,
> that can then be resolved without the contention getting in the way of forming agreed solutions!
> *(And no, you aren't asked to take that on faith either, that can be proven in the same process.
> by the time we do the medical research on spiritual healing, all levels it applies to can be demonstrated with the same efforts
> it takes to prove one area. so you can see the proof it works before adapting any knowledge or understanding of this into your thinking.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are represented. Call your congressmen.
Click to expand...

^ It takes MORE than that Sneekin
I'd been trying to help our Congress rep for 20 years now.

Sheila Jackson Lee signed on to the campus plans reforming HUD housing since
she first began serving in office in 1994, and it still hasn't gotten support to enforce and fund.

www.campusplan.org

It takes other leaders and entire parties backing these plans.
But they have been too busy funding elections instead of building directly.

Trump getting elected is the first sign I've seen of serious response
to start backing these campus plans to build independently of govt.

*The communities like this represent their interests COLLECTIVELY
so it takes UNITY a cross the entire party to finally support and enact these plans!*
They have be en too divided, so nothing worked all this time,
but now we might have a chance at unity with Ben Carson appointed to HUD
which may influence all leaders left and right to unite and quit wasting resources fighting
that could be invested DIRECTLY into building educational programs to end poverty.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> No WheelieAddict
> Are you going to say that not wanting to legislate God and Christianity through govt
> means being antiChristian and antiGod?
> 
> Just because conservatives resist govt making decisions that belong to people
> doesn't make them AGAINST those things!
> 
> the REAL conservatives and Constitutionalists want LIMITED govt
> and MAXIMUM power to the people instead of being overregulated.
> 
> As for which party is against freedom,
> the Democrats are argued as being more "antichoice"
> if they are
> AGAINST the free choice of how to pay for health care,
> AGAINST the free choice to bear arms and to interpret the law as
> recognizing right of people without requiring membership in a militia,
> AGAINST the free choice of reparative therapy and the inclusion of
> exgays and other people who believe in changing orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> If that's what you want, vote progressive.  Republicans grow government, spend more, and rob from the poor and give tax breaks to the rich.  Republicans also want to legislate God and Christianity throughout government.
> 
> Just because Democrats/Progressives want to uphold the first amendment doesn't make them anti Christian or God.
> 
> Conservatives make decisions that impact people, mainly the poor.  They are against Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Welfare, Section 8, SNAp, etc.  They are ON RECORD for being against the programs.
> 
> Democrats do not argue about free choice to pay for health care - at no time did Obama direct it not be free choice.  In fact, quite the opposite, as the majority of the people with health insurance are paying out of their free choice.   The extreme poor (until Texas law passed) get Medicaid, IF THEY CHOOSE.   As does the middle class and upper class.  You are talking under 15 percent that utilizes the exchanges (as a half to, in lieu of alternative sources).
> Democrats are not against the right to bear arms.   And even the great Idol, Scalia, says that the second amendment is not an unlimited right.  You can't have certain weapons.  If you are a felon, no weapons and so on.  I'm not aware of anyone that doesn't interpret existing law as saying MOST (not all) people have a right to bear arms.
> You need to pull your head out and read up on what really happens with conversion therapy.  The fact that you think there is such a thing as an ex-gay just demonstrates nothing more than stupidity (refusal to accept, versus simply being ignorant (uninformed)).  Sexual Orientation CANNOT change.  It can only be repressed.  You are a Christian.   Just because I tell you that you are a Catholic doesn't make you one.  Same with conversion therapy.  It's never worked, and if you knew anyone that IS GAY that has experienced Conversion therapy, they will tell you they are STILL GAY, they are repressing their sexual urges.  Sex act is not the same as sexual orientation. I'm sorry you refuse to understand it, and I'm sorry you have no friends having experienced it, but I've had friends of my daughters that have suicided after therapy.  Others have become wildly promiscuous (same sex)  Some have married opposite sex spouses, and to this day sneak around on their spouses and having sex on the down low.  Until you grasp the difference between the sex act and what sexual preference is, you should drop the subject. I can send you to Lesbian conversion therapy - and possibly you can be "converted" - that is, you might be able to have sex with another female.  Does that make you a lesbian? NO.   Will you still have sex with your opposite sex spouse?  Most definitely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^ Dear Sneekin what part of MANDATES and FINES are you saying are free choice?
> the cheapest route for me to avoid being under fines/mandates I never agreed to was
> to pay or owe 45 a month for membership in a Christian health shares ministry.
> 
> So basically the Federal Govt REQUIRED me to either
> * pay for insurance I couldn't afford,
> * register for an exchange I don't believe in (the very least intrusion on my civil liberties
> being to apply for domestic abuse exception where I do consider this depriving me of my income
> and exercise of my liberties without any due process to prove I committed a crime or abuse)
> * or PAY to join a RELIGIOUS organization that exempts me from penalty
> 
> How is any of THAT "free choice" to pay and provide health care through charities and medical programs
> I deem more cost effective and sustainable?
> 
> Sneekin I USED to have free choice without penalties,
> but now I am restricted to only the choices above until state alternatives are set up.
> 
> And the CHEAPEST choice even requires JOINING A FAITH BASED GROUP
> AND PAYING FOR MEMBERSHIP.
> 
> Why aren't you offended by that ^ as a VIOLATION where govt is REGULATING
> exemptions based on PAID MEMBERSHIP IN APPROVED RELIGIOUS GROUPS!!!
> 
> BTW here is the DOJ definition of domestic abuse I would ask to use for an exemption:
> 
> Domestic Violence | OVW | Department of Justice
> 
> *Economic Abuse:* Is defined as making or attempting to make an individual financially dependent by maintaining total control over financial resources, *withholding one's access to money,* or forbidding one's attendance at school or employment.
> 
> I have been begging for help to get out from under MANDATES I never agreed to because these violate my beliefs and free choice without due process of laws and representation,
> and equal protection of my beliefs in rights of people and states that weren't changed by an amendment to the Constitution to authorize govt to impose mandates on health care.
> 
> *If you teach law in a school where you can ask other profs or students to research this,
> I would love to find a law firm or lawyer to petition to fix this mess!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This post is offensive.   For you to belittle and ridicule domestic abuse......I hope you are never in need of any resources.   To answer your question,  you can't get an exemption from DV.   No one is withholding your money.  You could go self insured, and not costs you a cent, provided your business has the  resources to cover expenses.
> Mandate:  the authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election:  You elect people, they voted contrary to what you wanted.  I believe that falls in the too bad too sad pile.  You'll need to "drain the swamp" and get new people in from Texas.  Otherwise, it's the definition of insanity - repeating the same mistakes over and over again and expecting different results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear @Sne ekin
> 
> 1. the way to STOP repeating these mistakes is to respect people's CONSENT to begin with.
> E X A C T L Y ! Bingo!
> This would stop ALL MANNER of abuse, bullying coercion by respecting peopel's free will and consent instead of overruling and overriding it.
> 
> 2. and yes I have been victimized by one of the worst
> forms of relationship abuse, by being FORCED TO ABORT A BABY AGAINST MY WISHES MY BELIEFS AND INTENT!
> My partner ìnsisted he would kill himself, if I even offered to have the baby and give it up for adoption.
> He and others convinced me by bullying that this was someone all my responsibility and mistake
> and my ONLY CHOICE was to abort the baby to prevent from imposing on anyone else who didn't want that responsibility.
> 
> So I've been through a TERRIBLE case of having my consent violated by complete coercion
> until I felt no other choice to stop the constant harassment and bullying except to agree to an abortion!
> 
> Can you BELIEVE that???
> I still cannot believe I went through that, but it happened to me
> 
> 3. So you wonder why I am such an advocate for consent and against coercion.
> I saw what it did to someone like me who was even forced to violate my own beliefs
> and abort a baby I wanted.  That's how horrible it is to me to see anyone else's consent violated.
> 
> So I say NO to going down that path.
> No coercion, and if something is really right or wrong
> you should be able to AGREE on it and take action by consent
> (unless the person is mentally or criminally ill or disabled
> in which case I support spiritual healing to ensure that
> nobody's will is violated until the conflicts can be remedied)
> 
> I am seeking ways to stop ALL FORMS OF ABUSE OPPRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION
> That come from violating consent of people.
> 
> So that's how I interpret 'free exercise of religion" to mean FREE WILL
> which requires balancing and consensus among all people equally so nobody gets violated
> as I went through because of other people's beliefs.
> 
> Been there, done that, it doesn't work to force people.
> The best way to undo the damage to relations and obstructing
> people from resolving conflicts is to respect CONSENT and include
> all people so we don't lose time energy resources or relationships
> bullying and forcing anything on anyone against their beliefs!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately for you, that's not the way our government works.   And no one can force you to consent to an abortion.  They "forced" you to make a choice between an abortion and a boyfriend, and if the baby was truly more important, you would have kicked him to the curb.  Because of all rights, it is your right and your right alone to make a decision about your own body.
Click to expand...


That's not what happens in reality, Sneekin
If we don't enforce consent but allow coercion, this enables the bullying to harass and abuse others.

You should know this as a law professor.
Technically we all have equal protections of the laws.

* but when a rape victim is told fighting her case in court
isn't going to win and she might as well give up,
that's not equal protection as the person who raped her.
But that's what happened to a daughter of a friend of mine.
And he blows it off as well, so he is enabling such legal abuse to continue
where the person who raped her had more legal resources and could
fight it while she did not have equal support to defend her rights and interests!

* and the cases I got involved with were similar.
due to legal abuses, corporate interests were able to get
govt favor and millions in funds denied to nonprofits that
actually represented and defended the communities
to prevent coercion oppression and abuse. So govt
leaders enabled the oppression using public tax dollars.

this is reality Sneekin
I don't know what you are teaching your law students.
Maybe they should investigate FT and find out what
enabled this legal abuse to violate equal civil rights and protections
by favoring corporate interests with more political and legal resources.


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOPE
> 1. first I am not saying to do all this, I am saying that if people agrees it solves the problem to be open to such solutions
> by my standards, I only go by CONSENT
> so if you do not consent to this, that is taken into account in the solution
> 
> 2. second, the people set up alternatives and agreements BEFORE changing any laws
> again I hold to that standard by CONSENT of the governed
> 
> Now Faun since I am answering your questions can you answer mine:
> 3. Do you agree to these same standards of NOT requiring people to go through
> options that aren't equally available for all people?
> 
> And if so, do you support the ACA mandates that require people to either
> go through the govt approved and regulated choices for health care or insurance to avoid penalties,
> or wait on STATE ALTERNATIVES to be created that also need to MEET GOVT approval.
> 
> if these choices HAVEN'T BEEN implemented yet,
> do you agree with laws REQUIRING PEOPLE TO GO THROUGH THEM FOR HEALTH CARE?
> OR ELSE FACE FINES?
> 
> Please answer that question ^
> Thanks Faun
> 
> 
> 
> You say, "nope," but your position said, "yes, yes, yes!"
> 
> You said you believe churches should marry folks but that the government shouldn't. If such a disaster ever occurred,  it would mean exactly that -- religious heterosexual would be about the only people who could get married on the U.S.. At least freely and to the person of their choice.
> 
> You may not comprehend this,  but it's because of people like you that the government is in the business of marriage; as well as securing all other rights as well.
> 
> As far as your question... no, I don't like the mandate. But then, it's a conservative concept that has always sounded stupid to me and I'm in favor of a national healthcare system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> I believe govt should accommodate ALL These beliefs equally
> 1. people who want to go through church to marry
> 2. people who want to go through govt
> 3. people who want both, or neither, or some other way
> So how do we set up a system that allows any combination of these
> without imposing on anyone with different beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our system does accommodate exactly that
> 1- if a couple wants to marry through a church- then they can be married through a church.
> 2- if a couple wants to marry, but not through a church- then they can be married outside a church.
> 3- if a couple wants both- then they can do both.
> 4.- if a couple wants neither- well then they are not married- and our system accommodates that also.
> 
> Whatever any of those couples do- do not impose on the beliefs of anyone else?
> 
> Why would a Jewish couple marrying in a synogogue be imposing on the beliefs of a Christian who doesn't believe in the Jewish faith?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Syriusly
> There is disagreement on terms of using govt to marry people.
> Faun said it isn't enough for govt to just do civil contracts but actual marriages.
> 
> The people who are arguing that gay marriage violates beliefs
> have no problem with atheists marrying through govt, or people of different races, but do not
> believe in govt endorsing same sex couples..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily the same people who object to 'gay marriage' also objected to legal alternative (equal but different) arrangements such as civil partnerships- when the good Christians of Georgia passed the law to ban gay marriage, they also passed a law to ban any recognition of any civil partnerships.
> 
> And of course there are people to this day who object to mixed race couples marrying- in church or out of church.
> 
> None of us have any right to an alternative to marriage- but we do have a right to marriage.
> My wife and I are married- and if anyone has an issue with that- that is their problem- not ours.
> If anyone has problems with my wonderful friend who married his partner a year, that is their problem not my friends.
> 
> It is not possible to find a compromise that EVERYONE will agree to.
> 
> But it is possible to extend legal marriage to everyone- and now we have.
Click to expand...


Dear Syriusly
That can still be negotiated.
Given the choice between either states
conducting marriage for everyone or civil unions and partnerships,
if those are the two choices, they'd either pick partnerships.

Or possibly the other idea of allowing marriages
if references to God, Christmas, spiritual healing prayer
and creation can be tolerated and included
the same way as LGBT beliefs.

Until those terms are offered and negotiated, 
we don't know what policies people might agree to
per state or nationally.

I'd even throw in the right to life and right to health care
as separate options if people agree to separate tracks.
maybe that would get people to agree to concessions on both sides!

And to pay for these tracks by crediting back restitution
to taxpayers for past abuses of govt and violations of equal rights and beliefs. 
That might also give incentive for people to seek common solutions!


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> A. Representatives represent me when these issues are resolved.
> They are not getting represented yet, sorry!
> Yes, I will go through govt to resolve them
> but I have to be able to EXPLAIN them first.
> 
> I posted the letter to Ted Cruz office outlining even 3 of the grievances
> that can be documented: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10952408/
> 
> This has been going on until I find the PEOPLE to REDRESS those grievances.
> [Of the people I've found who respect what it takes to represent me, most of
> them are OUTSIDE GOVT. We have to form teams to connect with people
> INSIDE govt to create the process that WILL represent these issues for resolution purposes!]
> 
> Not everyone can deal with this. And the ones who can are NOT ALL in govt positions!
> 
> Thanks for trying but it takes SPECIFIC people.
> And then I can form a team with Congresswoman Lee to resolve these issues.
> And if we can do it FT, we can use that same model for other issues
> that HAVEN'T BEEN RESOLVED using the given legal or govt system as is.
> 
> B. So in general
> NO the system of redressing grievances by assessing restitution owed
> and crediting the taxmoney back to taxpayers
> HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET
> 
> I am teaming up with Jon Roland of the Libertarians and Constitution Society in Austin
> and Ted Weisgal with the Diversity outreach of KPFT public radio
> to try to organize some kind of party representation that can redress grievances.
> 
> The PROCESS that WOULD represent me in protecting the right
> to petition to redress grievances by consensus and noncoercion
> as the standard HASN'T BEEN proposed, offered or applied yet.
> 
> Thank you for helping to sort out the preliminary prep part.
> 
> At some point I will reach out to all law schools especially
> anyone teaching Constitutional laws and ethics, to join the effort.
> 
> If it is really based on Consensus and Inclusion then everyone
> will be able to use it to resolve their issues locally or nationally,
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> *Emily,*
> I don't think you grasp how government works.  Your representatives  are elected,  then they represent you.  Even using your example - we need some way for people like you, who opt out of health insurance, to quit bankrupting the rest of us - we used a republican plan, the ACA, written by the Heritage think tank in the mid 90's.  Romney implemented it, Obama implemented it, after a majority of Congress *APPROVED* it.  You can't explain it, because I think you don't grasp the facts.  They represented you.  PP/ACA was implemented it, even though you don't like it.   Like it or not, you were represented.  Your next step is to contact your representatives, and see what can be done to shift the burden of paying for the lazy people (people who work who don't care that they rip the rest of us off).  One will assume under the Trump regime, it will be overturned, and the rest of us will push to make sure if you don't pay for insurance because you just don't want to, can now be denied no matter what your health issues are.  The majority of health care dollars are going against deadbeats who work and refuse to pay for coverage, and those that sign up for insurance weeks before a major surgery.
> 
> If you are banking on Cruz, that will be even a bigger joke.
> 
> While I can agree with you in part in concept only, the fact is, cheap people like you ruin it for the rest of us.   My birth mother died in her mid 30's from a lung disease.   It was in the early days of health insurance, but my father made sure insurance was paid before groceries were bought - which was good.  My mother had congestive heart failure, treatment for TB, a double masectomy, all before the age of 35.  She was being treated for TB, treated in a trial with a drug that was hailed as a cure - unfortunately, she was allergic to the (now commonplace) and went into Anaphylactic shock.  She ended up on oxygen, filling up with fluid, and died days later.   So......even then, costs were thousands of dollars.   Nowadays, costs would be probably half a million.   Insurance?  Would pay for it.  You refuse insurance?   You expect ME to pay for it?  That's NOT a viable solution, Emily.
> 
> Good luck grieving a law that's in full force and effect.  That's really funny,  since we grieve and arbitrate perceptions / conclusions that laws have been violated.  The ACA is LAW.  Good luck. We, the people don't get to grieve every dreamed up misconception we have.  There are checks and balances.  And if the ACA is overturned - do I get to now grieve and file suit against you or anyone else that now refuses to pay for insurance and then gets sick?  I'll be first in line if that was doable. After all, you said I should get to grieve and get redress - so maybe I should file now against you people that refuse to purchase insurance.   Live in a nice house?  I'll take it.  Nice car?  keep up the payments, I'll just drive off in your car.   After all, an xbox, car, house, video game is more important to you people than actual good health.  And if you have children, I would even claim child abuse, playing games while your child goes from a simple sneeze to hospitalization and respiratory infections.  I guess people shouldn't be allowed to have children unless they are able to care for their kids.  Not having insurance when you can afford it should be grounds for no marriage and no children - mandatory birth  control, perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> A. The reps in Congress (legislative)
> and the President (executive) who voted yes and passed it were
> ALL DEMOCRATS.
> 
> The Republicans voted NO..
> 
> The Texs Democratic Party platform openly sat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> In the next Congress, you can expect to see laws passed by the majority Republicans without a single Democrat voting yes.
> 
> That is how our system works- we are a representational Democracy- when the majority of Congress can vote in a law- that becomes the law for all of us.
> 
> I am sure I won't like some of the laws passed by the Republican Congress- but I won't be pretending that they didn't do it legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Especially with Constitutionalists, Syriusly,
> NO they should know better than to pass biased laws
> that violate beliefs of others.
> 
> Free market health care is fine for those who believe in that and agree to support it.
> For those who believe in going through govt for singlepayer health care,
> that is an equal political belief people have equal right to exercise if they fund it themselves as well!
> 
> So why not set up both tracks and let taxpayers vote, pay and organize under
> the programs as they believe in setting up their ways. Health care is supposed to
> remain a private choice, so let people choose!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Name a law that's been ruled biased in your lifetime.  Not your opinion, but factually ruled upon.  Healthcare mandating has been ruled on and ruled as NOT BIASED!!!!
Click to expand...


Some examples:
* DOMA was ruled unconstitutional, which you argue was only in parts.

In general, the bans against gay marriage are biased
but these are expressed in OTHER terms when it comes to legal arguments.

* Roe v wade found abortion bans unconstitutional because of "substantive due process"
which was phrased as "right to privacy" ie pursuing defense would cause imposition by govt in
the person's private life before finding guilt so the process itself would be a violation.

In general the arguments for right to life are FAITH BASED, so those get rejected
even though the arguments in legal and written process may differ and not say it that way.

* some funding for ACA was struck down as NOT properly authorized by Congress.
the commerce clause argument was struck down, and Justice Roberts had to change
the interpretation to a TAX in order to argue that federal govt had the right to impose a tax bill.

[the mandate requiring business owners like Hobby Lobby to provide abortifacients
they opposed religiously was struck down and recognized those owners equal
rights to defend their beliefs similar to religious organizations arguing for the same.]

The SPIRIT of the laws is different Sneekin
I see you want to stick to "letter of the law" arguments,
but I'm talking about the WHOLE PROCESS IN GENERAL.

NOTE: I'm NOT TRYING to  BYPASS or IGNORE the literal process.
I'm saying if we work out conflicts and ag re ements in SPIRIT FIRST
by AGREEING on principles we want to ENFORCE,
then the LETTER of the laws and process FOLLOW FROM THAT AGREEMENT.

I am trying to reach a resolution first BEFORE using the "literal process that'
govt goes through" to  REFLECT and REPRESENT that agreement in policy.

Does this make sense?

*I'm NOT trying to deny, avoid, ignore or reinvent the literal govt process,
where I am trying to reform the approach is working with people
directly **BEFORE going into the govt process** so we agree **in advance**
what laws or reforms to pursue and how to best write/structure them
where people AGREE they represent everyone and don't cause problems or rejection.*


----------



## emilynghiem

Syriusly said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> 
> A. Representatives represent me when these issues are resolved.
> They are not getting represented yet, sorry!
> Yes, I will go through govt to resolve them
> but I have to be able to EXPLAIN them first.
> 
> I posted the letter to Ted Cruz office outlining even 3 of the grievances
> that can be documented: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10952408/
> 
> This has been going on until I find the PEOPLE to REDRESS those grievances.
> [Of the people I've found who respect what it takes to represent me, most of
> them are OUTSIDE GOVT. We have to form teams to connect with people
> INSIDE govt to create the process that WILL represent these issues for resolution purposes!]
> 
> Not everyone can deal with this. And the ones who can are NOT ALL in govt positions!
> 
> Thanks for trying but it takes SPECIFIC people.
> And then I can form a team with Congresswoman Lee to resolve these issues.
> And if we can do it FT, we can use that same model for other issues
> that HAVEN'T BEEN RESOLVED using the given legal or govt system as is.
> 
> B. So in general
> NO the system of redressing grievances by assessing restitution owed
> and crediting the taxmoney back to taxpayers
> HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET
> 
> I am teaming up with Jon Roland of the Libertarians and Constitution Society in Austin
> and Ted Weisgal with the Diversity outreach of KPFT public radio
> to try to organize some kind of party representation that can redress grievances.
> 
> The PROCESS that WOULD represent me in protecting the right
> to petition to redress grievances by consensus and noncoercion
> as the standard HASN'T BEEN proposed, offered or applied yet.
> 
> Thank you for helping to sort out the preliminary prep part.
> 
> At some point I will reach out to all law schools especially
> anyone teaching Constitutional laws and ethics, to join the effort.
> 
> If it is really based on Consensus and Inclusion then everyone
> will be able to use it to resolve their issues locally or nationally,
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> *Emily,*
> I don't think you grasp how government works.  Your representatives  are elected,  then they represent you.  Even using your example - we need some way for people like you, who opt out of health insurance, to quit bankrupting the rest of us - we used a republican plan, the ACA, written by the Heritage think tank in the mid 90's.  Romney implemented it, Obama implemented it, after a majority of Congress *APPROVED* it.  You can't explain it, because I think you don't grasp the facts.  They represented you.  PP/ACA was implemented it, even though you don't like it.   Like it or not, you were represented.  Your next step is to contact your representatives, and see what can be done to shift the burden of paying for the lazy people (people who work who don't care that they rip the rest of us off).  One will assume under the Trump regime, it will be overturned, and the rest of us will push to make sure if you don't pay for insurance because you just don't want to, can now be denied no matter what your health issues are.  The majority of health care dollars are going against deadbeats who work and refuse to pay for coverage, and those that sign up for insurance weeks before a major surgery.
> 
> If you are banking on Cruz, that will be even a bigger joke.
> 
> While I can agree with you in part in concept only, the fact is, cheap people like you ruin it for the rest of us.   My birth mother died in her mid 30's from a lung disease.   It was in the early days of health insurance, but my father made sure insurance was paid before groceries were bought - which was good.  My mother had congestive heart failure, treatment for TB, a double masectomy, all before the age of 35.  She was being treated for TB, treated in a trial with a drug that was hailed as a cure - unfortunately, she was allergic to the (now commonplace) and went into Anaphylactic shock.  She ended up on oxygen, filling up with fluid, and died days later.   So......even then, costs were thousands of dollars.   Nowadays, costs would be probably half a million.   Insurance?  Would pay for it.  You refuse insurance?   You expect ME to pay for it?  That's NOT a viable solution, Emily.
> 
> Good luck grieving a law that's in full force and effect.  That's really funny,  since we grieve and arbitrate perceptions / conclusions that laws have been violated.  The ACA is LAW.  Good luck. We, the people don't get to grieve every dreamed up misconception we have.  There are checks and balances.  And if the ACA is overturned - do I get to now grieve and file suit against you or anyone else that now refuses to pay for insurance and then gets sick?  I'll be first in line if that was doable. After all, you said I should get to grieve and get redress - so maybe I should file now against you people that refuse to purchase insurance.   Live in a nice house?  I'll take it.  Nice car?  keep up the payments, I'll just drive off in your car.   After all, an xbox, car, house, video game is more important to you people than actual good health.  And if you have children, I would even claim child abuse, playing games while your child goes from a simple sneeze to hospitalization and respiratory infections.  I guess people shouldn't be allowed to have children unless they are able to care for their kids.  Not having insurance when you can afford it should be grounds for no marriage and no children - mandatory birth  control, perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sneekin
> A. The reps in Congress (legislative)
> and the President (executive) who voted yes and passed it were
> ALL DEMOCRATS.
> 
> The Republicans voted NO..
> 
> The Texs Democratic Party platform openly sat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> In the next Congress, you can expect to see laws passed by the majority Republicans without a single Democrat voting yes.
> 
> That is how our system works- we are a representational Democracy- when the majority of Congress can vote in a law- that becomes the law for all of us.
> 
> I am sure I won't like some of the laws passed by the Republican Congress- but I won't be pretending that they didn't do it legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Especially with Constitutionalists, Syriusly,
> NO they should know better than to pass biased laws
> that violate beliefs of others.!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Virtually every law violates the belief of someone.
> 
> You may not like our system of government, but ACA was legally put into effect- just as every law for at least the next two years that President Trump signs.
> 
> Even if those laws violate my beliefs.
Click to expand...


Dear Syriusly you have the right to AGREE to accommodate
things that otherwise violate or exclude your beliefs.
Many Buddhists and atheists don't go around suing to remove crosses from public buildings.
Many people who don't believe in gays getting married or in gay pride parades,
tolerate this. Many peace activists opposed to war agree to fund military defense anyway.
People who don't believe in executions tolerate that, while others protest and demand reform.

*Just because YOU don't have a problem with a cross on a building
doesn't give YOU the right to FORCE this on an atheist who DOES
believe in enforcing the *principle* of removing faith based references from public institutions.*


----------



## emilynghiem

peabody said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ain't gonna happen because millennials and the  younger generation are not conservative and they are the future..
> 
> 
> 
> just like they said Trump could never be elected????? and it turned out Hilary had it backwards!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump is the dying cry of an aging generation of conservatives. The future of America is liberal all the way.
Click to expand...


Dear peabody 
There are many young conservatives as there are young progressives.
Are you counting only what you see portrayed in the media?

And even if you say the liberal progressives outnumber the conservatives,
well so are LGBT a tiny minority, a fraction of the population, yet they have
demanded representation and got more from the Democrats than Blacks have gotten
who have suffered a long history and waited in line a lot longer to see that represented.

Native Americans are also a minority, are you saying their interests and representation doesn't count because
they are outnumbered?


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
> 
> Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
> 
> Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
> 
> Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Ain't gonna happen. Liberals already won the battle over social issues, even after Trumps scotus pick is installed. The only thing that conservatives can change is that that relates to foreign policy and economics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a liberal or conservative issue.  2/3 of the country advocate SSM.   More than 70 percent of Democrats, and over 55 percent of Republicans.   Nice try, though.
> 
> My mother died when I was 6.  My stepmother raised our family. She was unable to have children, so according to him, they shouldn't be able to  get married because she can't procreate - unlike SSM couples, who can use donor sperm or surrogates. He's even misinterpreting the 14th amendment when it comes to separate but equal, as well.  It doesn't just apply to race - it applies to sex, age, national origin, religion, skin color as well.   And EEOC's last ruling stated that discrimination based on sexual preference was the same as discrimination based on sex - where a man or a woman doesn't match the preconceived notions of male/female.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please don't make shit up.
> 
> Over 60 percent of Republicans oppose court on gay marriage: Reuters/Ipsos poll
> 
> The Pew Research Center survey, conducted May 12-18 among 2,002 adults, finds that partisans are as divided on this issue as ever: Today, *65%* of Democrats and an identical percentage of independents favor gay marriage; only about one third (34%) of Republicans do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not. PRC is a conservative think tank.  2002 is a low number.  I've yet to see any poll showing republicans at 34 percent.  What were the questions.   I'm not making things up, you are taking a single poll out of context.  Look at the NYT, WSJ, CNN, and on and on.   Still makes no difference, my mathematically  challenged friend, because when you use real numbers using the real question, it shows that MORE advocate SSM than are against it.   So what is your point?   Gallup, back in 2013, when only 26 percent of republicans approved, showed a combined percentage of 53 percent.   In 3 years time, the number of Democrats when up from 69 pecent to 75 percent, and Republicans wen from 26 percent to 35 percent.  Your generation is dying off.  Millenials are coming up, where the numbers pro SSM marriage in 2013 were at 79 percent - and that number is in the mid 80 percentile now..... so you need to stop making "sh*t" up, and look at more than a single poll - which, we all know, is the rightmost leaning poll available.  Hey - did you know that they also wrote the draft for the Affordable Care Act, or did you forget that as well?
Click to expand...

 
Dear Sneekin
the problem here is we don't agree that political beliefs count equally as religious beliefs.
clearly if LGBT or if atheists have fewer numbers than Christians,
that doesn't give anyone the right to ABUSE govt to impose "majority beliefs" on the minority of other beliefs.

the problem is you don't see LGBT as faith based beliefs
equally as the opposing beliefs.

Because I do frame them equally as beliefs, I argue that laws
should protect BOTH from infringement by the OTHER
instead of govt siding with one and defending it and penalizing the other.

Do you agree that is where you and I disagree on this?
You only respect the defense of one side, the LGBT from "religious infringement" by the other.
While I recognize beliefs of both sides, and argue NEITHER should abuse govt to infringe on each other!

NOTE: Again I do understand that by literal laws and precedence,
more people interpret religious freedom to mean how YOU argue.
Again, my point is to formulate a consensus among people outside govt FIRST,
form solutions and how to WORD and structure these reforms so all sides AGREE
they solve the problems, BEFORE taking this to govt to GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.

it is not to supercede it, or bypass or divert, but it is to FACILITATE
the process of reform by agreeing first among the public
and then seeking representation and process through govt to REFLECT
that agreement on policy and solutions so there is no rejection or argument that
something is unconstitutional to thwart the process. if we all agree in advance,
we write better laws that we agree to enforce without these issues!

it IS using the process, but forming agreements in advance to  make sure it goes through smoothly with no obstruction
rejection or division if all conflicts are resolved first so the law is well constructed and troubleshot beforehand. Thanks!


----------



## emilynghiem

Sneekin said:


> It's off topic because this is about gay marraige, not health care.  You can claim it violates your liberty without due process, you can claim you are penalized for your beliefs, but based on the ruling of the SCOTUS, they have decided what you claim is WRONG, and it most certainly IS constitutional.   It needs to be a separate thread, but why bother?   Cruz claims it's going to be gone within the first days after Trump takes office - why waste our time?



BECAUSE Sneekin
a. if we don't address and agree how to handle the root cause,
it will happen over and over with the NEXT bill and the NEXT bill.
Conservatives do not believe in giving federal govt more such power,
and liberals do not believe in denying rights due to beliefs of others.
So this wil continue, the same objections to health care and to marriage
because of states rights vs. federal govt, over and over

b. Cruz and conservatives are not a done deal either.
If they remove ACA mandates, it has to be replaced with something else
or else those people aren't represented either!
so we STILL have to work out agreed alternatives.
That's why I suggest dividing and offering equal choices by party.
Let people figure it out on their own what they want to support,
and give them the OPTION to organize it through PARTY so
they can have collective representation on a national level.without
imposing their system on the other groups and vice versa.

c. this same solution of separate tracks would solve BOTH problems
differences in BELIEFS over health care AND marriage.
so why not solve several problems at once?
again see Code of Ethics on the most efficient and economical
means of getting tasks accomplished.

Instead of fighting back and forth endlessly over liberal beliefs
about depending on govt and conservative beliefs on limiting govt,
allow both tracks. And then where these intersect in Agreement,
that can be public policy. but where they disagree , keep them separate!
just like equal religious groups that anyone can join, fund and participate in freely.

Thanks Sneekin!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

peabody said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> . Liberals already won the battle over social issues,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why we have 75% of black kids growing up in broken or never formed homes. Trump might appoint 2-4, perhaps enough to reintroduce civilized social values to America again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ain't gonna happen because millennials and the  younger generation are not conservative and they are the future. Trump is the dying cry of an aging generation of conservatives. The future of America is liberal all the way.
Click to expand...


1) young people grow up and become conservative/libertarian
2) gay is not mentioned in Constitution and how can it rule on gay marriage??


----------



## peabody

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> . Liberals already won the battle over social issues,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why we have 75% of black kids growing up in broken or never formed homes. Trump might appoint 2-4, perhaps enough to reintroduce civilized social values to America again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ain't gonna happen because millennials and the  younger generation are not conservative and they are the future. Trump is the dying cry of an aging generation of conservatives. The future of America is liberal all the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) young people grow up and become conservative/libertarian
> 2) gay is not mentioned in Constitution and how can it rule on gay marriage??
Click to expand...

1) Keith Richards and Iggy Pop are not conservative/libertarian 
2) I doesn't matter if it's not in the constitution. Scotus can still rule on it.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

peabody said:


> 1) Keith Richards and Iggy Pop are not conservative/libertarian
> .



and??????????????? think before you post


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

peabody said:


> 2) I doesn't matter if it's not in the constitution. Scotus can still rule on it.



then they can rule on anything and should be thrown out for treason and liberalism. NOw do you understand why liberals spied for Stalin and elected Barry?


----------



## peabody

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Keith Richards and Iggy Pop are not conservative/libertarian
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and??????????????? think before you post
Click to expand...

And older people don't necessarily grow conservative. You don't get that?


----------



## peabody

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) I doesn't matter if it's not in the constitution. Scotus can still rule on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then they can rule on anything and should be thrown out for treason and liberalism. NOw do you understand why liberals spied for Stalin and elected Barry?
Click to expand...

Conspiracy nut


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

peabody said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Keith Richards and Iggy Pop are not conservative/libertarian
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and??????????????? think before you post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And older people don't necessarily grow conservative. You don't get that?
Click to expand...

dear, nobody so they do "necessarily" grow conservative. 1+1=2


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

peabody said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) I doesn't matter if it's not in the constitution. Scotus can still rule on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then they can rule on anything and should be thrown out for treason and liberalism. NOw do you understand why liberals spied for Stalin and elected Barry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conspiracy nut
Click to expand...


what conspiracy are you talking about?


----------



## peabody

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) I doesn't matter if it's not in the constitution. Scotus can still rule on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then they can rule on anything and should be thrown out for treason and liberalism. NOw do you understand why liberals spied for Stalin and elected Barry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conspiracy nut
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what conspiracy are you talking about?
Click to expand...

I don't know. I just ran out of arguments so I threw that out there. I was going to go with racist but I decided on conspiracy nut


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun RE: conservative concept
> 1. are you talking about the policy credited to Reagan for opening up all hospitals to treat all people?
> a. if you don't agree to the terms of taxpayers paying for that
> and want to change them, why change it to something others don't agree with either?
> b. why not go after prison budgets, convert those to  medical treatment, research and education programs, and pay for medical education and training at the same time as offering public health services to both inmates and the general public for the same costs we are already paying?
> c. why change it to insurance if not all people agree to that and insurance doesn't cover the need for training service providers, building facilities, researching or treating the CAUSE of disease
> 
> 2. if you are talking about insurance mandates being a conservative idea
> that was already debunked
> a. it did not cover daily and routine health care, only CATASTROPHIC
> b. it still respected STATES rights and did not ever get support to pass on a NATIONAL level
> So changing it to mean FEDERAL regulation of ALL health care violates
> Conservative principles on 2-3 counts: states rights, civil liberties, and religious freedom since govt cannot regulate the healing work that faith based programs do which only works in private as a free choice and can't be mandated
> 
> c. that's why I'm saying to separate two tracks or else agree to let spiritual healing be incorporated into public programs.
> 
> If you insist on keeping spiritual faith based programs out of govt,
> then people cannot be penalized and forced under federal regulations at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as your question... no, I don't like the mandate. But then, it's a conservative concept that has always sounded stupid to me and I'm in favor of a national healthcare system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Emily - STOP RAMBLING ON ABOUT A LAW THAT'S BEEN IN EFFECT FOR 30 YEARS. *
> a.  No one cares what you think about it.  If you want it changed, stop posting here and hit the pavement and get the signatures - convince your federal senators and congressmen - have them convince the republicans (some of which passed the Reagan bill 30 years ago, more than likely) that it's a bad thing.  IT'S THE LAW.  APPARENTLY ONE YOU DIDN'T BOTHER TO READ, EITHER.   If they receive any federal dollars (ie, Medicare/Medicaid and others), they lose their tax-exempt status.  All they have to do is give up that status.
> b. Why?  Because of the money YOUR STATE GETS from contracting out prison services.  It's called kickbacks.  You are also talking of violating the civil rights of the prisoners - you can't require them to participate in RDTE.  Why not go with a single payer system, instead?  One that gets everyone treated the same?  Novel concept.
> c.   Because it's NOT YOUR CHOICE.   Not everyone is going to like ANY method that's chosen.
> 
> 2.
> a. Emily, you are completely FULL OF S**T.   The Heritage Foundation WROTE the ACA, in the 90's.  Heritage is a CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK.  It was written, because they wanted a plan in place in case Hillary's proposed health care plan as first lady was introduced.  Tell me, who debunked this?  Certainly not Heritage.   Certainly not Romney, who implemented it in his home state.   Claiming it was debunked demonstrates that you are either ignorant (failed to read up and try to debunk), or stupid - meaning unwilling to listen to others and refusing to believe facts.   Which is it.
> b.  Did you check with Mitt Romney, where it didn't cover daily/routine health care?  It most certainly does. Romney was first to implement it, and he could ONLY IMPLEMENT at a STATE LEVEL, as HE WAS GOVERNOR.   Obama could implement it based on the recommendations of Congress - and it was modified to be across the board at the FEDERAL LEVEL.    Another of your lies is that government can't regulate healing work of faith based programs (your snake handling, etc).  There are SPECIFIC GUIDELINES that must be met - that don't violate the constitution.
> 
> I know you can't grasp the concept, but the RFRA doesn't overrule law.  The cake/photo/etc lawsuits repeatedly prove you wrong.
> 
> c.  You cannot separate into two tracks, you were told by 5 different people why now.  We aren't telling you again.
> 
> You babbled:  "If you insist on keeping spiritual faith based programs out of govt, then people cannot be penalized and forced under federal regulations at the same time."
> 
> We've told you repeatedly that it violates the first amendment.  It's already been to the SCOTUS, and people most  certainly can be penalized and forced under federal regulations.  Your inability to understand, or your refusal (more than likely) is not our problem.   Break the law, go to jail, at this point I am through arguing you about this off topic subject, where you continually babble about things you know nothing about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Sneekin sorry I got behind reading, thanking and responding to all your messages
> which I don't want you to think are going underappreciated!
> I will struggle to catch up with you, but think this is GREAT and well worth the effort on both our part.
> THANK YOU and I will go back and give you all the credit, thanks, info's etc you deserve for spelling all this out
> so we can work this out in detail comprehensively.
> 
> Can I start with this one point about Heritage Foundation
> [and secondary point about RFRA vs Constitutional religious freedom in general]
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.
> a. Emily, you are completely FULL OF S**T. The Heritage Foundation WROTE the ACA, in the 90's. Heritage is a CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK. It was written, because they wanted a plan in place in case Hillary's proposed health care plan as first lady was introduced. Tell me, who debunked this? Certainly not Heritage. Certainly not Romney, who implemented it in his home state. Claiming it was debunked demonstrates that you are either ignorant (failed to read up and try to debunk), or stupid - meaning unwilling to listen to others and refusing to believe facts. Which is it.
> b. Did you check with Mitt Romney, where it didn't cover daily/routine health care? It most certainly does. Romney was first to implement it, and he could ONLY IMPLEMENT at a STATE LEVEL, as HE WAS GOVERNOR. Obama could implement it based on the recommendations of Congress - and it was modified to be across the board at the FEDERAL LEVEL. Another of your lies is that government can't regulate healing work of faith based programs (your snake handling, etc). There are SPECIFIC GUIDELINES that must be met - that don't violate the constitution.
> 
> I know you can't grasp the concept, but the RFRA doesn't overrule law. The cake/photo/etc lawsuits repeatedly prove you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A. No, this Heritage Argument was debunked
> 1. the insurance was for CATASTROPHIC ONLY
> *IT WAS NEVER INTENDED FOR FED GOVT TO MICROMANAGE ALL HEALTH CARE COMPREHENSIVELY
> WHICH VIOLATES THE BELIEFS OF CONSERVATIVES IN LIMITED GOVT!!*
> 
> We both know Conservatives are OPPOSED to federal govt interfering with personal finances and health care.
> They have CONSISTENTLY screamed against anything risking the path of SOCIALISM and still prefer to change to PRIVATE.
> That's been their stance opposing ANY govt welfare, health care, benefits etc.
> 
> 2. Yo, earth to Sneekin, law professor:
> *PASSING LAWS ON A STATE LEVEL IS DIFFERENT FROM FEDERAL.*
> PEOPLE WHO ARGUE FOR STATES RIGHTS DISTINGUISH THIS ALL THE TIME FROM FEDERAL.
> EX: They argue Marriage laws belong to States not to Federal govt!
> 
> Surely as a law professor, you know there is a HUGE different in jurisdiction
> and decisions/representation between State laws and Federal laws.
> 
> 3. And NO CONSERVATIVE in Congress had PASSED that mandate
> BECAUSE IT VIOLATES CONSERVATIVE AND CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES!
> 
> It only passed when DEMOCRATS in Congress voted for it.
> 
> It FAILED when Conservatives vote for it because it goes against Constitutional beliefs that CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE IN
> ie in limited federal govt that has NO authority to DEPRIVE citizens of liberty
> (for health care benefits or other social programs that don't justify a compelling interest
> because of conservative beliefs that private sector and free market can meet those demands better than govt).
> 
> At most the CONSERVATIVES would argue that a Constitutional Amendment
> would need to be passed by the given process if federal govt and Constitution
> is to be EXPANDED to include
> * right to marriage
> * right to health care
> 
> So NO Sneekin, conservatives do not support or endorse ANY
> of what you are ascribing to them because it violates their own beliefs.
> 
> You would have better luck arguing that Democrats passed laws
> violated their own prochoice principles (of not letting govt interfere with personal choices
> but penalizing them), rather than saying Republicans passed or approved ANY SUCH
> LAWS that violate their Constitutional beliefs in keeping social and health benefits apart from federal govt!
> 
> Thanks Sneekin
> 
> I wish it were that simple, but Conservatives have consistently
> rejected growing more federal programs that make people more and more
> dependent and lose their ability to check govt because of these conflicting interests
> where govt starts controlling people instead of people having all the leverage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Emily:*
> 
> 1.  The Heritage Foundation was written specifically back in the 1990's when Hillary was working on her "wife of the president" Single Payer Health Care proposal.   The Heritage Foundation wrote this for the entire country, and proposed using insurance plans throughout the US (the ability to buy across state lines).  This is pretty common knowledge to those who were focused on Obama and his proposed health care plan.  Republicans at the time were worried that the public would go for a single payer system, so they funded the Heritage Foundation in an attempt to counteract Hillary's proposal. Hillary's plan died on the vine when republicans took over congress, and the Heritage plan was shelved, until Romney dredged it up, and implemented it after tweaking the proposal to be a single state system.  Obama dusted it off, tweaked it back, and gave it to congressional committees to tweak.  As republicans were also on the committee, one knows it didn't violate their constitutions.
> 
> Paul Ryan, speaker of the House,  works with social programs.  to say it's against his beliefs is laughable.   Paul and Mitch are against social programs that don't help people of their own personal states only.  Same with health care.   It's been proven over and over that health care is cheaper when spread over the population, rather than taxing the democrats when the lazy and ignorant republicans refuse to pay for insurance, practice gluttony, and need expensive surgeries - when all could have been avoided with a simple drug, like Lipitor, or a simple ace inhibitor - which combined costs to the citizenry is only a few cents per month.   Single payer health care has even more savings.  Check it out.
> 
> 2.  There are more republicans on public aid and disability than democrats, so what you claim is totally wrong.   The poor (republicans) voted for Trump.  Last time I looked, he's a republican.
> 
> I really wish you'd learn how government works.   And you still can't pass a constitutional amendment for the reasons you claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? Sneekin
> If people do not agree to such mandates they argue are flawed and unconstitutional,
> are you insinuating they have no right to dissent because OTHER PEOPLE proposed them?
> 
> I don't understand your bias Sneekin
> You also argue that since SOME PEOPLE have interpreted the Bible to justify slavery
> then ALL PEOPLE have to respect and include that intepretation if they follow the Bible.
> What?
> 
> Just because scientists once misidentified the Brontosaurus as a separate dinosaur,
> does that mean ALL science related to dinosaurs is flawed because of THOSE PEOPLE in THAT situation?
> 
> So if SOME people "propose" that marriage HAS to mean one man and one woman only,
> does that mean ALL people have to believe and accept the same?
> 
> Where are you getting this Sneekin?
> You can argue and be right that Heritage foundation first
> proposed the insurance mandate even for Catastrophic only,
> and that DOESN'T JUSTIFY passing and imposing it against
> the BELIEFS of other citizens.
> 
> So ANYTHING that ANYONE says can be imposed on others?
> What are you SAYING???
> 
> If some Christians teach KKK policies against race mixing,
> then ALL CHRISTIANS have to enforce the same?
> 
> WHAT?
Click to expand...

It most certainly is constitutional.   Read the decision. End of Discussion and OFF TOPIC.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.
> a. Emily, you are completely FULL OF S**T.   The Heritage Foundation WROTE the ACA, in the 90's.  Heritage is a CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK.  It was written, because they wanted a plan in place in case Hillary's proposed health care plan as first lady was introduced.  Tell me, who debunked this?  Certainly not Heritage.   Certainly not Romney, who implemented it in his home state.   Claiming it was debunked demonstrates that you are either ignorant (failed to read up and try to debunk), or stupid - meaning unwilling to listen to others and refusing to believe facts.   Which is it.
> b.  Did you check with Mitt Romney, where it didn't cover daily/routine health care?  It most certainly does. Romney was first to implement it, and he could ONLY IMPLEMENT at a STATE LEVEL, as HE WAS GOVERNOR.   Obama could implement it based on the recommendations of Congress - and it was modified to be across the board at the FEDERAL LEVEL.    Another of your lies is that government can't regulate healing work of faith based programs (your snake handling, etc).  There are SPECIFIC GUIDELINES that must be met - that don't violate the constitution.
> 
> I know you can't grasp the concept, but the RFRA doesn't overrule law.  The cake/photo/etc lawsuits repeatedly prove you wrong.
> 
> c.  You cannot separate into two tracks, you were told by 5 different people why now.  We aren't telling you again.
> 
> You babbled:  "If you insist on keeping spiritual faith based programs out of govt, then people cannot be penalized and forced under federal regulations at the same time."
> 
> We've told you repeatedly that it violates the first amendment.  It's already been to the SCOTUS, and people most  certainly can be penalized and forced under federal regulations.  Your inability to understand, or your refusal (more than likely) is not our problem.   Break the law, go to jail, at this point I am through arguing you about this off topic subject, where you continually babble about things you know nothing about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Sneekin sorry I got behind reading, thanking and responding to all your messages
> which I don't want you to think are going underappreciated!
> I will struggle to catch up with you, but think this is GREAT and well worth the effort on both our part.
> THANK YOU and I will go back and give you all the credit, thanks, info's etc you deserve for spelling all this out
> so we can work this out in detail comprehensively.
> 
> Can I start with this one point about Heritage Foundation
> [and secondary point about RFRA vs Constitutional religious freedom in general]
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.
> a. Emily, you are completely FULL OF S**T. The Heritage Foundation WROTE the ACA, in the 90's. Heritage is a CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK. It was written, because they wanted a plan in place in case Hillary's proposed health care plan as first lady was introduced. Tell me, who debunked this? Certainly not Heritage. Certainly not Romney, who implemented it in his home state. Claiming it was debunked demonstrates that you are either ignorant (failed to read up and try to debunk), or stupid - meaning unwilling to listen to others and refusing to believe facts. Which is it.
> b. Did you check with Mitt Romney, where it didn't cover daily/routine health care? It most certainly does. Romney was first to implement it, and he could ONLY IMPLEMENT at a STATE LEVEL, as HE WAS GOVERNOR. Obama could implement it based on the recommendations of Congress - and it was modified to be across the board at the FEDERAL LEVEL. Another of your lies is that government can't regulate healing work of faith based programs (your snake handling, etc). There are SPECIFIC GUIDELINES that must be met - that don't violate the constitution.
> 
> I know you can't grasp the concept, but the RFRA doesn't overrule law. The cake/photo/etc lawsuits repeatedly prove you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A. No, this Heritage Argument was debunked
> 1. the insurance was for CATASTROPHIC ONLY
> *IT WAS NEVER INTENDED FOR FED GOVT TO MICROMANAGE ALL HEALTH CARE COMPREHENSIVELY
> WHICH VIOLATES THE BELIEFS OF CONSERVATIVES IN LIMITED GOVT!!*
> 
> We both know Conservatives are OPPOSED to federal govt interfering with personal finances and health care.
> They have CONSISTENTLY screamed against anything risking the path of SOCIALISM and still prefer to change to PRIVATE.
> That's been their stance opposing ANY govt welfare, health care, benefits etc.
> 
> 2. Yo, earth to Sneekin, law professor:
> *PASSING LAWS ON A STATE LEVEL IS DIFFERENT FROM FEDERAL.*
> PEOPLE WHO ARGUE FOR STATES RIGHTS DISTINGUISH THIS ALL THE TIME FROM FEDERAL.
> EX: They argue Marriage laws belong to States not to Federal govt!
> 
> Surely as a law professor, you know there is a HUGE different in jurisdiction
> and decisions/representation between State laws and Federal laws.
> 
> 3. And NO CONSERVATIVE in Congress had PASSED that mandate
> BECAUSE IT VIOLATES CONSERVATIVE AND CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES!
> 
> It only passed when DEMOCRATS in Congress voted for it.
> 
> It FAILED when Conservatives vote for it because it goes against Constitutional beliefs that CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE IN
> ie in limited federal govt that has NO authority to DEPRIVE citizens of liberty
> (for health care benefits or other social programs that don't justify a compelling interest
> because of conservative beliefs that private sector and free market can meet those demands better than govt).
> 
> At most the CONSERVATIVES would argue that a Constitutional Amendment
> would need to be passed by the given process if federal govt and Constitution
> is to be EXPANDED to include
> * right to marriage
> * right to health care
> 
> So NO Sneekin, conservatives do not support or endorse ANY
> of what you are ascribing to them because it violates their own beliefs.
> 
> You would have better luck arguing that Democrats passed laws
> violated their own prochoice principles (of not letting govt interfere with personal choices
> but penalizing them), rather than saying Republicans passed or approved ANY SUCH
> LAWS that violate their Constitutional beliefs in keeping social and health benefits apart from federal govt!
> 
> Thanks Sneekin
> 
> I wish it were that simple, but Conservatives have consistently
> rejected growing more federal programs that make people more and more
> dependent and lose their ability to check govt because of these conflicting interests
> where govt starts controlling people instead of people having all the leverage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> P.S. here's the best explanation I found online as to why Conservatives
> supported something DIFFERENT and not the federal mandate in ACA that overreached too far
> where they argued it was unconstitutional:
> No, Obamacare Wasn't a "Republican" Proposal
> 
> Someone else disagrees and argues more like you as posted on Reddit:
> "I read this article the other day, and while it does highlight significant differences between the original Heritage Foundation proposal and the PPACA, the individual mandate (i.e. the subject of your post) was definitely in the Heritage proposal.
> 
> The argument for the similarity between the two plans depends on their one shared attribute: both contained a "mandate" requiring people to carry insurance coverage.
> That said, the article also goes on to say the individual mandate idea has been around for much longer
> 
> Several other countries (including Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Germany) have compulsory insurance requirements without single-payer or socialized systems."
> 
> A. Just because people propose it doesn't mean they approve it as constitutional.
> which is why it always got shot down before, it contradicts itself.
> The conservatives who believe in prolife also get shot down by other conservatives
> who argue for Constitutional religious freedom and limited govt not allowed to interfere and regulate private choices.
> DOMA was pushed by conservatives, but shot down because it is unconstitutional.
> Targeting Muslims is pushed by conservatives, but shot down because it is unconstitutional.
> 
> So what matters is what is found to be unconstitutional, regardless if it is proposed by conservatives.
> That doesn't justify pushing it on them, especially where others disagree and argue it is unconstitutional.
> 
> B. just because people consent to ONE thing doesn't justify imposing another.
> I would compare your argument to marriage, that if a couple agrees to sexual relations,
> that doesn't give the right of either one to rape or force the other into sex!
> 
> So just because one partner proposes marriage first, does NOT give the
> other partner the right to VIOLATE THEIR CONSENT and "claim they consented when they
> proposed or agreed to marriage"!
> 
> Sneekin
> so for the secondary point
> NO it's not RFRA that makes it right or wrong, because that would be unnecessary anyway if people enforced the First Amendment/religious freedom and 14th Amendment consistently to begin with.
> 
> What causes THESE type of laws to be rejected is the fact they impose
> on people's beliefs in the first place.
> 
> This violates natural laws on human free will and desire for self-determination
> expressed as "consent of the governed" or "no taxation without representation."
> If people find they are not equally represented, they will fight to change or remove the bias causing that problem.
> 
> This is human nature and the cycle of democratic process, to object petition and reform
> laws through the given system.
> 
> So that process is REFLECTED in the First Amendment, and other
> Constitutional principles on due process and equal protection of the laws.
> 
> And then in addition to that, people passed RFRA and Civil rights laws
> to try to further define and delineate areas they wanted to protect from infringements
> and discrimination more specifically.
> 
> We would not need these additional laws if people respected
> equal religious freedom for everyone equally to begin with!
> 
> RFRA would not even be necessary.
> What matters is if PEOPLE AGREE to respect each other's equal freedom and beliefs!
> 
> If so, we would naturally fulfill and enforce the principles in the
> First and Fourteenth  Amendments directly by our actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you and I don't get to propose if something is constitutional or not - the SCOTUS does.  We get to take it through the courts to the SCOTUS.   In the case of what you are arguing, it's already been ruled on and decided.  And you are still wrong.  Nothing you claim is true, not even no taxation without representation - you've got plenty of representation down there.
> 
> The RFRA that is being proposed is unconstitutional.   It's picking one single issue (gay marriage) and claiming marriage is only between a male and a female.  That violates the 14th amendment.   But it also doesn't address other religious beliefs - if you are Jewish, Muslim Buddhist, they can now deny you a cake, venue, etc, and not violate the RFRA.   If you are Christian and advocate gay marriage, your first amendment rights are violated.  I can't believe a single person would advocate for the RFRA.  The first amendment is enough.   Once you pass the RFRA, you will then be able to pass amendments removing rights from women, blacks, the elderly, the infirm, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure Sneekin
> But people have to bring arguments or corrections TO the Courts and TO Congress first.
> 
> *What I am doing is trying to form CONSENSUS first on WHAT REFORMS
> to bring to Congress to SAVE TIME AND TROUBLE.
> *
> So if Congress got it right the first time
> (such as passing laws UNANIMOUSLY like the Code of Ethics for
> Govt Service: www.ethics-commission.net as an EXAMPLE)
> then everyone would agree and we wouldn't NE ED to
> argue before Courts if a law or reform WE ALL AGREE TO BE Constitutional
> was passed IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!
> 
> SEE above code of ethics ^
> on seeking to employ the most economical
> and efficient means of getting tasks accomplished.
> 
> *Any person in govt service should
> "IV. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.*
> 
> We could have avoided a 24 billion dollar
> shut down of govt if ACA had been resolved up front,
> such as by making the contested mandates optional,
> and allowing both sides voting opposite ways to each
> support a separate plan and including both as equal choices for taxpayers of different beliefs.
> then keeping this optional would have remained constitutional
> and both could have passed. but we didn't do that.
> So I'm asking we do that NOW and stop wasting resources fighting.
> Over beliefs that people don't consent to change to the other group's!
Click to expand...

Not the way it works, and still off topic.


----------



## Sneekin

emilynghiem said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that's what you want, vote progressive.  Republicans grow government, spend more, and rob from the poor and give tax breaks to the rich.  Republicans also want to legislate God and Christianity throughout government.
> 
> Just because Democrats/Progressives want to uphold the first amendment doesn't make them anti Christian or God.
> 
> Conservatives make decisions that impact people, mainly the poor.  They are against Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Welfare, Section 8, SNAp, etc.  They are ON RECORD for being against the programs.
> 
> Democrats do not argue about free choice to pay for health care - at no time did Obama direct it not be free choice.  In fact, quite the opposite, as the majority of the people with health insurance are paying out of their free choice.   The extreme poor (until Texas law passed) get Medicaid, IF THEY CHOOSE.   As does the middle class and upper class.  You are talking under 15 percent that utilizes the exchanges (as a half to, in lieu of alternative sources).
> Democrats are not against the right to bear arms.   And even the great Idol, Scalia, says that the second amendment is not an unlimited right.  You can't have certain weapons.  If you are a felon, no weapons and so on.  I'm not aware of anyone that doesn't interpret existing law as saying MOST (not all) people have a right to bear arms.
> You need to pull your head out and read up on what really happens with conversion therapy.  The fact that you think there is such a thing as an ex-gay just demonstrates nothing more than stupidity (refusal to accept, versus simply being ignorant (uninformed)).  Sexual Orientation CANNOT change.  It can only be repressed.  You are a Christian.   Just because I tell you that you are a Catholic doesn't make you one.  Same with conversion therapy.  It's never worked, and if you knew anyone that IS GAY that has experienced Conversion therapy, they will tell you they are STILL GAY, they are repressing their sexual urges.  Sex act is not the same as sexual orientation. I'm sorry you refuse to understand it, and I'm sorry you have no friends having experienced it, but I've had friends of my daughters that have suicided after therapy.  Others have become wildly promiscuous (same sex)  Some have married opposite sex spouses, and to this day sneak around on their spouses and having sex on the down low.  Until you grasp the difference between the sex act and what sexual preference is, you should drop the subject. I can send you to Lesbian conversion therapy - and possibly you can be "converted" - that is, you might be able to have sex with another female.  Does that make you a lesbian? NO.   Will you still have sex with your opposite sex spouse?  Most definitely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ Dear Sneekin what part of MANDATES and FINES are you saying are free choice?
> the cheapest route for me to avoid being under fines/mandates I never agreed to was
> to pay or owe 45 a month for membership in a Christian health shares ministry.
> 
> So basically the Federal Govt REQUIRED me to either
> * pay for insurance I couldn't afford,
> * register for an exchange I don't believe in (the very least intrusion on my civil liberties
> being to apply for domestic abuse exception where I do consider this depriving me of my income
> and exercise of my liberties without any due process to prove I committed a crime or abuse)
> * or PAY to join a RELIGIOUS organization that exempts me from penalty
> 
> How is any of THAT "free choice" to pay and provide health care through charities and medical programs
> I deem more cost effective and sustainable?
> 
> Sneekin I USED to have free choice without penalties,
> but now I am restricted to only the choices above until state alternatives are set up.
> 
> And the CHEAPEST choice even requires JOINING A FAITH BASED GROUP
> AND PAYING FOR MEMBERSHIP.
> 
> Why aren't you offended by that ^ as a VIOLATION where govt is REGULATING
> exemptions based on PAID MEMBERSHIP IN APPROVED RELIGIOUS GROUPS!!!
> 
> BTW here is the DOJ definition of domestic abuse I would ask to use for an exemption:
> 
> Domestic Violence | OVW | Department of Justice
> 
> *Economic Abuse:* Is defined as making or attempting to make an individual financially dependent by maintaining total control over financial resources, *withholding one's access to money,* or forbidding one's attendance at school or employment.
> 
> I have been begging for help to get out from under MANDATES I never agreed to because these violate my beliefs and free choice without due process of laws and representation,
> and equal protection of my beliefs in rights of people and states that weren't changed by an amendment to the Constitution to authorize govt to impose mandates on health care.
> 
> *If you teach law in a school where you can ask other profs or students to research this,
> I would love to find a law firm or lawyer to petition to fix this mess!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This post is offensive.   For you to belittle and ridicule domestic abuse......I hope you are never in need of any resources.   To answer your question,  you can't get an exemption from DV.   No one is withholding your money.  You could go self insured, and not costs you a cent, provided your business has the  resources to cover expenses.
> Mandate:  the authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election:  You elect people, they voted contrary to what you wanted.  I believe that falls in the too bad too sad pile.  You'll need to "drain the swamp" and get new people in from Texas.  Otherwise, it's the definition of insanity - repeating the same mistakes over and over again and expecting different results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear @Sne ekin
> 
> 1. the way to STOP repeating these mistakes is to respect people's CONSENT to begin with.
> E X A C T L Y ! Bingo!
> This would stop ALL MANNER of abuse, bullying coercion by respecting peopel's free will and consent instead of overruling and overriding it.
> 
> 2. and yes I have been victimized by one of the worst
> forms of relationship abuse, by being FORCED TO ABORT A BABY AGAINST MY WISHES MY BELIEFS AND INTENT!
> My partner ìnsisted he would kill himself, if I even offered to have the baby and give it up for adoption.
> He and others convinced me by bullying that this was someone all my responsibility and mistake
> and my ONLY CHOICE was to abort the baby to prevent from imposing on anyone else who didn't want that responsibility.
> 
> So I've been through a TERRIBLE case of having my consent violated by complete coercion
> until I felt no other choice to stop the constant harassment and bullying except to agree to an abortion!
> 
> Can you BELIEVE that???
> I still cannot believe I went through that, but it happened to me
> 
> 3. So you wonder why I am such an advocate for consent and against coercion.
> I saw what it did to someone like me who was even forced to violate my own beliefs
> and abort a baby I wanted.  That's how horrible it is to me to see anyone else's consent violated.
> 
> So I say NO to going down that path.
> No coercion, and if something is really right or wrong
> you should be able to AGREE on it and take action by consent
> (unless the person is mentally or criminally ill or disabled
> in which case I support spiritual healing to ensure that
> nobody's will is violated until the conflicts can be remedied)
> 
> I am seeking ways to stop ALL FORMS OF ABUSE OPPRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION
> That come from violating consent of people.
> 
> So that's how I interpret 'free exercise of religion" to mean FREE WILL
> which requires balancing and consensus among all people equally so nobody gets violated
> as I went through because of other people's beliefs.
> 
> Been there, done that, it doesn't work to force people.
> The best way to undo the damage to relations and obstructing
> people from resolving conflicts is to respect CONSENT and include
> all people so we don't lose time energy resources or relationships
> bullying and forcing anything on anyone against their beliefs!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately for you, that's not the way our government works.   And no one can force you to consent to an abortion.  They "forced" you to make a choice between an abortion and a boyfriend, and if the baby was truly more important, you would have kicked him to the curb.  Because of all rights, it is your right and your right alone to make a decision about your own body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what happens in reality, Sneekin
> If we don't enforce consent but allow coercion, this enables the bullying to harass and abuse others.
> 
> You should know this as a law professor.
> Technically we all have equal protections of the laws.
> 
> * but when a rape victim is told fighting her case in court
> isn't going to win and she might as well give up,
> that's not equal protection as the person who raped her.
> But that's what happened to a daughter of a friend of mine.
> And he blows it off as well, so he is enabling such legal abuse to continue
> where the person who raped her had more legal resources and could
> fight it while she did not have equal support to defend her rights and interests!
> 
> * and the cases I got involved with were similar.
> due to legal abuses, corporate interests were able to get
> govt favor and millions in funds denied to nonprofits that
> actually represented and defended the communities
> to prevent coercion oppression and abuse. So govt
> leaders enabled the oppression using public tax dollars.
> 
> this is reality Sneekin
> I don't know what you are teaching your law students.
> Maybe they should investigate FT and find out what
> enabled this legal abuse to violate equal civil rights and protections
> by favoring corporate interests with more political and legal resources.
Click to expand...

Please stay on topic.  This is my last response to you on any topic other than gay marriage


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say, "nope," but your position said, "yes, yes, yes!"
> 
> You said you believe churches should marry folks but that the government shouldn't. If such a disaster ever occurred,  it would mean exactly that -- religious heterosexual would be about the only people who could get married on the U.S.. At least freely and to the person of their choice.
> 
> You may not comprehend this,  but it's because of people like you that the government is in the business of marriage; as well as securing all other rights as well.
> 
> As far as your question... no, I don't like the mandate. But then, it's a conservative concept that has always sounded stupid to me and I'm in favor of a national healthcare system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Faun
> I believe govt should accommodate ALL These beliefs equally
> 1. people who want to go through church to marry
> 2. people who want to go through govt
> 3. people who want both, or neither, or some other way
> So how do we set up a system that allows any combination of these
> without imposing on anyone with different beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our system does accommodate exactly that
> 1- if a couple wants to marry through a church- then they can be married through a church.
> 2- if a couple wants to marry, but not through a church- then they can be married outside a church.
> 3- if a couple wants both- then they can do both.
> 4.- if a couple wants neither- well then they are not married- and our system accommodates that also.
> 
> Whatever any of those couples do- do not impose on the beliefs of anyone else?
> 
> Why would a Jewish couple marrying in a synogogue be imposing on the beliefs of a Christian who doesn't believe in the Jewish faith?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Syriusly
> There is disagreement on terms of using govt to marry people.
> Faun said it isn't enough for govt to just do civil contracts but actual marriages.
> 
> The people who are arguing that gay marriage violates beliefs
> have no problem with atheists marrying through govt, or people of different races, but do not
> believe in govt endorsing same sex couples..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily the same people who object to 'gay marriage' also objected to legal alternative (equal but different) arrangements such as civil partnerships- when the good Christians of Georgia passed the law to ban gay marriage, they also passed a law to ban any recognition of any civil partnerships.
> 
> And of course there are people to this day who object to mixed race couples marrying- in church or out of church.
> 
> None of us have any right to an alternative to marriage- but we do have a right to marriage.
> My wife and I are married- and if anyone has an issue with that- that is their problem- not ours.
> If anyone has problems with my wonderful friend who married his partner a year, that is their problem not my friends.
> 
> It is not possible to find a compromise that EVERYONE will agree to.
> 
> But it is possible to extend legal marriage to everyone- and now we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Syriusly
> That can still be negotiated.
> Given the choice between either states
> conducting marriage for everyone or civil unions and partnerships,
> if those are the two choices, they'd either pick partnerships.
Click to expand...


And once again- I will point out- it is not possible to find a compromise that everyone will agree to.

States chose to reject both marriages and civil partnerships. Now it has been established that we are all eligible for marriage- there is no longer a choice that needs to be made.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

peabody said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) I doesn't matter if it's not in the constitution. Scotus can still rule on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then they can rule on anything and should be thrown out for treason and liberalism. NOw do you understand why liberals spied for Stalin and elected Barry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conspiracy nut
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what conspiracy are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know. I just ran out of arguments so I threw that out there. I was going to go with racist but I decided on conspiracy nut
Click to expand...


where would a liberal be if he could not play the race card? They played it on Trump!!!


----------



## Sneekin

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) I doesn't matter if it's not in the constitution. Scotus can still rule on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then they can rule on anything and should be thrown out for treason and liberalism. NOw do you understand why liberals spied for Stalin and elected Barry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conspiracy nut
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what conspiracy are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know. I just ran out of arguments so I threw that out there. I was going to go with racist but I decided on conspiracy nut
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where would a liberal be if he could not play the race card? They played it on Trump!!!
Click to expand...

Not a liberal here, just educated.  No one plays the race card - if you're a racist, we call you out on it.  Trump made several dozen racist comments and lots of religious hate speech as well.  Do we call it your normal republican speak?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Sneekin said:


> Trump made several dozen racist comments



if so why so afraid to present the best example to us? What do you learn from your fear?


----------



## Sneekin

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump made several dozen racist comments
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if so why so afraid to present the best example to us? What do you learn from your fear?
Click to expand...

Listen, TROLLBOY, you never asked, so you never got any.  Why do you fear the truth so much? Why are you so afraid of factual evidence? Give us your full name and address, and I'll be more than happy to provide you with the name of a mental health expert that will help you with your feelings of inadequacy.  Yes, Trump made several dozen.   Didn't anyone ever teach you to research, or do you learn when you go back to primary school?  It's so easy, even you "should" be able to do it.  Maybe, if you crawl up out of the basement, you can ask your mommy for some help using the internet.   

Here's a couple, boy, to tide you over:

1)  In May, Trump implied that Gonzalo Curiel, the federal judge presiding over a class action against the for-profit Trump University, could not fairly hear the case because of his Mexican heritage.  “He’s a Mexican,” Trump told CNN of Curiel. “We’re building a wall between here and Mexico. The answer is, he is giving us very unfair rulings — rulings that people can’t even believe.”  In fact, TROLL, Curiel is an American citizen who was born in Indiana. And as a prosecutor in the late 1990s, he went after Mexican drug cartels, making him a target for assassination by a Tijuana drug lord.

2)  When asked whether he would trust a Muslim judge, in light of his proposed restrictions on Muslim immigration, Trump suggested that such a judge might not be fair to him either.

3)  The Justice Department sued his company ― twice ― for not renting to black people.  In 1973, the Justice Department sued the company for alleged racial discrimination against black people looking to rent apartments in Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island.  The lawsuit charged that the company quoted different rental terms and conditions to black rental candidates than it did with white candidates, and that the company lied to black applicants about apartments not being available. Trump called those accusations “absolutely ridiculous” and sued the Justice Department for $100 million in damages for defamation.  Trump Management Corporation settled the original lawsuit two years later and promised not to discriminate against black people, Puerto Ricans or other minorities. Trump also agreed to send weekly vacancy lists for his 15,000 apartments to the New York Urban League, a civil rights group, and to allow the NYUL to present qualified applicants for vacancies in certain Trump properties.  Just three years after that, the Justice Department sued the Trump Management Corporation again for allegedly discriminating against black applicants by telling them apartments weren’t available.

4)  Not just blacks, but Jews as well:  Trump disparaged his black casino employees as “lazy” in vividly bigoted terms, according to a 1991 book by John O’Donnell, former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino.  "When Donald and Ivana came to the casino, the bosses would order all the black people off the floor.”  “And isn’t it funny. I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it,” O’Donnell recalled Trump saying. “The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.”

5)  Anti-Muslim and Anti-Middle Easterner:  Khizr Khan, the father of the late Army Captain Humayun Khan, spoke out against Trump’s bigoted rhetoric and disregard for civil liberties at the National Convention on July 28. It quickly became the most memorable moment of the convention.  “Let me ask you, have you even read the U.S. Constitution?” Khan asked Trump before pulling a copy of the document from his jacket pocket and holding it up. “I will gladly lend you my copy,” he declared.  In response to the devastating speech, Trump seized on Ghazala Khan’s silence to insinuate that she was forbidden from speaking due to the couple’s Islamic faith.  “If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me,” Trump said in an interview with ABC News that first appeared on July 30.  Ghazala Khan explained in an op-ed in the Washington Post the following day that she could not speak because of grief over her son. “Walking onto the convention stage, with a huge picture of my son behind me, I could hardly control myself. What mother could?”

Do you need more examples of racism?  Which race?   He has the backing of the KKK.  I'm sure by default that means he has your backing.


----------



## Faun

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ain't gonna happen because millennials and the  younger generation are not conservative and they are the future..
> 
> 
> 
> just like they said Trump could never be elected????? and it turned out Hilary had it backwards!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump is the dying cry of an aging generation of conservatives. The future of America is liberal all the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and somehow he's president and stock market is already  breaking records after Barry had worst record since depression!
Click to expand...

LOLOL

*Clinton:*
* DJIA: UP 225%
* NASDAQ: UP 298%
* S&P500: UP 209%

*Bush:*
* DJIA: DOWN 22%
* NASDAQ: DOWN 45%
* S&P500: DOWN 37%

*Obama:*
* DJIA: UP 139%
* NASDAQ: UP 256%
* S&P500: UP 166%


----------



## Faun

Syriusly said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ain't gonna happen because millennials and the  younger generation are not conservative and they are the future..
> 
> 
> 
> just like they said Trump could never be elected????? and it turned out Hilary had it backwards!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump is the dying cry of an aging generation of conservatives. The future of America is liberal all the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and somehow he's president and stock market is already  breaking records after Barry had worst record since depression!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm the stock market under President Obama
> 
> I do hope that the stock market does as well under President Trump as it has under President Obama, because I have made lots of money in the last 8 years.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/y...the-best-of-times-to-be-a-stock-investor.html
> Consider that had you been prescient enough to buy shares of a low-cost stock index fund on Mr. Obama’s first inauguration day, on Jan. 20, 2009, you would now have tripled your money. Stock market performance of this level has rarely been surpassed.
Click to expand...

The Dow bottoms out at 6500 during Bush's Great Recession and goes up *182%* under Obama up to the election. It goes up another *8%* since the election and the brain-dead right thinks Trump is the Second Coming.


----------



## ScienceRocks

It is unconstitutional to force someone not to have one.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Faun said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ain't gonna happen because millennials and the  younger generation are not conservative and they are the future..
> 
> 
> 
> just like they said Trump could never be elected????? and it turned out Hilary had it backwards!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump is the dying cry of an aging generation of conservatives. The future of America is liberal all the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and somehow he's president and stock market is already  breaking records after Barry had worst record since depression!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm the stock market under President Obama
> 
> I do hope that the stock market does as well under President Trump as it has under President Obama, because I have made lots of money in the last 8 years.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/y...the-best-of-times-to-be-a-stock-investor.html
> Consider that had you been prescient enough to buy shares of a low-cost stock index fund on Mr. Obama’s first inauguration day, on Jan. 20, 2009, you would now have tripled your money. Stock market performance of this level has rarely been surpassed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Dow bottoms out at 6500 during Bush's Great Recession and goes up *182%* under Obama up to the election. It goes up another *8%* since the election and the brain-dead right thinks Trump is the Second Coming.
Click to expand...


yes Obama had worst economy since Depression. Only president not to have even one year of 3% growth and he added more debt than all other presidents combined!


----------



## Faun

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> just like they said Trump could never be elected????? and it turned out Hilary had it backwards!
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is the dying cry of an aging generation of conservatives. The future of America is liberal all the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and somehow he's president and stock market is already  breaking records after Barry had worst record since depression!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm the stock market under President Obama
> 
> I do hope that the stock market does as well under President Trump as it has under President Obama, because I have made lots of money in the last 8 years.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/y...the-best-of-times-to-be-a-stock-investor.html
> Consider that had you been prescient enough to buy shares of a low-cost stock index fund on Mr. Obama’s first inauguration day, on Jan. 20, 2009, you would now have tripled your money. Stock market performance of this level has rarely been surpassed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Dow bottoms out at 6500 during Bush's Great Recession and goes up *182%* under Obama up to the election. It goes up another *8%* since the election and the brain-dead right thinks Trump is the Second Coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes Obama had worst economy since Depression. Only president not to have even one year of 3% growth and he added more debt than all other presidents combined!
Click to expand...

Aww, you poor, demented conservative (sorry for the redundancy).

Debt growth under Obama........... $9.3 trillion
All other presidents combined... $10.6 trillion

Now stop lying, ya brain-disfunctional rightie.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Faun said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peabody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is the dying cry of an aging generation of conservatives. The future of America is liberal all the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and somehow he's president and stock market is already  breaking records after Barry had worst record since depression!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm the stock market under President Obama
> 
> I do hope that the stock market does as well under President Trump as it has under President Obama, because I have made lots of money in the last 8 years.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/y...the-best-of-times-to-be-a-stock-investor.html
> Consider that had you been prescient enough to buy shares of a low-cost stock index fund on Mr. Obama’s first inauguration day, on Jan. 20, 2009, you would now have tripled your money. Stock market performance of this level has rarely been surpassed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Dow bottoms out at 6500 during Bush's Great Recession and goes up *182%* under Obama up to the election. It goes up another *8%* since the election and the brain-dead right thinks Trump is the Second Coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes Obama had worst economy since Depression. Only president not to have even one year of 3% growth and he added more debt than all other presidents combined!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aww, you poor, demented conservative (sorry for the redundancy).
> 
> Debt growth under Obama........... $9.3 trillion
> All other presidents combined... $10.6 trillion
> 
> Now stop lying, ya brain-disfunctional rightie.
Click to expand...


dear, the point is not to debate over exact numbers but to teach you that Barry was most irresponsible and hypocritical president ever, by far, for running up more or almost as much debt as all other presidents combined.

"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic."

"Still, the national debt is projected to keep increasing. The amount of added debt held by the public may exceed Obama’s predecessors by October 2013, according to White House projections." -Politico


----------



## Faun

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> and somehow he's president and stock market is already  breaking records after Barry had worst record since depression!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm the stock market under President Obama
> 
> I do hope that the stock market does as well under President Trump as it has under President Obama, because I have made lots of money in the last 8 years.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/y...the-best-of-times-to-be-a-stock-investor.html
> Consider that had you been prescient enough to buy shares of a low-cost stock index fund on Mr. Obama’s first inauguration day, on Jan. 20, 2009, you would now have tripled your money. Stock market performance of this level has rarely been surpassed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Dow bottoms out at 6500 during Bush's Great Recession and goes up *182%* under Obama up to the election. It goes up another *8%* since the election and the brain-dead right thinks Trump is the Second Coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes Obama had worst economy since Depression. Only president not to have even one year of 3% growth and he added more debt than all other presidents combined!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aww, you poor, demented conservative (sorry for the redundancy).
> 
> Debt growth under Obama........... $9.3 trillion
> All other presidents combined... $10.6 trillion
> 
> Now stop lying, ya brain-disfunctional rightie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear, the point is not to debate over exact numbers...
Click to expand...

The point is you lied and got caught. You made a false claim involving exact numbers. But now that your bullshit was exposed, rather than simply apologize for being a dumbfucking conservative who lied about Obama adding more debt than all other presidents combined, you _try_ to pretend like your lie doesn't matter.

Now apologize and stop lying.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Faun said:


> The point is you lied and got caught..


if true I will pay you $10,000. Bet??


----------



## Faun

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is you lied and got caught..
> 
> 
> 
> if true I will pay you $10,000. Bet??
Click to expand...

You're not a man of your word. I've personally seen you make bets on this forum and then not pay up when proven wrong.

_"he added more debt than all other presidents combined" ~ EdwardBaiamonte_​
U.S. Treasury

1/20/2009 (all other presidents combined):

*10,626,877,048,913.08*

Current debt:

19,871,457,952,087.79

Difference (debt added under Obama):

*9,244,580,903,174.71*

10.87 trillion (all other presidents combined) is more than 9.24 trillion (Obama)


----------



## The Great Goose

Gay marriage is disgusting and unnecessary.


----------



## Syriusly

The Great Goose said:


> Gay marriage is disgusting and unnecessary.



No one is going to force you to 'gay marry'- so you can stop fretting.


----------



## The Great Goose

Syriusly said:


> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage is disgusting and unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is going to force you to 'gay marry'- so you can stop fretting.
Click to expand...

Actually, I wouldn't mind.


----------



## Sneekin

The Great Goose said:


> Gay marriage is disgusting and unnecessary.


There is no such thing as "Gay Marriage".  The term is "Marriage", Goose.  

So are you claiming there is no need for marriage at all?  I guess if you think it's disgusting, then you probably shouldn't marry someone of the same sex.   Unnecessary?  The government gives 1138 benefits to married couples.  That makes it necessary.  Not to mention, some churches do marry same sex couples, because the church believes they should not be living in sin - same as any other wedding in a church.


----------



## Sneekin

The Great Goose said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage is disgusting and unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is going to force you to 'gay marry'- so you can stop fretting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, I wouldn't mind.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't mind being forced into marriage?  You wouldn't mind fretting? You wouldn't mind gay sex?  Being intentionally vague there.


----------



## The Great Goose

Sneekin said:


> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage is disgusting and unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is going to force you to 'gay marry'- so you can stop fretting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, I wouldn't mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't mind being forced into marriage?  You wouldn't mind fretting? You wouldn't mind gay sex?  Being intentionally vague there.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't mind being in a gay marriage.


----------



## Sneekin

The Great Goose said:


> Sneekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage is disgusting and unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is going to force you to 'gay marry'- so you can stop fretting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, I wouldn't mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't mind being forced into marriage?  You wouldn't mind fretting? You wouldn't mind gay sex?  Being intentionally vague there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wouldn't mind being in a gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Here's a novel thought - then get married.  There's only marriage - no legal definition of straight and gay marriage any more.


----------



## Faun

The Great Goose said:


> Gay marriage is disgusting and unnecessary.


Then don't do it.


----------



## Faun

Faun said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is you lied and got caught..
> 
> 
> 
> if true I will pay you $10,000. Bet??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not a man of your word. I've personally seen you make bets on this forum and then not pay up when proven wrong.
> 
> _"he added more debt than all other presidents combined" ~ EdwardBaiamonte_​
> U.S. Treasury
> 
> 1/20/2009 (all other presidents combined):
> 
> *10,626,877,048,913.08*
> 
> Current debt:
> 
> 19,871,457,952,087.79
> 
> Difference (debt added under Obama):
> 
> *9,244,580,903,174.71*
> 
> 10.87 trillion (all other presidents combined) is more than 9.24 trillion (Obama)
Click to expand...

What happened to Crazy Eddie? Did he run away since I proved his idiotic claim is false?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Faun said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is you lied and got caught..
> 
> 
> 
> if true I will pay you $10,000. Bet??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not a man of your word. I've personally seen you make bets on this forum and then not pay up when proven wrong.
> 
> _"he added more debt than all other presidents combined" ~ EdwardBaiamonte_​
> U.S. Treasury
> 
> 1/20/2009 (all other presidents combined):
> 
> *10,626,877,048,913.08*
> 
> Current debt:
> 
> 19,871,457,952,087.79
> 
> Difference (debt added under Obama):
> 
> *9,244,580,903,174.71*
> 
> 10.87 trillion (all other presidents combined) is more than 9.24 trillion (Obama)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What happened to Crazy Eddie? Did he run away since I proved his idiotic claim is false?
Click to expand...


you don't want to take the bet?? You were so sure of yourself???


----------



## The Great Goose

Faun said:


> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage is disgusting and unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't do it.
Click to expand...

But I want to.


----------



## The Great Goose

Faun said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is you lied and got caught..
> 
> 
> 
> if true I will pay you $10,000. Bet??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not a man of your word. I've personally seen you make bets on this forum and then not pay up when proven wrong.
> 
> _"he added more debt than all other presidents combined" ~ EdwardBaiamonte_​
> U.S. Treasury
> 
> 1/20/2009 (all other presidents combined):
> 
> *10,626,877,048,913.08*
> 
> Current debt:
> 
> 19,871,457,952,087.79
> 
> Difference (debt added under Obama):
> 
> *9,244,580,903,174.71*
> 
> 10.87 trillion (all other presidents combined) is more than 9.24 trillion (Obama)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What happened to Crazy Eddie? Did he run away since I proved his idiotic claim is false?
Click to expand...

Fauns will say anything you know.


----------



## Syriusly

The Great Goose said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage is disgusting and unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I want to.
Click to expand...


Then no one is stopping you except the lack of a willing partner.


----------



## Sneekin

The Great Goose said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is you lied and got caught..
> 
> 
> 
> if true I will pay you $10,000. Bet??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not a man of your word. I've personally seen you make bets on this forum and then not pay up when proven wrong.
> 
> _"he added more debt than all other presidents combined" ~ EdwardBaiamonte_​
> U.S. Treasury
> 
> 1/20/2009 (all other presidents combined):
> 
> *10,626,877,048,913.08*
> 
> Current debt:
> 
> 19,871,457,952,087.79
> 
> Difference (debt added under Obama):
> 
> *9,244,580,903,174.71*
> 
> 10.87 trillion (all other presidents combined) is more than 9.24 trillion (Obama)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What happened to Crazy Eddie? Did he run away since I proved his idiotic claim is false?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fauns will say anything you know.
Click to expand...

Apparently, so do trolls like Goose!   It's a Friday night. Go out and get yourself a man.


----------



## Faun

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is you lied and got caught..
> 
> 
> 
> if true I will pay you $10,000. Bet??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not a man of your word. I've personally seen you make bets on this forum and then not pay up when proven wrong.
> 
> _"he added more debt than all other presidents combined" ~ EdwardBaiamonte_​
> U.S. Treasury
> 
> 1/20/2009 (all other presidents combined):
> 
> *10,626,877,048,913.08*
> 
> Current debt:
> 
> 19,871,457,952,087.79
> 
> Difference (debt added under Obama):
> 
> *9,244,580,903,174.71*
> 
> 10.87 trillion (all other presidents combined) is more than 9.24 trillion (Obama)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What happened to Crazy Eddie? Did he run away since I proved his idiotic claim is false?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you don't want to take the bet?? You were so sure of yourself???
Click to expand...

Crazy Eddie, I've already proved it. That's good enough. Betting with a welsher like you is pointless because you never pay up your bets when you lose.


----------

